Response letters from MPs

[sammcj]

I wrote a letter to several MP's.

I've had good responses from Jim Anderton and the entire Green's Party.
I've had nothing but bad, uncalculated, "copy and pasted" responses from the National Party - It seems I've lost what little respect I had for them.

Here is a reply from Nikki Kaye, MP for Auckland Central:



Dear Sam,

Thank you for your email regarding changes to ACC, specifically your concerns regarding how this will affect Motorcycle users. The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance programme.

ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and unaffordable.


In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.


The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.


To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.


We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.


The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.


Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.


I would like to encourage you to have your say on the proposals, via this link: www.acc.co.nz/consultation


Thank you once again for letting me know your views.


Best wishes,

Nikki Kaye
MP for Auckland Central
Address for mail: Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Ph: 04 817 8227
www.nikkikaye.co.nz


Which happens to be the exact same email I've had back from several other National MP's.

I wrote the follow back:




Nikki,

With all due respect, I do not believe you have done your research.
You cannot take information fed from ACC as statistical fact; or at least not from the surface.
If you dig through ACC's website you can find the crash statistics from 2008 which will lead you to the following information:


Cyclists:

- 567 active claims

- $12,573,000

- $22,174 per claim



Pedestrians:

- 1115 active claims

- $24,494,000

- $21,967 per claim



Car Occupants:

- 8525 active claims

- $208,305,000

- $24,434 per claim



Motorcyclists:

- 3173 active claims

- $62,523,000

- $19,704 per claim


-How is $19,704 per claim 4x higher than any of the other class's mentioned?
In fact, as you can see the average car occupant claim is $24,434 - they keyword here is occupant there is often more than one person in a Car during an accident, This has not been brought to the public to take into account, it is again another example of ACC quoting only the statistics that benefit their argument.


-This does absolutely nothing to address the fact that:
a) 99% of New Zealander's that own a motorcycle also own a car that they also have to pay ACC for through vehicle registration.
b) A large number of Motorcycle owner's own more than one motorbike (cruiser, classics, sports, learner / day-to-day commuter) there is no good reason as to why they not only have to pay for base registration on each bike but also the already outrageous ACC levees.

Bikes:

-Don't destroy the roads.
-Don't cause traffic jams the way cars do.
-Don't pollute nearly as much as a car.

When other countries are trying to promote the use of smaller vehicles New Zealand is once again taking a step backwards.

-Sam McLeod.

[davereid]

Yeah I got the same letters, so I replied with the factual data and then got the "you have the right to make a submission etc" drivel.

Still, the art of taxation is to remove as many feathers from the goose as you can with the minimum of hissing... this particular goose has not yet lost its feather, is hissing its head off, and preparing to inflict a couple of nasty bites.

[Big Dave]

Don't be too discouraged - Volume, theses e-days is just as valuable and important a currency as content.

The task is to make them aware of the size of the groundswell against the levy and the impact it could have on votes.

They aren't going to read every word of 50,000 emails. It's the fact that they got 50,000 negative emails from voters when it comes time to drafting policy in the committee room that matters.

You can think of it as doing the government a favour. Letting them know that there enough people who will be disadvantaged by the Levy that the number of lost votes will be problematic.

[sammcj]

I've also had several Nation MP's ask me for my Address which I'm not too happy about; given that email was the form of contact that I initiated.

I had this response from The Greens:




Dear Sam



I have been asked to respond on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham, to your email below.



The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.



The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flow on to others, rather than rest solely with the people undertaking those activities.



In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single occupant car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles are significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.



It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we therefore oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.



Thank you for the figures you have provided. They affirm the view the Green Party MPs already have that much of the so-called "crisis" in ACC is manufactured by the Government to suit its political agenda.





Kind regards

Ivan Sowry
Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

[Ixion]

Greens have accordingly been deemed Official Good Bastards

Flash protest ride is delivring pressies this Thursday. Midish dayish .

Choccies and thank you card at the Green electorate office

Primary school arithmetic book for the matematically challenged John (What's 43700 times 100000 , John ?) at his Kumeu electorate office.

[davereid]

I've also had several Nation MP's ask me for my Address which I'm not too happy about; given that email was the form of contact that I initiated.

Years ago I wrote to an MP about something, and for some reason I used my work address.

A few days later, a friendly, but official elderly gentleman showed up with an electoral enrolment "survey" just checking everyone at the address was correctly enrolled and recorded.

[Tink]

John Key has a facebook site.... no harm in giving that a good verbal booting either.

[retro asian]

John Key has a facebook site.... no harm in giving that a good verbal booting either.

Everybody poke him....

[Tink]

Everybody poke him....

:calm:psml good idea :jerry:

[rainman]

Everybody poke him....

Ewwwwwww. Hang on, this is some facebook thing, no? :Oops:

[Rhubarb]

I wrote a letter to several MP's.

Which happens to be the exact same email I've had back from several other National MP's.



I sent 65 letters to all of Nationals MP's, the leaders of the other parties and/or their ACC spokesperson and to the commission.

Every National MP's reply was a copy and paste of the same letter. Obviously they are all 'towing the party line' instead of doing their own research and thinking for themselves.

Tariana Turia's reply used more text correcting my spelling of her name (I put two n's instead of one) than it did addressing any issues. And, the letter started with a sentence I don't understand "Tena koe i nga ahuatanga o te wa"

[Mully]

John Key has a facebook site.... no harm in giving that a good verbal booting either.

Already done.

Plus John Banks and Len Brown asking what their positions (as potential mayors of Supercity (tm)) were with regard to the very real possibility of motorcyclists being forced off two wheels and back into cars. No response yet.....

Plus, any letter from any MP is a copy-and-paste job. I've read the same e-mail from the Greens (with a different last paragraph) on here about 10 times.

Stop believing that MPs are here to serve (any of them; Red, Blue, Green, whatever). Just spam them all with as much shit as you can on the subject and they might get the message
(note; they won't get any information from the message, but they will get the message that a large block of voters are pissed)

[u4ea]

I sent a civil and sincere email to opose the increases and got this reply:pinch:

On behalf of the Hon Rodney Hide, Leader of ACT New Zealand and Member of Parliament for Epsom, thank you for your email regarding changes to ACC.

The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and compensation Amendment Bill does not reform ACC. This Bill keeps ACC in its current form, continues to fund ACC through compulsory levies, and does not apply ongoing commercial pressure to its operation.

Unfortunately, they also undertook a massive expansion of the entitlements under the scheme, meaning that despite their promises to have the scheme fully funded, the unfunded liability has in fact expanded - its unfunded liability now stands at $13 billion - up $5 billion in just the past year.

If any private insurance company had the books that ACC has, they would be declared bankrupt. The only reason that ACC is still solvent is that it has the capacity to increase levies. In essence, it is solvent because it can force people to cover its costs.

The only viable way to ensure that ACC delivers results for reasonable prices is if it is open to competition. If people can get cheaper rates elsewhere, they should be allowed to leave. If that means risky workplaces start paying higher premiums, so be it - it will encourage them to improve workplace safety.

The benefits of competition become apparent when you listen to the nonsense peddled by Labour in their opposition to it. The first thing Labour will tell you is that costs will increase, because we now have to pay for the profit margin of private companies. Well, the facts speak otherwise. The last time competition was introduced, premiums declined by around 30 percent. The argument that profit margins lead to higher prices is absurd - by that logic, the Labour party would nationalise everything.

The second thing Labour says is that premiums were only lower because they offered cheap rates as loss-leaders. Well, that's very interesting. A private insurance company has to have their books signed off by an actuary, and that actuary has to say that the income in one year will cover the full cost of all accidents arising in that year. Labour, on the other hand, oversaw a scheme that was meant to be moving towards full-funding, and yet their unfunded liability moved in the other direction and actually expanded. So, who shall we trust - the expert actuary or the Labour party?

The system needs to be fully funded. But should it be open to competition?

Well, look at it this way. Every single monopoly - be it in forestry, shipping, or coal mining, has always delivered more for less when it has been opened to competition. There is no reason to think ACC will be different.

In fact, it is even more important to open ACC to competition. Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.

By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents. In the private market we have insurance excesses, we have no claims bonuses, we have risk-based premiums. The private market is all about mitigating risk. ACC, on the other hand, is about forcing the good employers to subsidise the bad ones.

That is why, last time it was opened to competition, costs not only decreased, but so did the number of accidents.

Those that oppose competition in ACC are not just wasting taxpayers' money - they are also ensuring that more people suffer accidents in the workplace..

Also attached is a copy of a media release in the name of Hon Rodney Hide entitled ACC Choice to cut costs for all New Zealanders.

regards



Sandy Grove
ACT Parliamentary Office Manager
Office of Hon Rodney Hide
WELLINGTON
Ph 04 817 6630
Email: sandy.grove@parliament.govt.nz

[slofox]

Yep. Got the same reply. Trotting out the party line. Totally ignored ALL the content of my own mail. As you would expect.

[MSTRS]

That's an attractive bit of spin. And it has to do with M/c levy increases, what?

[u4ea]

Yep. Got the same reply. Trotting out the party line. Totally ignored ALL the content of my own mail. As you would expect.

Jeesus thats shocking aint it!!:angry2:


That's an attractive bit of spin. And it has to do with M/c levy increases, what?

Yer i was kindov puzzled at the reply to motorcycle levies too

[rainman]

Gawd he's an arse.

[pete376403]

I sent a civil and sincere email to opose the increases and got this reply:pinch:
...By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents...

Never let the facts get in the way of good spin
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/3007283/ACC-claims-in-steady-decline

Also that bit about every monopoly opened up to competition has resulted in lower costs, etc., doesn't rodney use electricity for anything? Hasn't noticed what has happened to pricing?

[ckai]

The benefits of competition become apparent when you listen to the nonsense peddled by Labour in their opposition to it. The first thing Labour will tell you is that costs will increase, because we now have to pay for the profit margin of private companies.

This actually makes sense - from Labours point of view. Keeping it Govt owned means they can just break-even every year. Unfortunately this never works in practice because if they don't make a profit, the head honcho team can't get bonuses that they don't deserve - and the profit margin can't be reallocated to the "kitty". Logical in theory, doesn't happen in the real world.


Well, look at it this way. Every single monopoly - be it in forestry, shipping, or coal mining, has always delivered more for less when it has been opened to competition.

Whoopse, forgot about Telecom as well. :Oops: Oh but there is an excuse for that one, they didn't write the rules well enough. Who honestly thought they were opening up competition when they gave the both the lines and the service to one company!?!?! Dodgy, brought politicans.


In fact, it is even more important to open ACC to competition. Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.


Mmmm, they seem to forget that if you are ACC accredited you pay lower ACC premiums. I know this because I had to put together the changes for the old company and make the work-place "safer". Ended up saving the company a crap load.

You do gotta love the way politicians seem to divert current situations to fuel their own agendas. "Yes I agree m/c levies are stupid, those poor safe businesses paying too much for safe work places. Let's privatise ACC, then I get free insurance for life." :bash:

[The Pastor]

this is what i recieved from Dr John Coleman, my MP for northcote.

Dear Scott

Thanks for your email. I value your support and want to hang on to it. I note your points and have copied your email to Hon Nick Smiths office to respond to your concerns directly.

Kind regards

Jonathan



Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman

MP for Northcote

Minister of Immigration, Minister of Broadcasting

Associate Minister of Health, Associate Minister of Tourism

Ph +64 4 817 9849

[sammcj]

Dear Sam McLeod,

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC
levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred
per cent.

I am opposed to this for two principal reasons:

The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a
financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The
scheme as originally constituted was a 'pay as you go' scheme i.e. the
levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in
that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the
income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to,
for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification
of the effect of the 'baby boom' generation coming to retirement and
creating a demand 'bulge' on the commitment to pay universal pensions at
a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for ( the so-called
'Cullen' fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled
in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that
it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.

The problem arises because the current government insists that all of
the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the
present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme -
which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense
if the government has a hidden agenda - which looks increasingly likely
- to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies.
In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been
paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a
private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.

The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user
pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a
group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw
upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who
suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they
cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses
associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse,
whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has very
recently said precisely that. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much
more than presently because they are 'responsible' for their accidents
not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces
the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first
place to avoid it.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy
and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the
scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader

[The Pastor]

now that is a good reply.

[k2w3]

Dear <k2w3>

Thank you for your recent email about the Government’s plan to raise motorcycle levies.

The current ACC levy on motorbikes is $252.00.

The Government is proposing to treble that to $735.00 for bikes over 600cc, an increase of just under $500 a year.

That represents the biggest ever increase in ACC levies.

It is unacceptable, it's outrageous, and it's not warranted.

The clear message from the Government is that it wants motorbikes priced off the road.

It ignores the fact that bikers use less petrol, create less pollution, and cause less congestion.

It ignores the fact, too, that nearly two thirds of accidents involving motorbikes are caused by cars.

And what about the people who are motor bike enthusiasts who have a number of bikes, though don't necessarily do high mileage on them? They'll pay an extra $500 on each bike.

ACC Minister Nick Smith keeps saying that this is an insurance scheme and it should be user pays – each category should meet the cost of accidents in that area.

ACC was never designed as a pure user pays insurance system. It was intended as a no-fault comprehensive system of protection for people who suffered injuries.

If it were user pays:

• some occupational areas, like farming, would be priced out of existence
• levies would be charged on sports clubs and schools because it's riskier to play sport than sit on the couch and watch it on TV
• elderly people who have more falls because of frailty would be charged for growing old
• push bikes would pay huge levies because of a high rate of accidents, also often not their own fault

None of that makes sense, and the Government shouldn't be playing one sector of New Zealanders off against another.

The decision is arbitrary on a number of other fronts. The cut-off points in terms of cc ratings do not, for example, take into account the relative power of motorcycles and would treat a vintage 650cc motorcycle as more dangerous than a 250cc modern bike capable of doing more than 200kph.

National is undermining ACC by reducing the scope of entitlements for injured New Zealanders, while it disproportionately hikes up levies for groups like motorcyclists.

To make matters worse, the National/Act/Maori Party government is privatising major parts of ACC. The insurance and management of injuries is being privatised. Instead of being provided by ACC this will be provided by private insurance companies. ACC has very low administration costs. The profits that Australian owned private insurance companies expect to earn have been estimated by Merrill Lynch to total $200million per annum. New Zealanders will end up paying more for less cover.

The government has been claiming ACC is insolvent. But it’s scaremongering. ACC has over $11 billion of reserves and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.

In Parliament, Labour has and will continue to fight against the unprecedented cost burden that the Government is trying to impose on bikers.

We will work with you to try to get some sense out of the Government and a fair deal for bikers.

New Zealand has the world’s best accident compensation scheme. Labour wants to keep it that way

Thank you for writing on this important issue.


Yours sincerely


Hon David Parker

[Ixion]

Ah. Labour had been very quite until now. We were commenting on it the other day.

And they have just had their caucus meeting. David Parker is shadow ACC spokesspoke.

Looks like Labour have swung behind us.

So we now have support from Labour, Greens and Progressive.

Anyone tried the Maori party?

The good thing is Labour are in the fray then it becomes a very clear political matter, not an "internal" ACC one.

[Ozzie]

Well done, perhaps you can reply and ask if/how bikers and Labour can hitch together (ish) to get major support.

Perhaps suggest a Labour contingent comes to the rally in Manukau on Saturday.

Just an idea.

But back to you, again, good effort!

[Mystic13]

You need the Labour guy on the steps of Parliament. We can then boo for nick and cheer for Labour. For some of us that may be a feeble cheer for labour not being traditional supporters but bugger it, they're supporting us so I'll cheer loudly.

What would be great is if ACC or National could man up, do a back track adn admit the error of their ways and avoid many of us paying for two nights away from home and 3 days off work.

I have my fingers crossed for good weather.

Is it appropirate to hand your submission into a local ACC office before 5pm on the 10th. Of course I think it should be wrapped around and brick and thrown through the window but I digress. I've done the email version.

[k2w3]

I'm the same way, Mystic13. Hardly grass roots Labour, here. I'm probably more poster-boy Tory, but there you go. Side with those who agree with you is an equally as good mantra.

[YellowDog]

Nice words, but these arguaments haven't been put to parliament.

This ACC Bill sailed through parliament a couple of days back with a majority of 40 odd.

[Ixion]

Labour opposed it. It was passed by National+ACT+Maori

But that bill only indirectly impacts on our levies.

[Ixion]

You need the Labour guy on the steps of Parliament. .

I understand that may happen.

[Brian d marge]

Nice words, but these arguaments haven't been put to parliament.

This ACC Bill sailed through parliament a couple of days back with a majority of 40 odd.

Thats the problem

They dont have the numbers ,

I was watching the stop and search me bill get passed the other nite , IF THE MAORI PARTY VOTE

we will not have the numbers

I was impressed with some of the back bencher's ,,,so hope for the future there

Stephen

[sammcj]

Dear Sam


Thank you for your recent email about the Government’s plan to raise motorcycle levies.

The current ACC levy on motorbikes is $252.00.

The Government is proposing to treble that to $735.00 for bikes over 600cc, an increase of just under $500 a year.

That represents the biggest ever increase in ACC levies.

It is unacceptable, it's outrageous, and it's not warranted.

The clear message from the Government is that it wants motorbikes priced off the road.

It ignores the fact that bikers use less petrol, create less pollution, and cause less congestion.

It ignores the fact, too, that nearly two thirds of accidents involving motorbikes are caused by cars.

And what about the people who are motor bike enthusiasts who have a number of bikes, though don't necessarily do high mileage on them? They'll pay an extra $500 on each bike.

ACC Minister Nick Smith keeps saying that this is an insurance scheme and it should be user pays – each category should meet the cost of accidents in that area.

ACC was never designed as a pure user pays insurance system. It was intended as a no-fault comprehensive system of protection for people who suffered injuries.

If it were user pays:

• some occupational areas, like farming, would be priced out of existence
• levies would be charged on sports clubs and schools because it's riskier to play sport than sit on the couch and watch it on TV
• elderly people who have more falls because of frailty would be charged for growing old
• push bikes would pay huge levies because of a high rate of accidents, also often not their own fault

None of that makes sense, and the Government shouldn't be playing one sector of New Zealanders off against another.

The decision is arbitrary on a number of other fronts. The cut-off points in terms of cc ratings do not, for example, take into account the relative power of motorcycles and would treat a vintage 650cc motorcycle as more dangerous than a 250cc modern bike capable of doing more than 200kph.

National is undermining ACC by reducing the scope of entitlements for injured New Zealanders, while it disproportionately hikes up levies for groups like motorcyclists.

To make matters worse, the National/Act/Maori Party government is privatising major parts of ACC. The insurance and management of injuries is being privatised. Instead of being provided by ACC this will be provided by private insurance companies. ACC has very low administration costs. The profits that Australian owned private insurance companies expect to earn have been estimated by Merrill Lynch to total $200million per annum. New Zealanders will end up paying more for less cover.

The government has been claiming ACC is insolvent. But it’s scaremo ngering. ACC has over $11 billion of reserves and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.

In Parliament, Labour has and will continue to fight against the unprecedented cost burden that the Government is trying to impose on bikers.

We will work with you to try to get some sense out of the Government and a fair deal for bikers.

New Zealand has the world’s best accident compensation scheme. Labour wants to keep it that way

Thank you for writing on this important issue.


Yours sincerely


Hon David Parker

[R-Soul]

This is my submission to the ACC sent to consultation@acc.co.nz (this is the email address for submissions in response to their proposal - send yours by 10 November 2009).

Dear Sirs

This is my submission on increased motorbike levies. Firstly, let’s establish what the general strategic vision of the ACC is:

It is stated on the ACC strategic plan 2007-1012 that strategic priority no 2 is “maintaining fair and stable levies”, and strategic priority no 5 is preventing injuries.

Your proposed motorbike levy increases are not fair for the reasons stated below, and are clearly not stable as they amount to an increase of 200% over a single year!

Further, your proposal does not further your stated intention of “REDUCING” injuries (i.e. by prevention).

Lastly, it s the ACC’s responsibility as a no–fault accident compensation scheme not to allocate fault to any one particular group of compensation receivers. For example, it would not be fair to hammer rugby players with huge levies because their chosen lifestyle is more dangerous than others. In particular, people who are forced to commute by bike (such as students) by high parking and fuel costs will least be able to afford such levy hikes.

However, where fault is to be allocated, then it should be allocated according to general principles without reference or targeted at any particular minority grouping. And it should be targeted at real fault, not just at lifestyle choices (which may or may not be choices at all for some – such as commuters). Any allocation of fault or penalty by increased levies aimed at a particular minority group is unfair and against the basic principles of human rights. Further, such proposed levies are not fair to owners of multiple vehicles.

It is also an established fact that NZ would benefit from having increased bike usage because of
- Reduced fuel usage and offshore fuel payments
- Reduced road wear and tear
- Reduced congestion in cities
- Increased amount of parking in cities
- Reduced vehicle importation costs
- Reduced pollution due to more efficient transport usage


I now refer you to the LTNZ accident factsheet at this website :
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

In summary:
• The percentage of single vehicle accidents that were due to the rider losing control was closer to 90%.
• These "rider losing control "crashes make up 26% of all motorcyclist accidents- this is probably due to speed or lack of training.
• Other vehicles were at fault or partially at fault in 46% of all bike crashes.
• Bikers were at fault or partially at fault in 58% of all bike crashes.
• The main critical crash movements are:
- vehicle turning across path of bike- 13% (i.e visibility problems)
- Losing control turning right - 12% (i.e speed too high)
- losing control turning left -8% (i.e. speed too high)
- vehicle crossing path of bike- 10% (i.e. visibility problems)
• The pie chart on page 5 shows the influence of alcohol, drugs and/or speed in crashes- 45% of all fatal bike crashes involved these (and this was not necessarily speed of the bike, or drunkenness of the rider – it could also have been the car drivers speed or state of inebriatedness)
• This figure is probably more if you look at all bike crashes instead of just fatal ones.
• If car accident statistics were looked at, they would probably show similar trends related to alcohol/drugs and speed.


The information on this site shows how some specific factors cause a large proportion of accidents. These factors can be targeted (according to your strategic priority no 5) to reduce the injuries, rather than just slap the bikers with the bill in an unfair way after the fact – this is not preventing injuries). We believe that using general principles, levies can be increased as a general principle to all vehicle users in a fair way, and target the main causes of accidents (in order to reduce injures) while doing so.

From these figures we can identify three main causes of accidents to target:
1. Alcohol, drugs and speed
2. Lack of rider/driver training causing loss of control of vehicle
3. Lack of visibility of bikes in high traffic situation

We deal with each showing how they can be targeted. There is a certain amount of overlap here.

1. Multiple vehicle owners: Drivers and riders can pay ACC levies per drivers licence. A driver can only drive one vehicle at a time after all, and the risk of injury will only apply to that vehicle at the time it is being driven. This will cut out unfairness to multiple vehicle owners as well.
2. Alcohol, drugs and speed: ACC levies can be charged on a sliding scale depending on the number of speed/drugs or alcohol related offences the driver/rider has been charged with (or perhaps in proportion to the current points system?). This proposal targets the people who are actually the main source of the injuries (i.e the real fault) in a fair and general way and is consistent with general human rights.
3. Lack of rider/driver training : ACC levies can be reduced on a sliding scale if that license holder can prove that they have attended riding or driving courses (such as advanced driving courses or defensive driving courses). This target those injuries due to riders losing control of their vehicle. This would also have the additional effect of creating jobs for instructors, and possibly help reduce injuries by young drivers and riders due to increased rate of learning and increased vehicle control.
4. Lack of visibility: Lack of visibility of bikes can be addressed in a number of ways:
o Allowing bikes to use bus lanes of motorways (this is currently not allowed for some unexplained arbitrary reason) – this will reduce the dangerous practice of filtering at high speed.
o Requiring compulsory use of high visibility vests (at least during peak traffic hours) and/or reflectors.
o Making thin bike lanes available where bus lanes are not available- This will encourage more bike riding, increase bike safety due to reduced filtering, and remind and encourage cars to check the lane before turning across it.


As you can see, the above proposals show how levies can be increased, but in a targeted way, while hopefully reducing the main source of the payout problem- the injuries themselves.

We trust that you will give serious attention to our alternative proposals.

Yours sincerely,

[sammcj]

Very well put Sir.

[AllanB]

And, the letter started with a sentence I don't understand "Tena koe i nga ahuatanga o te wa"

Pretty sure this reads as: "touch your toes as we may be shafting you too soon".

Actually the Maori Party will be with bikers on the ACC rises.

Government statistics clearly show that there are a high percentage of Maori in prisons, consequently there is probably a high percentage of Maori bike thieves. High ACC rego fees will mean less bikes, thus 'our people' will be disadvantaged ..........


(or well and truly a tongue-in-cheek piss take chaps)

[sammcj]

Pretty sure this reads as: "touch your toes as we may be shafting you too soon".

Actually the Maori Party will be with bikers on the ACC rises.

Government statistics clearly show that there are a high percentage of Maori in prisons, consequently there is probably a high percentage of Maori bike thieves. High ACC rego fees will mean less bikes, thus 'our people' will be disadvantaged ..........


(or well and truly a tongue-in-cheek piss take chaps)


This made my morning.... :D

[StoneY]

Cathy (AKA Miss Piggy) the wonderful kermit lover she is, has sent around a great breakdown of the facts thats been summarised from the Bikers Against ACC website (GREAT work all who did this)

I wonder where the best place to post a copy of that document would be so it wont vanish in the ACC Levy clutter?

It ustterly shoots down every point in this e-mail and also shows the way they choose to skew the stats to suit the moment

[R-Soul]

Cathy (AKA Miss Piggy) the wonderful kermit lover she is, has sent around a great breakdown of the facts thats been summarised from the Bikers Against ACC website (GREAT work all who did this)

I wonder where the best place to post a copy of that document would be so it wont vanish in the ACC Levy clutter?

It ustterly shoots down every point in this e-mail and also shows the way they choose to skew the stats to suit the moment

A quick thought here. ipay about $250 for my bike per year. there are supposedly 110,000 bikes in NZ. Do they all pay the same?

Because 110,000x250 = 27,500,000 - a lot more than the supposed 12 mill that they said they got from us? Or is this simplistic?

[R-Soul]

In answer to your signature - The ACC find their statistics where other statisticians do. They make up 97.35 % of them on the spot.

Question: Whats one plus one?

mathematician: 1+1= 2

engineer: 1.001+1.001= 2.002

statistician: 1+1 = whatever you want it to be.. :buggerd:

[MSTRS]

A quick thought here. ipay about $250 for my bike per year. there are supposedly 110,000 bikes in NZ. Do they all pay the same?

Because 110,000x250 = 27,500,000 - a lot more than the supposed 12 mill that they said they got from us? Or is this simplistic?

Because only a portion of those bikes have live registrations. A chunk of them are scooters with a lower rate. The $252 came in in July 09 (certainly this year sometime). Prior to that the levy was $166.50.

[R-Soul]

Because only a portion of those bikes have live registrations. A chunk of them are scooters with a lower rate. The $252 came in in July 09 (certainly this year sometime). Prior to that the levy was $166.50.

Yes I suspected that there were a few if's and/or buts around somewhere... <_<

[Hawk]

Dear XXXXX Thank you for your email setting out the reasons why you are opposed to the proposed increase in ACC levies for motorcycles.
ACC is currently facing some real challenges with its liabilities ballooning to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is quite simply unaffordable.
In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.
The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.
To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.
We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.
The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. I encourage you to have your say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November by going to
www.acc.co.nz/consultation (outbind://88/www.acc.co.nz/consultation) Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.
Once again, thanks for taking the time to provide me with your view.
Regards
Amy Adams
MP for Selwyn


Amy you just lost a vote

[BikerDazz]

The trouble with ACT's line is that National applied the same bullshit to justifying opening up the electriicity industry to private competition - what happened? huge price hikes and ridiculous price spikes during dry spells.

If you vote National you can't complain about ACC levies as the bastards always look for easy ways to cut spending.

Thanks Sammcj for posting those stats from ACC - I knew the pricks were pulling the wool!

[sammcj]

I had a pretty interesting conversation with a ex-psychiatrist from Christchurch Hospital today.

He did a lot of digging a few years back and uncovered some pretty horrific information on how ACC money is being spent in the health sector.

Aparently, as a Doctor it's pretty common to see people scabbing off ACC for injuries for many years, he believes that Doctors do not understand the repercussions to the tax payer and simply don't have enough restrictions on the payouts.

Also; he went on to say that it's utterly discusting the number people of people are getting overcompensated for mental trauma and small injuries - often sports related. More often than not; people simply don't get anything out of repeat visits to mental health counselors.

According to him; most GP's are far to ready to pass the ACC handouts to people who really don't need them.

[sammcj]

ALSO.

What do you all think about trying to push the ACC leveys onto an tri-annual Drivers Licence Fee?

It could be:

-Regulated based on what Licences you hold.
-Different class's of your licence could be put on hold when not in use. (i.e. over the winter)
-You could get fined if you're driving a vehicle when your special licence is on hold.

This way you would only be paying for yourself, not anyone that chooses to drive you car, i.e. if you own a car and 3 bikes you only pay one lot of ACC.

Also, SUV's / 4WD's registered for road use could have a special class that doesn't require any special driver training BUT does impose a fee due to the vehicle's impact rating, emissions and weight.

Fines for driving with the incorrect class / with a licence class on hold could be raised to take into account the people that risk driving without a licence to get around paying the fee's.


Just for interests sake if you want to come and have a chat about this with me, look for me on the ride tomorrow riding a old honda gb.

... dreams are free.

[MadDuck]

Regulated based on what Licences you hold.


So what happens when you have paid a year up front and suddenly find yourself without a licence?

Do you get a refund?

[StoneY]

So what happens when you have paid a year up front and suddenly find yourself without a licence?

Do you get a refund?

Good call, could be the fees get rapt up into the 'fines' that cost you it to start with???

[FastBikeGear]

copy of email I have just sent to John Key.

"Hi John

I am having difficulty understanding ACC maths. It's different from the stuff I did at school. Maybe you can provide an explanation?

An ACC spokesman on TV last week said that every motorist would need to pay an extra $77 a year in ACC levies to cover the cost of motorcycle injuries.

The ACC statistics show that motorcyclists cost the ACC 63 million in payouts.

I understand there are about 3 million vehicles currently registered in NZ. When I multiply 3,000,000 x 77 my calculator tells me this is about 231 million or 3.6 times the total cost of motorcycle accident payouts?

I am especially concerned as I am a vehicle collector and I currently have five vehicles registered yet I can only drive or ride one at a time.

It would seem fairer that ACC levies were charged per rider/driver rather than per vehicle.

I also note that through the other various ACC levies I pay that I currently subsidise other high risk activities I don't do.

e.g. Rugby and ruby league account for about 50 million in ACC costs.

Netball accounts for about 11 million and so on.

If the intent is to move to a user (risk taker) pays system I have no problem as long as it is fair.

If it were a private user (risk taker) pays situation then the insurance companies would require higher premiums from rugby players etc which would mean that other ACC levies I pay wouldn't be subsidising their risks and my overall ACC contributions would in all likelyhood decrease.

I voted National last time around as I like most of your policies but like most New Zealanders I have a very strong sense of fair play.

The newly proposed ACC levies are just not fair and New Zealander's have a strong sense of fair play that just shouldn't be underestimated.

I fear this proposal will cost National thousands of critical votes at the next election. Please don't make me partly responsible for a Labour victory next time!

I look forward to your response on the issues I have commented on.


Kind regards
XXXXX "

[klingon]

copy of email I have just sent to John Key.

"Hi John

...
Kind regards
XXXXX "

Did you really send him five kisses? :mellow:

[Conquiztador]

"Hi Chris

As a fellow Hawke's Bay resident I was please for you and for your selection as Government Whip.

Perhaps now is a good time to use that whip and make National se sense.

I am very concerned regarding the proposed hikes of ACC levies for motorbikes. I know you as an intelligent individual, and as such I am sure you have cringed when the false information, statistics and costs has been drummed out as being factual. But if you as a result if more important issues have missed the most obvious ones, I will here forward some of them:

Lets assume for a moment that the following figures are correct (and I highly dispute that!). In the last year $62 millon was paid by ACC to motorcycle riders, but the levies collected were only $12.3 million. A shortcoming of $49.7 million we are told. We are now told that if every car owner was to "cross subsidise" that they would have to pay $77 each. To make the calculation simple lets say we have 3 million cars. Take 3,000.000 x $77 and you get $231 million... I asked my 10 year old son (You have already met him twice at events in HB and he liked you; once at the "Enough Is Enough Hikoi", once at a Family Day organised by my organisation) to tell me how much each of the 3 million cars would have to pay to cover the "shortcoming". Inside 30 seconds he told me: $15.67! Perhaps you could use him at ACC. Who knows, he might be able to save your political creer?

We are told that the costs for motorcycle injuries is about 4 times as high as other road users. I know you will hate me for stating what you, as an very "on to it" individual, already know, but I will do so anyhow. Just to show that in our family not only my 10 year old, but also my other sons, have a brain. I asked my 12 year old (that also has met you, but was not so taken by you, he has an amazing sixth sense!) Here the information from ACC's website that he found for me:
2008 statistics:
Cyclists: 567 active claims, $12,573,000, $22,174 per claim
Pedestrians: 1115 active claims, $24,494,000, $21,967 per claim
Car Occupants: 8525 active claims, $208,305,000, $24,434 per claim
Motorcyclists: 3173 active claims, $62,523,000, $19,704 per claim

If this information has alluded you, please feel free to c/p what I have here posted as my 12 yo would love to be the one who made the National Party realise that information that is forwarded as facts need to
be backed by actual stable information. Bless him!

I would dispute that ACC was ever intended as a "User Pay" system. I have had a read of Sir Owen Woodhouses idea behind ACC and I think he deserves a DB! But for the purpose of this argument, lets assume that we tried to get the vehicle owners to pay their ACC yearly cost. And again, as you already know, "Active Claims" is an ongoing cost over years, not something that has to be paid today. (That would be like asking any separated parent to pay their Child Support for the 18 years TODAY. "Absurd" I hear you say, and you are right!) But let's take the figure and play with it: We have currently $270.827.000 as active motorvehicle claims payable by ACC. With approx 3 million vehicles that makes the ACC contribution for each $90,28. But cars currently pay $136.44 and motorbikes $204.66. (Add to that the ACC levy of 9.34 cents per litre of petrol) I asked my 8 year old (Who can't remember you. But as the only thing he cares about is Moto Cross, and you have not been at the Valley Road track while he is racing, it is understandable. And he tells me that he forgives you IF you come there soon) if he had to pay one of them, and they all were enough to pay the ACC bill, which would he pay. He looked at me with a look that told me that he and his brothers now were the ones that needed to take charge in this household as dad clearly was loosing it. But he straight away told me $90.28. So if a 8 year old can tell me that $90.28 is enough to cover the bill, why can ACC and National not figure it out?

I know your son is an aspiring Magpie. And I am looking forward to him following in the footsteps. But tell me, if he ever needs help from ACC as a result of an injury, where is that "User Pay" payment coming from? Surely not from any of the other payers? Nah, I must have missed something here...

I could carry on, but I am sure you get the message. My three boys can clearly se the facts. Why can not ACC, National, Act and Maori Party? Or perhaps I have three genuises in my household! If that is the case then I am pleased, as their dad clearly is not one as he voted for "change". But as I always say, we all make mistakes. The secret is not to make the same again. And in two years time I, and every other NZ biker, will get the chance to correct that mistake.

Xxxx Xxxxxxxx
Hawke's Bay

[MarkH]

Did you really send him five kisses? :mellow:

Are you saying that you don't kiss a guy before he fucks you in the arse? The big problem is that the government isn't offering to buy us dinner - but they expect to be able to fuck us! If they aren't careful National will only be in power for one term then out on their arses - the voters will be looking to fuck them back.

If this shit goes through then I would sooner vote for the Greens than National at the next election - despite them being a bunch of sandal wearing, tree hugging, dolphin loving hippies.

[Brian d marge]

"

Xxxx Xxxxxxxx
Hawke's Bay

I like that

very well put , spell check it !!! ,, but if I was an mp and received that message I would read it at least

thats half the battle won !

well done

Stephen

[sammcj]

copy of email I have just sent to John Key.

"Hi John

Kind regards
XXXXX "


bahaha, well done... I like :D

[Conquiztador]

I like that

very well put , spell check it !!! ,, but if I was an mp and received that message I would read it at least

thats half the battle won !

well done

Stephen

Thanks.

Yep, I know I could have spellchecked. But I figured, that if I write something that shows that it is not a massproduced spam to all MP's, then, hopefully, there is a better chance to get a personal response as nobody else has yet to get that from a National MP. And really, the spelling mistakes are few and far inbetween. Time will tell.

[dpex]

Turns out Goff is a biker. The following appears to be a personal (as opposed to formula) reply.



Thank you for passing on your concerns about the enormous increase in ACC levies the Government intends to impose on motorbike riders.

Labour regards the 300% increase in levies on some motorbikes and doubling levies on others as totally unacceptable and is strongly opposed to it.

The message from Government seems to be that it wants motorcycles priced off the road.

National appears to ignore the fact that bikers use less petrol, create less carbon emissions and cause less congestion.

It ignores the fact too, that most accidents involving motorbikes are in fact caused by cars.

How can it be fair that motorcyclists knocked off their bike by a car are then charged much higher levies for the experience?

ACC Minister, Nick Smith, keeps saying ACC is an insurance scheme and it should be user pays. He then hugely exaggerates the cost of motorcycle accidents and uses that to justify the outrageous increase in levies.

But ACC was not designed as a user pays system. Otherwise pedestrians and cyclists who don’t pay motor vehicle levies would have to pay. Sportspeople and the elderly who suffer more injuries would be charged accordingly. Men would pay much higher rates than women.

That doesn’t make sense and the Government should not be playing one group of New Zealanders off against another.

Labour will continue to fight against the unprecedented cost that the Government is trying to impose on bikers but we need your help.

Bikers need to protest strongly and show that they also will fight this all the way. The Government needs to be aware that it will cost them votes. That’s the only way to make them listen.

As a fellow biker (for around 40 years), thanks for speaking out on your concerns. I look forward to working with you to get the changes reversed.

Best wishes






Hon Phil Goff
Leader of the Labour Party

[Blackbird]

This was received from Sandra Goudie, National MP for Coromandel. Not all Nat MP's are following the party line.

Geoff, thank you for taking the time to email me. I have forwarded your email to ACC but am disappointed there is no submission process whereby people can be heard and there is select committee consideration of all the issues. I have already expressed my concerns to the Minister and will continue to do so.
Regards, Sandra.


She's a bit of a hoon herself. Campaigned against Jeanette Fitzsimons in her classic gas-guzzling Fairlaine! That was really twisting the knife:yes:

[sammcj]

Dear Sam



Thank you for your email. As a rider of small electric scooter (trying to keep my carbon footprint down!) I share you concerns. But we all need to consider the real problem that we have found ourselves in with ACC when in 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.



The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance scheme and we all agree with that. .



ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and unaffordable especially, as I have already noted, when in 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.



The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.



To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.



We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.



You may not be aware that these are only proposed increases and they are currently open to public consultation. You are lobbying me- good on you! I also encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.



You can click here to have your say www.acc.co.nz/consultation and I have included a Q & A below which may interest.



Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.





Best regards



Nicky Wagner MP

Information on Motorcycles & Proposed ACC Levy Increases

1. Why has there been no consultation?

That is happening now. The ACC Board has proposed levy rates and classifications and is seeking public submissions. Submissions close 5pm, 10 November and can be sent by emailing consultation@acc.co.nz or sent by post to Levy Consultation, ACC, PO Box 242, Wellington 6140.

2. Who makes the final decisions?

Once public submissions have been considered, ACC makes final recommendations to the Minister for ACC Nick Smith and he will consider ACC’s proposed rates alongside independent advice from the Department of Labour. Cabinet will make the final decision.

3. Why is ACC proposing to increase motorcycle levies?

* Last year, ACC paid more than $62 million to care for people injured while on their motorcycles, but collected only $12.3 million from motorcyclists
* If we charged motorcycle owners for the true cost of injuries, levies for motorcycles would be between $1200(bikes under 125cc) and $3700 (bikes more than 600cc)
* Even in accidents where the motorcyclist is clearly at fault, levies would need to range from $754 (bikes under 125cc) to $2200 (bikes more than 600cc)
* Even with these proposed changes, most other motor vehicle owners will still be paying $77 to cross-subsidies motorcyclists
* In 2008 there were 1446 motorcycle casualties – more than double the total in 2000.

4. Why are just motorcycles facing an increase?

This is not correct. Increases in other areas include:

* Petrol cars: current levy $168.46; proposed 2010/11 levy $237.37
* Diesel trucks: current levy $302.32; proposed 2010/11 levy $585.84
* Earners’ Account: current levy $1.70 per $100 of liable earnings; proposed 2010/11 levy $2.80
* Employers Account: current levy $1.31 per of $100 liable earnings; proposed 2010/11 levy $1.89

5. Why are levy increases necessary?

ACC lost $4.8 billion in 2008/09 on top of $2.4 billion in 2007/08. Unfunded liabilities have grown from $9 billion to $24 billion in just four years due to scheme extensions, increases in claim numbers, increases in claim costs and poor investment returns.



6. What is the Government doing about the levy increases?
The Government considers the proposed ACC levy increases to be too large and has introduced legislative changes to push out the full funding date to 2019 and to pull back on entitlements so as to make savings. The Government is aiming to reduce future liabilities by $2 billion. The changes are aimed at halving the levy increases and securing the future of ACC for New Zealanders.




Nicky Wagner MP National Party MP
DDI +64 4 817 6633 | Fax +64 4 473 0469
189 Montreal St Chch 8013 | Ph 03 365 8297
or FREEPOST: Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

[Conquiztador]

Reply from Chris Tremain:

Pete,

Thank you for your email regarding the proposed changes to ACC levies. Thanks for your kind words about my role as Whip.

ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and ACC has recommended significant increases in levies to meet this shortfall.

National believes that the initial levy increases proposed by ACC under the current law are too much for New Zealanders to pay. They would impose significant costs for Kiwi families who are already struggling in the economic downturn.

As a result, a lower level of levies from what was originally indicated has been proposed for debate. The current proposal still has higher levies for motorcyclists albeit way back on what was initially proposed.

It is important to note that there will be no change to entitlements for current claimants. We will at least halve the proposed increases for Kiwi families, workers and motorists. These changes will help get ACC back on a more sustainable path.

The Government is working hard to secure the future of ACC, and are looking for a careful balance between the interests of claimants and those paying levies.

I encourage you to have your say regarding the proposals by visiting www.acc.co.nz/consultation.

I can assure you that I have received a strong message from the motorcycling community which I will pass on to the Minister for ACC.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Tremain

[sammcj]

Thank you for your email about the changes and cost increases that the National-ACT Government is bringing into ACC. It is really good to get feedback from the public about these changes because the changes have been bulldozed through here at Parliament and MPs need to know what the public really think about this issue.



At the moment the new Government seems to be proposing less coverage for more cost! The increase for motorcyclist of up to $500 extra each year seems particularly unfair.



Labour’s position is:



* National’s ACC changes mean you will pay more than you have to in levies and for your own care.



* New Zealand has the world’s best accident compensation scheme. We in Labour want to keep it that way, because you need ACC if you have an accident.



* The government claims ACC is insolvent. But it’s scaremongering. ACC has over $11 billion of reserves and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.



* At a time when family budgets are stretched, National is increasing levies for people like car owners and motorcyclists, and making you pay more for your care, so it can privatise parts of ACC.



* National is cutting injury prevention programmes, which just does not make sense.



* You’ve heard about ACC’s rising costs - but Labour has a better way to keep your levies down. We know that extending the date for full-funding of claims from prior years (from 2014 to 2019) takes a lot of pressure off levy increases.



* ACC costs you less than alternatives. It’s cheaper than paying high lawyers’ bills, and cheaper than insurance from expensive foreign-owned corporates. ACC is cheaper than the privatised alternatives in Australia.



* ACC works for New Zealand.



* Privatisation is estimated by Merrill Lynch Australia to mean $2 billion revenue for Australian insurers - at a profit of $200 million per annum. That can only be paid for by increases in levies and decreases in cover.



* Don’t pay more for National’s scare-mongering – they encouraged the media to report ACC increases for a car of $130 per annum and then put it up by $30. $30 is bad enough but the four-fold exaggeration was designed to scare people into accepting privatisation and cuts to ACC cover.



Thanks again for taking the trouble to write. I know this is a big issue in my Te Atatu electorate in West Auckland.









Kind regards



Hon Chris Carter MP

Member of Parliament for Te Atatū

New Zealand Labour Party Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs and Ethnic Affairs



PP DH

[sammcj]

http://i37.tinypic.com/2h6hw95.png

[wingrider]

Hi John

Sorry for the delay in replying. We have been deluged with emails from
motorcyclists hacked off (rightly) by the way they have been targetted
unfairly with these changes.

Hopefully you will have seen over the weekend that Phil Goff is taking a
lead role in opposing these unfair increases on motorcyclists and Labour
will also be strongly opposing the privatisation of our ACC scheme.

I understand the protest is set down for Nov 17, is that right?

It would be great to take up your offer of being a pillion on your bike!

Keep in touch so we can arrange it.

Now I have a problem.
promised The seat for Klingon. Is anyone from kapiti area able to take her?

Stoney, whats your opinion of having Daren as part of the ride?

[Pixie]

The choice is a no-brainer.
Hughes looks like a purple knobhead.:laugh:

[Hopeful Bastard]

Uh oh.. You in doo doo :lol:

maybe hunt out another bike for him to get down there on?

[Mully]

Send him another e-mail to see what they did with the other "r" in his name.

[wingrider]

Uh oh.. You in doo doo :lol:

maybe hunt out another bike for him to get down there on?


In my life it's only the depth that varies

[pete376403]

it's pretty obvious all the Nat MPs have a standard reply template with the same dodgy statements.
At least the responses from Labour MPs appear to have been individually composed

[Blackbird]

it's pretty obvious all the Nat MPs have a standard reply template with the same dodgy statements.
At least the responses from Labour MPs appear to have been individually composed

Not exclusively so. The one from Sandra Goudie (Nat) actually disagreed with the party line. Guess she isn't trying for a ministerial portfolio:cool:

[Ixion]

it's pretty obvious all the Nat MPs have a standard reply template with the same dodgy statements.
At least the responses from Labour MPs appear to have been individually composed

MPs won't even have seen the email. At best a PA will have sent abck the standard template response issued by the Party office. At worst it's an automated response, no human ever reads your email.

Try sending a snail mail letter, and DON'T include an email address for a reply.

[klingon]

Hi John

...
It would be great to take up your offer of being a pillion on your bike!

Keep in touch so we can arrange it.

Now I have a problem.
promised The seat for Klingon. Is anyone from kapiti area able to take her?

...

LOL! :lol: Well I could make you suffer! :girlfight:

But instead I will fess up that it actually works out easier for me if I just go straight from the airport to Parliament and don't try to catch up with the ride.

Sounds like there is going to be quite a crew already at the venue getting stuff organised, so I will join them - I certainly won't be lonely!

Thanks for your kind offer anyway wingrider, and I will see you at the other end! :headbang:

[NighthawkNZ]

Go man go load the costs on to your grandchildren like everthing else. No wonder NZ Gets poorer by the day. NZ borrows 250 million dollars aweek but you say more. God help us.

Roger Douglas

I Haven't replied but was so close to :doh: but I stopped

[Ixion]

Dear Ms Turia

I write to you on behalf of BRONZ, the Bikers' Rights Organisation of NZ.

You will be aware of deep anger and concern amongst motorcyclists regarding proposed , very heavy, increases in ACC levies, concern not only at the dollar amounts of the levies, but at the undermining of the Woodhouse principles upon which ACC is based.

So far the national government support the increases ,as is to be expected.

The Green, Progressive and Labour parties have all condemned them , and stated their support for a Woodhouse based ACC scheme.

From the Maori party we have heard nothing.

I am therefore respectfully requesting an explicit statement from you , setting out the Maori party position on both the levies and on preservation of a Woodhouse based ACC scheme

I remain, madam
Her Majesty's most obedient subject


Les mason

(same email sent to peter Dunne re United Future party)
les mason

[Ixion]

Tena koe

This is an auto-reply to let you know that this email is unattended and that you will need to resend your email or post your request directly to Minister Turia in Parliament.

Post:
Hon Tariana Turia
Parliament Buildings
WELLINGTON

Email:
Shelly.Vlietstra@parliament.<wbr>govt.nz (Shelly.Vlietstra@parliament.govt.nz)

Noho ora mai ra.

Office of Minister Turia




If the email is "unattended" (whatever that means) , why is it the one specified on the offiical parliamentary website?


Original forwarded to the Shelly

[Conquiztador]

If the email is "unattended" (whatever that means) , why is it the one specified on the offiical parliamentary website?

Original forwarded to the Shelly

It probably means that they are not home as they are sightseeing in Paris...

[Ixion]

Reply from Peter Dunne



Dear Mr Mason,

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about the proposed increase in ACC levies for motorcycles. I am not happy with the proposed increase either.

I note the argument that has been raised in defence of the increase that the costs to ACC of injuries arising from motorcycle accidents far outweighs the levy income derived from motorcycle levies, even if this proposed increase proceeds. However, I think that the scale of the proposed increases, across all classes of motorcycle, is too great, and is being imposed over too short a time frame.

The legislation introducing the new levy structure has been referred to a select committee for consideration. I will be looking to the committee to take careful note of the submissions that will be made to it on this issue, and to recommend changes as appropriate. In the meantime, I will be raising similar concerns with Ministers also.

Yours sincerely,





I think he is wrong about the new legislation containing the levy proposals. two different things.



Interesting reading between the lines, given that Mr Dunne is probably Mr Middle NZ in parliament.

[Ixion]

Reply from my own MP



Thanks for your email. I have not seen the ad but will get my staff to look it up. I would be happy to discuss these issues with you and am holding a clinic in Panmure next Monday if you would like to make an appointment with Josh on 622 0300? I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind regards
Sam
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga | Maungakiekie MP | E +64 9 622 0300 | P +64 4 817 6988 | www.lotu-iiga.com


Obviously , I can't be there next Monday.

Anyone else live in Maungawotsit care to go along to this 'clinic".? I suspect they are regular, we can go to the next one I'll ask him when they are.

Kinda like to drop a few hundred bikers on his head.

[klingon]

Reply from my own MP


Obviously , I can't be there next Monday.

Anyone else live in Maungawotsit care to go along to this 'clinic".? I suspect they are regular, we can go to the next one I'll ask him when they are.

Kinda like to drop a few hundred bikers on his head.



Most MPs have their electorate clinic every Monday (as it's a non-sitting day) unless they have other prior engagements.

Sam will almost certainly be in Wellington on Tuesday so you could respond to his email to say you can't be at his Auckland clinic but would be very happy for him to come and meet you outside Parliament on Tuesday 17th at midday. :yes:

[Ixion]

What an excellent idea!

Email to that effect sent



Hi Sam.

Thanks for the reply.

Unfortunately, Monday won't work, because that day I (along with many thousand other motorcyclists) will be riding to Wellington, in order to express our anger directly on Tuesday.

However, I note that Parliament is sitting under urgency - so I presume that you will almost certainly also be there on Tuesday 17th.

Since we will both be in the same place on the Tuesday , it seems a simple matter to meet up then.

I look forward to seeing you at Parliament steps bewteen 12 and 2 on Tuesday 17th.

Thanks and best regards


Lets see his response to that!

[buellbabe]

Just wanna add that I did my email bomb this morning and so far the only MPs to send an actual response (not JUST a "will forward" or "your concerns have been noted") are Labour MPs and interestingly each reply has been completely original! I was surprised as I thought I would get a standard reply from members of the same party...

Nothing from any of the others yet...bet the Greens will be next tho, followed by the Progressives...

BTW My email contained a copy of my own submission and its 10 pages long LOL...

[sammcj]

9 November 2009

Media Statement
Kiwis have one final day to make their voices heard on ACC


New Zealanders have one last day to have their say on government plans to hike ACC levies that will see Kiwis paying more but getting less, says Labour Leader Phil Goff.

“The Government, in full scaremonger mode, continues to paint ACC as being in deep trouble to justify its moves to whack Kiwis with a huge hike in levies. Submissions on next year’s levy rates close tomorrow,” Phil Goff said.

“These big increases are not needed. In reality, ACC does not need the sledgehammer approach ACC Minister Nick Smith and Prime Minister John Key are taking.

“National’s approach pits sections of Kiwis against each other, puts unnecessary pressure on families during already tough times and will result in reduced services while Australian insurance companies reap $100s of millions in profits.



“Bikers have made their concerns heard loud and clear – they are in line to be hit by a trebling of levies – the future of ACC-funded counselling for victims of sexual abuse is up in the air, and rehabilitation courses proven to save the taxpayer money are to be chopped.

“Which group will be targeted next?

“Owners of older cars look likely to pay more than new car owners, sports clubs and schools are at risk of new charges because of the risk of playing sport, elderly people who have more falls would be charged for growing old and push bike owners face pay huge levies because of the high cost of their accidents, often not their own fault.

“ACC was never designed as a pure user pays insurance system. It was intended as a no-fault comprehensive system of protection for people who suffered injuries.

“That is what it does well, and that is what it should continue to do. As last week’s Crown Accounts show, ACC has nearly $12 billion in assets and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.

“This continued growth in assets – which was anticipated as world share markets rebound, the pushing out full funding of ACC historic claims from 2014 to 2019, as Labour proposes, and a decline in work related injuries over each of the past three years means New Zealanders should not be faced with massive hikes in motor vehicle registration and petrol levy increases,” Phil Goff said.

To support the campaign to stop National breaking ACC go to http://accworks.org.nz/

[Maha]

9 November 2009

Media Statement
Kiwis have one final day to make their voices heard on ACC


New Zealanders have one last day to have their say on government plans to hike ACC levies that will see Kiwis paying more but getting less, says Labour Leader Phil Goff.

“The Government, in full scaremonger mode, continues to paint ACC as being in deep trouble to justify its moves to whack Kiwis with a huge hike in levies. Submissions on next year’s levy rates close tomorrow,” Phil Goff said.

“These big increases are not needed. In reality, ACC does not need the sledgehammer approach ACC Minister Nick Smith and Prime Minister John Key are taking.

“National’s approach pits sections of Kiwis against each other, puts unnecessary pressure on families during already tough times and will result in reduced services while Australian insurance companies reap $100s of millions in profits.



“Bikers have made their concerns heard loud and clear – they are in line to be hit by a trebling of levies – the future of ACC-funded counselling for victims of sexual abuse is up in the air, and rehabilitation courses proven to save the taxpayer money are to be chopped.

“Which group will be targeted next?

“Owners of older cars look likely to pay more than new car owners, sports clubs and schools are at risk of new charges because of the risk of playing sport, elderly people who have more falls would be charged for growing old and push bike owners face pay huge levies because of the high cost of their accidents, often not their own fault.

“ACC was never designed as a pure user pays insurance system. It was intended as a no-fault comprehensive system of protection for people who suffered injuries.

“That is what it does well, and that is what it should continue to do. As last week’s Crown Accounts show, ACC has nearly $12 billion in assets and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.

“This continued growth in assets – which was anticipated as world share markets rebound, the pushing out full funding of ACC historic claims from 2014 to 2019, as Labour proposes, and a decline in work related injuries over each of the past three years means New Zealanders should not be faced with massive hikes in motor vehicle registration and petrol levy increases,” Phil Goff said.

To support the campaign to stop National breaking ACC go to http://accworks.org.nz/

That is the exact same response as this.
They must have an automatic response drafted ready to go.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=112220

[sammcj]

That is the exact same response as this.
They must have an automatic response drafted ready to go.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=112220

Oh so it is! Sorry for the re-post.

[Maha]

Oh so it is! Sorry for the re-post.

Not a repost, yours was posted first, I just noted that they were the same, word for word which makes it a little less personal. Like getting a letter from the Queen, you know she doesn't really write/type the letter or even sign it, it gets as far as the office and no further, but I guess thats how the system works. At least you get a response.

[sammcj]

Thanks for you reply Jacqui,

I would appreciate it if you could take my points of interest up with other party members.
I must say I've had mostly poor responses from the various emails I've sent National MP's; Copy and Pasted emails that don't address the points I raised or the stats questioned, blindly following the rest of the party, I believe a lot of MP's have failed to do any research into the data behind the statistics from ACC and LTSA.

Thank you for your time.
-Sam McLeod.


2009/11/11 Jacqui Dean <Jacqui.Dean@parliament.govt.nz>




Dear Sam,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

Regards
Jacqui


Jacqui Dean | Waitaki MP | P +64 4 817 6958 | F +64 4 817 0469 | Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz | Freepost Parliament Buildings Wellington 6160 | www.jacquidean.co.nz | www.national.org.nz |

[candor]

Its working so don't be discouraged. I think everythings gonna be alright. A meeting is scheduled with certain Ministers later this month, over a related bigger issue that impacts this one. If the outcome is good this ACC cat will be skinned in a way not dodgy. You better believe the Nats want to do it right so will likely go back to the drawing board now their official advisors (previously the ones who caused Labour to create the problem) have given them a bum steer. The Green response was just silly saying it's a manufactured crisis - its a paniced response to a real crisis.
ACC road trauma liabilities have tripled in a short time - 5 years from memory.
An unavoidabkle consequence of skyrocketing serious cage crashes. There is no mystery in this - any fool who can read a few official docs can find it out.

[Blackbird]

As long as they focus on the root cause, i.e poor driving/riding standards and work to raise those standards, then it will be sweet:yes:

[Jantar]

My response from Jaqui Dean: At least a few of us are getting them away from the standard reply, so they must be reading the emails.


From: Jacqui Dean [mailto:Jacqui.Dean@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 4:18 p.m.
To: Malcolm XXXXXX
Subject: RE: Proposed ACC levies

Dear Malcolm,

Thank you very much for your email which I read with interest. I appreciate you taking the time to write to me.

Regards
Jacqui

Jacqui Dean | Waitaki MP | P +64 4 817 6958 | F +64 4 817 0469 | Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz | Freepost Parliament Buildings Wellington 6160 | www.jacquidean.co.nz | www.national.org.nz |

[buellbabe]

Banging your head against a brick wall with national. Do they even READ our emails? Cos no matter how much information you give them pointing out the mistruths and twisted stats that ACC are using they just keep spouting the same rubbish about how car drivers are subsidising us, ACC is in crisis bla bla F**king bla.

I just got the 'official party response' from Jacqui this morning and replied with a short to-the-point email.
She and her fellow MPs are in no doubt as to how my next vote will be used.

[Ozzie]

On 5<SUP>th</SUP> November you emailed this office with comments about an advertisement that appeared in the Dominion and the Herald. It is more appropriate for the Minister of ACC, Hon Dr Nick Smith to reply and he can be contacted on n.smith@ministers.govt.nz (n.smith@ministers.govt.nz)

The public were asked to make submissions to the consultation process. Once the results are collated a report will be forwarded to the government for review.<O:p

Kind regards<O:p
Jan Browne JP
<O:pElectorate Agent<O:p
For Hon Judith Collins
MP Papakura<O:p
Ph: (09) 2997426<O:p
Fax: (09) 2997428<O:p
Email: office@judithcollins.co.nz <O:p

[crazyhorse]

I imagine they have hundreds of letters piling in daily - and I guess they found the easiest way was to adopt a uniform reply.

Not an excuse for it by no means. I don't think we're gonna win this argument, but I hope they consider the huge jump in a single year is abit much to take :done:

[riffer]

Got another letter from the Greens pop into my email inbox:

Kia ora

The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (http://www3.greens.org.nz/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=64404&qid=1752456) is a major threat to the integrity of New Zealand's no-fault accident compensation scheme. Here is a guide to writing a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee which is considering the Bill. Submissions close 26 November 2009, so get in quick if you want to have your say.

I am hoping you will consider making a submission opposing this Bill, and have prepared a submission guide to assist (http://www3.greens.org.nz/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=64405&qid=1752456) with this.
If you have any inquiries regarding making a submission, feel free to email socialjustice@greens.org.nz.

Kevin Hague
Green Party ACC Spokesperson

[Ixion]

Well, just go do it.

[NighthawkNZ]

Well, just go do it.

I am tempted to send a submission to all the MP's and ACC once a week though not sure I can afford a stamps and envelopes and and paper every week... :doh: but I could set up my server to auto post the submission...

[Ixion]

Don't need a stamp to snail mail an MP (or the GG)

[mctshirt]

Nick and ACC sent the standard response but John Hayes (local national MP) got personal:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Hayes [mailto:xtr124846@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 November 2009 8:39 p.m.
To: Me
Subject: RE: ACC Submission


Thanks Geoff



I assume you have sent your submission to ACC. That is the important thing todo at this point.

Kind regards



John Hayes


-------------------------------------------

[Conquiztador]

Nick and ACC sent the standard response but John Hayes (local national MP) got personal:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Hayes [mailto:xtr124846@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 10 November 2009 8:39 p.m.
To: Me
Subject: RE: ACC Submission


Thanks Geoff



I assume you have sent your submission to ACC. That is the important thing todo at this point.

Kind regards



John Hayes


-------------------------------------------

And here I got excited and expected somethin intelligent when you stated that he got personal.

[placidfemme]

Bit slow on finding this thread... did my email bombs too... emailed every MP I could find an email for and only got replies from 2 Labour MP's. Disappointing but it seems you all got similar results...