McJim's argument against raising ACC levies for motorcycles

[McJim]

Thought about this sensibly and long and hard.

The purpose of the increased levies is to fill a deficit in the ACC coffers and is to fund future motorcycle accident compensation claims.

However the increase in the levies is so huge that it will precipitate a change in behaviour. Many motorcyclists will sell their bikes altogether and move to cars thus reducing the income from this avenue. Many others will simply register their bikes for 3 months per year choosing not to ride except in summer. A few will continue to ride but not pay. The combination of these groups will cause the revenue to fall far short of required income. In addition to this there will be an increase in motorcycle injuries due to riders no longer riding all year round. their skills will become rusty and their reactions slow. they will crash more in the summer than before.

The combination of lost revenue and increased burden will push ACC further into the red.

Q.E.D.

Feel free to incorporate this into your submissions. I am working with a planning professional to compile a compelling submission against these levies.

[JMemonic]

Far to logical for the dimwit bureaucrats to understand.

[James Deuce]

Umm, that's actually THE plan.

The argument then becomes that it is too expensive for the Government to condone the use of motorcycles as transport and subsequently bans them.

[martybabe]

Sorry Mcjim but I think JD's right.
I think the ultimate goal is to get us off the road by whatever means. I'm not disagreeing with your point, as a scenario it makes perfect sense as to what may transpire with the future of on road motorcycling but I honestly believe if we all gave up tomorrow we wouldn't be given a second thought by the powers that be, job done as far as they're concerned.

[Hitcher]

On Saturday, the magnificent Mrs H and I were sitting in the sun in front of Greytown's White Swan, sipping shandies (as you do) and trading banter with the locals. After about seven seconds, one of them braved to broach the subject of ACC levies, presumably to get a rise out of my fair self.

"So what do you think should happen," I asked.

"Well," he said, sliding his hat back a bit and taking a decent draught of his ale, "Funny that you should ask.

"I reckon that ACC should collect its levies on driver licenses, rather than vehicle registrations," he mused.

"And how would that work then," I enquired.

"Well," he said, taking another decent slurp of suds, "I reckon they could bring back annual license renewals (not that this was ever the case, but I decided not to interject and correct him), charge $40 for a license and an additional $5 for every demerit point on your account."

He then paused for another sip of beer before adding "That would provide a meaningful incentive for people to be safer drivers, as well as raising shitloads of cash".

One could not argue with his thesis. It is both brilliant and simple. It probably has some obvious flaws, but I have not yet figured out what they may be. It's certainly way cheaper for motorcyclists (unless one has multitudinous demerits accrued) than the current option, and only discriminates against drivers on the basis of their lawfulness, rather than on the type of vehicle they own.

Given that his beer glass was now empty, I bought him a refill.

[pzkpfw]

The counter to that one, from the ACC, is that it is unfair to lower-income families. Kind of the reverse of the case where one person owns multiple bikes and has to pay multiple rego fees.

In this case, the family might all have licenses, and therefore all have to pay the fees - but they share just one car between them.

I don't have any idea of the difference between:
1 person with multiple vehicles, and
Multiple people with one vehicle.

(So personally, i think they need to extend RUC to petrol vehicles. That way the charge relates to the vehicle and its use. It could even be tailored to vehilce type like RUC is with truck weight and axles configuration. Years ago motor-reg unified their registration and RUC databases, so I don't think this is particularly hard to do.)

[James Deuce]

Lower income families can't afford bikes.

A 125cc scooter and a helmet costs more than a Toyota Levin and is dearer to register.

[pzkpfw]

Lower income families can't afford bikes.

A 125cc scooter and a helmet costs more than a Toyota Levin and is dearer to register.

So you are suggesting motorcycle ACC fees be collected via driver (rider) licecse but fees for cars still be collected by vehcile license?

Seems to me the "charge ACC by license" renewal ideas mean that ALL such fees be collected that way. Bit of a 'mare to do it differently just for bikes. And some people own multiple cars just like some own multiple bikes, so would want the same kind of deal.

[Mully]

Umm, that's actually THE plan.

The argument then becomes that it is too expensive for the Government to condone the use of motorcycles as transport and subsequently bans them.

Bingo. And this was one of the points in my e-mails to John Banks and Len Brown seeking their positions on the increase, given the very real possibility of forcing riders off bikes and, in the majority, into cars.

As an unhappy user of Auckland's rail system today, I would suspect very few would move to public transport.

[davereid]

They wont be collecting mine except as fines.

I'll take my $850 and keep on riding without rego until my fines reach break even, then I'll stop riding till the next year.

BUT, if I dont get a fine in any year, or dont pass the $850, then I'll have an even bigger war chest.

And I will try and arrange to pay my fines off too, not just pay them in one hit like I have to do with ACC.

The government might still get the money, if its very lucky, and stops me a lot.

But ACC wont.

[James Deuce]

So you are suggesting motorcycle ACC fees be collected via driver (rider) licecse but fees for cars still be collected by vehcile license?


Not at all. Just pointing out that the lower income family + motorcycle isn't the norm.

[SARGE]

Thought about this sensibly and long and hard.


<SNIP*

Feel free to incorporate this into your submissions. I am working with a planning professional to compile a compelling submission against these levies.

i thought you were gonna say


"because SARGE will go apeshit and start blowing shit up"

cuz i WILL ya know ..

[newbould]

(So personally, i think they need to extend RUC to petrol vehicles. That way the charge relates to the vehicle and its use. It could even be tailored to vehilce type like RUC is with truck weight and axles configuration. Years ago motor-reg unified their registration and RUC databases, so I don't think this is particularly hard to do.)

So then they could charge even more for motorbikes coz motorbikes is dangerous and bite people. they should have an ID chip implanted in them so they donb't bite so much - or is that dogs. Oh I'm so confused. My brain hurts.

[McJim]

Umm, that's actually THE plan.


My bad then J II. I kept seeing threads along the lines of "Attack the pedestrians! Attack the cyclists! Attack wee Jimmy fae doon oor street who disnae wash his undies!" rather than a concerted "Aha - I see your problem....this isn't actually going to achieve it's stated objectives" Which is the tack I have taken. I therefore assumed that being nasty, unpleasant and irritating was the plan (which is always the best way to get your opponent to dig their heels in for the long haul)

I hope everyone realises that this is something that should happen in conjunction with the protests etc. I, for example do not have the means to get to any meaningful protests (a lone rider riding in circles around Invercargill is not going to score any political points!) and must therefore protest in my own way. I just got tired of trawling vitriol in the other threads and though I had best voice my opinion in the forlorn hope that someone els may freely use my reasoning to assist in the compilation of a winning submission.

[James Deuce]

My bad then J II. I kept seeing threads along the lines of "Attack the pedestrians! Attack the cyclists! Attack wee Jimmy fae doon oor street who disnae wash his undies!" rather than a concerted "Aha - I see your problem....this isn't actually going to achieve it's stated objectives" Which is the tack I have taken. I therefore assumed that being nasty, unpleasant and irritating was the plan (which is always the best way to get your opponent to dig their heels in for the long haul)

I hope everyone realises that this is something that should happen in conjunction with the protests etc. I, for example do not have the means to get to any meaningful protests (a lone rider riding in circles around Invercargill is not going to score any political points!) and must therefore protest in my own way. I just got tired of trawling vitriol in the other threads and though I had best voice my opinion in the forlorn hope that someone els may freely use my reasoning to assist in the compilation of a winning submission.

I understand your frustration.

[newbould]

(a lone rider riding in circles around Invercargill is not going to score any political points!).

I disagree! I think it would hit the national news. you would get an interview and be able to explain our point of view (as in your original post) in clear unemotional terms. I know a few very photogenic roundabouts in Invercargill. In fact maybe every town in NZ should have its own lonesome biker protest. after all it is a very individual past-time we partake

[McJim]

I disagree! I think it would hit the national news. you would get an interview and be able to explain our point of view (as in your original post) in clear unemotional terms. I know a few very photogenic roundabouts in Invercargill. In fact maybe every town in NZ should have its own lonesome biker protest. after all it is a very individual past-time we partake

Only if I ride like this
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42423&d=1159001008
:rofl:

[FJRider]

"Well," he said, taking another decent slurp of suds, "I reckon they could bring back annual license renewals (not that this was ever the case, but I decided not to interject and correct him)


Actually I do recall, with the little green licence book we used to have, being able to get little stickers when you renewed you licence ... 1-5 year periods, each period sticker a different colour.

Passenger service (Bus etc) had to (and still do) renew each year. With a medical certificate too.

but a good yarn none the less ....

[munster]

Only if I ride like this
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42423&d=1159001008
:rofl:

Pffft. Who said Honda's where gay?:laugh:

[McJim]

Pffft. Who said Honda's where gay?:laugh:

Pucker up big boy....:2thumbsup

[pzkpfw]

Not at all. Just pointing out that the lower income family + motorcycle isn't the norm.

Umm, I wasn't saying anything in particular about "lower income family + motorcycle".

My point was about how a family with just one vehicle (whether car, bike or scooter...) would pay multiple fees IF they went with the charge per person-license versus charge per vehicle-license idea, as noted in Hitchers post.

Thus it's just as "unfair" as in the case at present, of one person with multiple vehicles.


This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

(One person with multiple bikes? A family sharing one car? No issue, either way. They would all just get charged for the time a vehicle is on the road.)

[pzkpfw]

So then they could charge even more for motorbikes coz motorbikes is dangerous and bite people.

Yeah, whatever. Just trying to be realistic.

We already pay more than cars. Were we arranging protest rides last year?

Call me defeatest, but I don't think we'll push them all the way back to a flat fee that's the same for cars and bikes.

(Anyone who thinks the current actions will do more than limit the increases is dreaming.)

So I was just pointing out that the RUC system already allows some "discrimination", thus might be palatable to them that make the rules.

[McJim]

This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.
The devil's in the detail as always innit?

What needs to be sought is a balance between the fair and the workable. How do you efectively measure vehicle use?
Fuel? but that varies from vehicle to vehicle and has no correlation to the risk of injury.
Mileage - a Road User Charge which funds ACC? I bet the truckies would love that.

ACC and the government have to agree on a proxy that is fair and equitable and workable that they can apply to something to fund the ACC system. I cannot yet think of an answer to this.

[monkeymcbean]

Sorry Mcjim but I think JD's right.
I think the ultimate goal is to get us off the road by whatever means. I'm not disagreeing with your point, as a scenario it makes perfect sense as to what may transpire with the future of on road motorcycling but I honestly believe if we all gave up tomorrow we wouldn't be given a second thought by the powers that be, job done as far as they're concerned.

This same sentiment is expressed in overseas bike magazines, I just think the Politicians there like here just do not know how to deal with us as a group and from a safety point of view riding around on the roads.
"The opinion from a psychological researcher in 'bike' mag is how counter productive the focus on speed is, 'the one size fits all approach is his biggest criticism.' If you've been riding fast for 30 years and never had a problem...youll switch off.
Road safety messages have to get alot more sopisticated, purely psychological giving riders a framework for deciding what is and isn't acceptable"
Excerts from: Bike mag. sept 09 'Rupert Paul' column

Errrr i may have digressed :whistle:

[pzkpfw]

The devil's in the detail as always innit?

What needs to be sought is a balance between the fair and the workable. How do you efectively measure vehicle use?
Fuel? but that varies from vehicle to vehicle and has no correlation to the risk of injury.
Mileage - a Road User Charge which funds ACC? I bet the truckies would love that.

Truckies already deal with RUC, so no change for them.

While ACC fees might get added to existing RUC licenses (i.e. for diesel vehicles) it would then be taken away from the yearly license. It'd have to be balanced so as not to affect them badly.

..and since RUC fees are assesed by vehicle type and other details, they could be tailored to suit.

A RUC license is paid for kilometers to be travelled.

[McJim]

Why would National want to alienate motorcyclists though. As has been pointed out before there are some 480,000 motorcycle licence holders in New Zealand and 75% of them are over 40. We are talking Nationals voting heartland here.

Are they mad or are they stuck in the 70s thinking that we are all still a bunch of young hoons?

[Hitcher]

This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

Why? Vehicles themselves are intrinsically safe. They only become a hazard once an operator is added. It's a similar argument to licensing gun owners rather than guns.

[James Deuce]

Umm, I wasn't saying anything in particular about "lower income family + motorcycle".

My point was about how a family with just one vehicle (whether car, bike or scooter...) would pay multiple fees IF they went with the charge per person-license versus charge per vehicle-license idea, as noted in Hitchers post.

Thus it's just as "unfair" as in the case at present, of one person with multiple vehicles.


This is why I think the charge needs to be per vehicle-usage.

(One person with multiple bikes? A family sharing one car? No issue, either way. They would all just get charged for the time a vehicle is on the road.)

No they wouldn't. They'd pay a levy on their license. That everyone else paid, irrespective of vehicle ownership, to cover the potential of an injury accident while. In fact it's fairer because it means you're contributing to ACC if you are simply a passenger.

From general observation, the lesser the income, the more vehicles a family owns. If you get my drift.

[pzkpfw]

Why? Vehicles themselves are intrinsically safe. They only become a hazard once an operator is added.

Yeah, and if you don't use the vehicle, it's very safe in your garage and you won't be paying fees for it.

[pzkpfw]

From general observation, the lesser the income, the more vehicles a family owns. If you get my drift.

...but a car up on blocks killing grass should be pretty safe from accidents!


(The passenger coverage issue is a good one. Do car ACC fees cover them currently? Would that not also be able to be factored into the car-usage-fee-via-RUC I counter proposed? [I guess that'd be unfair to people who NEVER have passengers, but no system would be perfect...])

[McJim]

...but a car up on blocks killing grass should be pretty safe from accidents!

Spoken like someone who doesn't have a toddler....

[pzkpfw]

Spoken like someone who doesn't have a toddler....

:-) Actually I've got two kids so I know how that goes, and I did consider it!

(For the purpose of this thread I considered these sort of things would be "household accidents", not "road accidents". Though given how daft is ACC data collection is I suppose they woukd go under the road fund.

[Someone posted an example of getting an exhaust pipe burn just looking at a bike they were going to buy, and ACC classed it as a motorcycle accident.]
)

[martybabe]

Why would National want to alienate motorcyclists though. As has been pointed out before there are some 480,000 motorcycle licence holders in New Zealand and 75% of them are over 40. We are talking Nationals voting heartland here.

Are they mad or are they stuck in the 70s thinking that we are all still a bunch of young hoons?

Now that is a very valid point in my view. At the moment I think they see us as 'motorcyclists', you know those oddball people that speed everywhere, fall off a lot and cost a fortune to fix. Motorcycling and the reasons we do it are just lost on most of the bureaucratic fools, even the one's that have an inkling what it's all about don't give a fig.

The game here is to get them to see us as voters, moreover, voters from the demographic you describe. National may be riding high on an unprecedented wave of popularity at the moment but no political party can remain blaze about the threat of losing nearly half a million potential votes or whatever the true figure is.

I think they knew exactly how the news of the levies would be taken by us, I think they fully expect demonstrations and snotty e-mails and petitions. I think they believe we are an unpopular group that will have little support from Joe public.I believe the incorrect figures they trot out ad nauseum are designed to remove any sympathy the general public may have had for our plight. All these things have been considered by the beehives PR people and money crunchers but, I think the one thing they have failed to account for is who we really are. when you get down to it we are not just a powerless oddball group that are more trouble than we're worth, we are an eclectic group of voters who can count amongst our number, politicians, lawyers doctors, uni students, ambos, firefighters and farmers. We are the voting public and we need to shove that message good n hard up the beehives back passage. :girlfight:

[James Deuce]

Now that is a very valid point in my view. At the moment I think they see us as 'motorcyclists', you know those oddball people that speed everywhere, fall off a lot and cost a fortune to fix. Motorcycling and the reasons we do it are just lost on most of the bureaucratic fools, even the one's that have an inkling what it's all about don't give a fig.

The game here is to get them to see us as voters, moreover, voters from the demographic you describe. National may be riding high on an unprecedented wave of popularity at the moment but no political party can remain blaze about the threat of losing nearly half a million potential votes or whatever the true figure is.

I think they knew exactly how the news of the levies would be taken by us, I think they fully expect demonstrations and snotty e-mails and petitions. I think they believe we are an unpopular group that will have little support from Joe public.I believe the incorrect figures they trot out ad nauseum are designed to remove any sympathy the general public may have had for our plight. All these things have been considered by the beehives PR people and money crunchers but, I think the one thing they have failed to account for is who we really are. when you get down to it we are not just a powerless oddball group that are more trouble than we're worth, we are an eclectic group of voters who can count amongst our number, politicians, lawyers doctors, uni students, ambos, firefighters and farmers. We are the voting public and we need to shove that message good n hard up the beehives back passage. :girlfight:

Nah. A quarter of those license holders are current riders.

There is a substantial vein of anti-motorcycle sentiment that prevents those remaining bikers from participating, and the remaining 8 tenths of the population don't care, either through being babies, old people, or just not that into obsessing about transport options. I'm very lucky my dear wife is a grown up who can see the good that motorcycling does for me. She hates them. They've caused her nothing but pain and suffering, from being knocked down on a crossing, to me breaking her ankle, to having to watch me struggle to put my life back together after a nasty accident. The health system is out there actively shafting us, for the same reason Cops thing every human being sucks - they see the worst of motorcycling on a daily basis.

We are a powerless oddball group. HOG is arguably where all the people are with access to Government process and the capacity to disseminate information and they simply don't care about taking a stance. Ulysses are flailing about all over the place, desperate to avoid having to associate with other motorcycling groups at a political level, and the remaining motorcyclists lack direction, cohesion, and even a sound understanding of what the discussion is all about.

The Maori Party are going to shaft us as they are probably about to earn some massive concession for making sure all aspects of the ACC bill are pushed through.

You get those people working together and I'll become a card carrying member of the Political Party you form, because you'd have to be slicker than Bill Clinton to pull it off.

[Voltaire]

"Originally Posted by McJim
Why would National want to alienate motorcyclists though. As has been pointed out before there are some 480,000 motorcycle licence holders in New Zealand and 75% of them are over 40. We are talking Nationals voting heartland here."
.................................................. .................................................. ...
....enought to get 5% of the vote at the next election....:lol:
Grey Power/ BRONZ party.
Makes more sense than Peter Dunn and Jim Andertons parties.

Klingon for PM.:2thumbsup
( free trips overseas for your partner and housing allowance, underground secure parking at the Beehive for the Volty)

[martybabe]

Nah. A quarter of those license holders are current riders.

There is a substantial vein of anti-motorcycle sentiment that prevents those remaining bikers from participating, and the remaining 8 tenths of the population don't care, either through being babies, old people, or just not that into obsessing about transport options. I'm very lucky my dear wife is a grown up who can see the good that motorcycling does for me. She hates them. They've caused her nothing but pain and suffering, from being knocked down on a crossing, to me breaking her ankle, to having to watch me struggle to put my life back together after a nasty accident. The health system is out there actively shafting us, for the same reason Cops thing every human being sucks - they see the worst of motorcycling on a daily basis.

We are a powerless oddball group. HOG is arguably where all the people are with access to Government process and the capacity to disseminate information and they simply don't care about taking a stance. Ulysses are flailing about all over the place, desperate to avoid having to associate with other motorcycling groups at a political level, and the remaining motorcyclists lack direction, cohesion, and even a sound understanding of what the discussion is all about.

The Maori Party are going to shaft us as they are probably about to earn some massive concession for making sure all aspects of the ACC bill are pushed through.

You get those people working together and I'll become a card carrying member of the Political Party you form, because you'd have to be slicker than Bill Clinton to pull it off.

Thanks for your candid reply and I bow to your superior knowledge of NZ's motorcycling community, depressing reading though it is.
In fact if your figures are correct and I have no cause to doubt them, we're looking at 100,000 ish bikers that 'might' give a toss, several large groups among them don't want to play ball with the rest of us, a large proportion are too apathetic and or don't understand the problem enough to do any thing to constructively fight the changes, the health service think we are a total pain, jo public dislikes us at best and the government just flat don't want us to exist any more.

You appear to be even more pessimistic/realistic than me, oh well, do you think we could get three hundred of us together in togs and armour and hold 'them' at the pass.

The odds of a tangible victory, no matter how we fight this, are grim but even so the fight must be fought, I for one will not be bent over and shafted without giving them a punch on the nose if it is humanly possible. I do think though, that when the smoke clears from the battlefield, the de=brief will show a small reduction in levies to appease the, apparently, not so many masses. Then again I think that was accounted for all along too.

Hey James, I thought you wouldn't belong to any club that would have you as a member ;) I guess my political party still consists of just me my dog then.

[FJRider]

Nah. A quarter of those license holders are current riders.

And a large percentage of the remaining, either sympathise or wish they were.



There is a substantial vein of anti-motorcycle sentiment that prevents those remaining bikers from participating, and the remaining 8 tenths of the population don't care, either through being babies, old people, or just not that into obsessing about transport options. I'm very lucky my dear wife is a grown up who can see the good that motorcycling does for me. She hates them. They've caused her nothing but pain and suffering, from being knocked down on a crossing, to me breaking her ankle, to having to watch me struggle to put my life back together after a nasty accident. The health system is out there actively shafting us, for the same reason Cops thing every human being sucks - they see the worst of motorcycling on a daily basis.

But she will also see the huge grin on your dial after a ride. And the way it lifts your mood when you are down.


We are a powerless oddball group. HOG is arguably where all the people are with access to Government process and the capacity to disseminate information and they simply don't care about taking a stance. Ulysses are flailing about all over the place, desperate to avoid having to associate with other motorcycling groups at a political level, and the remaining motorcyclists lack direction, cohesion, and even a sound understanding of what the discussion is all about.

You get those people working together and I'll become a card carrying member of the Political Party you form, because you'd have to be slicker than Bill Clinton to pull it off.

Perhaps this may be the time for all of us to start working together.

Not just concentrating on our own agendas...

Working together we can do it.

[Marmoot]

On Saturday, the magnificent Mrs H and I were sitting in the sun in front of Greytown's White Swan, sipping shandies (as you do) and trading banter with the locals. After about seven seconds, one of them braved to broach the subject of ACC levies, presumably to get a rise out of my fair self.

"So what do you think should happen," I asked.

"Well," he said, sliding his hat back a bit and taking a decent draught of his ale, "Funny that you should ask.

"I reckon that ACC should collect its levies on driver licenses, rather than vehicle registrations," he mused.

"And how would that work then," I enquired.

"Well," he said, taking another decent slurp of suds, "I reckon they could bring back annual license renewals (not that this was ever the case, but I decided not to interject and correct him), charge $40 for a license and an additional $5 for every demerit point on your account."

He then paused for another sip of beer before adding "That would provide a meaningful incentive for people to be safer drivers, as well as raising shitloads of cash".

One could not argue with his thesis. It is both brilliant and simple. It probably has some obvious flaws, but I have not yet figured out what they may be. It's certainly way cheaper for motorcyclists (unless one has multitudinous demerits accrued) than the current option, and only discriminates against drivers on the basis of their lawfulness, rather than on the type of vehicle they own.

Given that his beer glass was now empty, I bought him a refill.

Mate, you've just been had.
I'd say the same thing to you if it gets me a free beer.

Jokings aside, no government in their sane mind would impose 'severe tax' to the majority. That's a political suicide at best, and leads to burning and hanging in some worse situations.

[MSTRS]

On Saturday, the magnificent Mrs H and I were sitting in the sun in front of Greytown's White Swan, sipping shandies (as you do) and trading banter with the locals. After about seven seconds, one of them braved to broach the subject of ACC levies, presumably to get a rise out of my fair self.

"So what do you think should happen," I asked.

"Well," he said, sliding his hat back a bit and taking a decent draught of his ale, "Funny that you should ask.

"I reckon that ACC should collect its levies on driver licenses, rather than vehicle registrations," he mused.

"And how would that work then," I enquired.

"Well," he said, taking another decent slurp of suds, "I reckon they could bring back annual license renewals (not that this was ever the case, but I decided not to interject and correct him), charge $40 for a license and an additional $5 for every demerit point on your account."

He then paused for another sip of beer before adding "That would provide a meaningful incentive for people to be safer drivers, as well as raising shitloads of cash".

One could not argue with his thesis. It is both brilliant and simple. It probably has some obvious flaws, but I have not yet figured out what they may be. It's certainly way cheaper for motorcyclists (unless one has multitudinous demerits accrued) than the current option, and only discriminates against drivers on the basis of their lawfulness, rather than on the type of vehicle they own.

Given that his beer glass was now empty, I bought him a refill.

Very smart, these bucolic types
You are forgiven for being too young to remember. The old booklet licences had an annual renewal requirement. For 50c you got a sticker in your book that stated the licence was valid until.... And for $2.00 you could cover 5 years ahead. Discount for bulk purchase.
You have made a friend in te heartlands...

[McJim]

Do we know any good lobbyists? If we all chip in a few bob could we get someone from the NRA? :rofl:

[Hitcher]

Mate, you've just been had.
I'd say the same thing to you if it gets me a free beer.

I may be cheap but I'm not easy.