How many submitted?

[candor]

Interested to get a tally, and people can also draw in support by forwarding subs with a personal note to local MP or freepost to target MPs at Parl Bldgs. They generally respond in short or full to mail (not e-ml).

[NighthawkNZ]

Interested to get a tally, and people can also draw in support by forwarding subs with a personal note to local MP or freepost to target MPs. They generally respond in short or full to mail (not e-ml).
mine was a 9 page document

[candor]

We could get an idea of consistent themes we'd expect in the summary report if we list our few main points.
1. No change to no fault by backdoor without consultations
2. Bikers not the baddies
3. Address fundaments of better injury prevention, no change till Commission of Inquiry identifies why road safety / MVA account worsening.

[BMWST?]

short and to the point
1) angry
2)discriminatory
3) easy because motorcycles are already a seperate registerd group
4) not proven big bikes are "worse" than little bikes
5)against the priciples of acc
6)Make our levies LESS by charging ALL road users the same
7) As a motorist am i subsididing myself)
8) 3 million odd x 77 is more than what you need
9) are you sure you arent just reacting to a change in funding model and a poor year for your investments?

[Jantar]

My main proposals were:

Levy on motor vehicle registrations: I would ask that a blanket levy of $100 be applied to all motor vehicles irrespective of class or type. On 2008 vehicle data that would raise $386 m. Singling any one class of vehicle for special treatment will cause more anomalies than it is intended to cure. The original ACC principle was to be a “No Fault” compensation scheme. No fault also means “No Blame”, and if ACC is to go down this road of special treatment for one class of vehicle then it must also do it for every class. Do we want to see black cars charged more than white cars? That would be the effect if we take this method to its logical conclusion

Levy on motor Drivers Licences: I would ask that a fee of $25 be applied at time of licence renewal for each class of licence held. This would raise an additional $10m per year, but those who drive a greater variety of vehicles (e.g. car and motorcycle) would pay fractionally more. This proposal would not generate a great amount of revenue though it will be a constant reminder to everyone that they are contributing even if they don’t own a vehicle.

Levy on Petrol: I would ask that the ACC component on petrol be raised to a minimum of $0.15 per lire (based on 3,000 million litres sold annually). This would raise a further $450m per year. I submit that the income from fuel levies should be the major source of income to the motor vehicle account. This means that those people who travel the furthest and hence are at most risk also pay the most. Drivers of heavy vehicles like SUVs that are more likely to cause injuries in a collision would pay more than drivers of smaller vehicles, like motorcycles or small cars, who are more likely to be the victims. A higher fuel levy will also help capture a greater contribution from recreational fuel users who currently pay very little.
Levy on Diesel: I would ask that an ACC component be added to diesel fuel of $0.05 per litre (based on 2,400 million litres sold annually). This would raise a further $120 m per year. This levy will capture many fuel users who currently avoid paying their share to ACC (including myself with my unregistered tractor). It should not be set too high or it will penalise freight companies using large rigs.

Surcharge on Traffic fines: I would ask that a surcharge of 100% be added to all traffic infringement notices and court imposed traffic fines. This would add a further $663m (based on treasury figures for 2005). This is a new method of collecting ACC revenue, but one that is aimed at those who are most likely to be causing accidents rather than those who drive or ride safely.

Benefits: Together these proposals would collect $1629m per year. This is a greater sum and spread over a broader base than the current ACC proposals. The suggestions target those who are most at risk and those who cause the risk, rather than simply targeting the victims of accidents. As we see more vehicles on the roads the amount received in levies will rise as a direct proportion. An increase on fuel levies will ensure that a greater contribution is made by those who currently escape levies by having unregistered vehicles, and will also reflect the distance travelled by all vehicles and the potential harm caused by larger vehicles. The amount collected as a surcharge on traffic fines will be a direct reflection of our driving

[Ixion]

Y'all DO realise that no-one at ACC will ever read any of those submissions, don't y'.

Open, glance, yeah yeah same old, trash.

Rinse lather repeat.

"We have considered all the submissions made. Get fucked"

[Supermac Jr]

"We have considered all the submissions made. Get fucked"


Yes. but we'll also request a copy of their submission analysis (and again any accompanying spreadsheets - just for fun)

[MacD]

I hope more than 33 KBers put in a submission!?

I read today that ACC received around 2000 submissions, however I can't find the link now.

[paturoa]

My submission was shortish, and coverred:
1) There are in fact non-road registerred claims, and its double speak to say there are none.
2) The creation of new classificatations is the Ministers role through consultaion - their's is levy setting ONLY
3) That the $700M paid to the govt this year is totally contradictory to their claims of underfunding, AND asked for their estimate of the proportion of the motorcycle levy that is budgetted to cover for these this payments in this and future years.
4) That the porposal says that cross subsidation from cars is wrong ($77 myth) yet sets up new cross subsidations for motorcycles by cc rating.
5) The act says primary function is reducing the incidence and severity of claims - I asked where / what in the levy proposals was their assumptions and calculations of the reductions they are expecting from this primary function going forward, cos I couldn't find any.

And I agree Ixion - re ignoring.

[MacD]

Y'all DO realise that no-one at ACC will ever read any of those submissions, don't y'.



Which is why I also sent my submission to Nick Smith and John Key. I didn't bother with the Yellow-jacketed buffoon who is my MP.

Not that they'll actually read them either, but their staff will let them know that the voters are not amused.

[McJim]

I knew what everyone elses submission would be so I sent in my own wee take on the future of ACC if these levy increases go ahead.

Higher levies = People registering their bikes for 3 months of the year instead of all year = less revenue for alleged deficit.
People riding their bikes for less of the year then before = rusty skills = more accidents overall (albeit concentrated into the summer months) = more of a drain on ACC coffers.

therefore less income and more outgoings = totally uneconomic for ACC.