A interesting and quite intelligent blog from Peter Dunne

[Ixion]

From the unitefutures website



ACC AND MOTORCYLE LEVIES


<cite>AUTHOR: Peter Dunne</cite>
The recent protests by motorcyclists over proposed massive increases in ACC levies highlight a problem that occurs all too often.
Upfront, I think the proposed increases are too steep, and should be revisited. I also think there is an essential conflict between the “no fault” principle which underpins the whole ACC philosophy, and the argument that the costs to ACC from motorcycle accidents outweighs the levies collected from that sector. “No fault” is one of the great strengths of ACC, and to discard it is to fundamentally overturn ACC’s most unique feature.
However, leaving all that aside, there is a more fundamental issue.
Too often, governments make decisions on the basis of particular items or machines, and not the people who use them. So, we decide that because, for example, guns are dangerous and can kill or maim people, every single gun has to be licensed, even though a gun without someone to fire it is relatively harmless. Similarly, with motorcycles, we decide that each one of them has to bear an ACC levy, even though they have to be ridden dangerously to cause harm. In short, we blame the machines for the foibles of the users.
Where does personal responsibility fit into this? Should not the onus be on the individual, rather than the equipment they use? And should the licensing regime reflect this? After all, you can only fire one gun, ride one motorcycle or drive one car at a time.
In the 1950s and 1960s people used to have a separate radio (and then television) licence for every item they owned. That was on the basis that people probably owned only one radio or television, but as times changed (and transistors arrived, followed shortly after by portable televisions) that quickly changed too, and now we do not even pay a broadcasting fee at all.
While I do not envisage there will ever be a time where people pay no ACC levies, I do think the current debate provides an opportunity to have a fresh look at the way these levies are imposed. Instead of basing the system on individual items, maybe we should be looking at a flat charge for all motor vehicle owners that could be struck on an annual basis. I acknowledge the potential complexities inherent in such an approach, but I also understand the inequity of the current system.
We need to strike a better balance, and more of the same in this case simply will not do.

[Motu]

I'll have to revise my stand on bad haircuts.

[ckai]

That can't be right - a politician that makes sense and wants something logical :gob: It's actually a pity that politicians have to bitch at it other just because they're the "opposition" and can't just put their ego's aside and say "let's work out what is actually best for the country".

Oh well

Nice work from PD though.

[98tls]

Yea not bad.Still wouldnt mind seeing one of these geniuses come up with something worthwhile and do-able like cutting off the thousands upon thousands of benefit fraudsters in this country as a way of helping Govt coffers instead of targeting us.:bash:off topic sorry.

[k2w3]

Peter Dunne is a smart bloke and sensible unlike many (most?) other politicians.

[Trudes]

He's my local MP and I'm pretty sure has held the seat for many years, not that it's any thanks to my votes, but now I can see why the locals vote for him, that was very sensible!:)

[98tls]

He's my local MP and I'm pretty sure has held the seat for many years, not that it's any thanks to my votes, but now I can see why the locals vote for him, that was very sensible!:) Been around since 84,didnt know to much about him until i read this thread so had a interweb gander.

[Trudes]

Been around since 84,didnt know to much about him until i read this thread so had a interweb gander.

A looooooooooonggggggggg time! Nobody else really gets a look in around here at election time. I knew my vote for the local Legalise Cannabis Party member would be a waste, but hey, you gotta vote for what you believe in eh. ;)

[NONONO]

Hmmm. Peter Dunne...
As usual simplistic and obvious. No use at all.
Mr Dunne, the old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people is nonsense.
People kill people WITH guns.
But you have to take all the support you can get....so I suppose...
Nah, screw him, he's part of the problem not the solution.
Peter Dunne..:whocares:

[NighthawkNZ]

People kill people WITH guns.

Take away the guns people will still kill people... but the gun won't

[peasea]

A looooooooooonggggggggg time! Nobody else really gets a look in around here at election time. I knew my vote for the local Legalise Cannabis Party member would be a waste, but hey, you gotta vote for what you believe in eh. ;)

Whatever happen to the McGillicuddy Serious Party?

Now there was some genius politics.

[Trudes]

Whatever happen to the McGillicuddy Serious Party?

Now there was some genius politics.

I know! I used to vote for them and then they went away, maybe to some far away island where they are living self-sufficant lives. Happened at about the same time as MMP came about, perhaps they were worried the voters who are discontented with the big blowhard partys may actually vote enough for them to get a seat in the big house!!

[peasea]

I know! I used to vote for them and then they went away, maybe to some far away island where they are living self-sufficant lives. Happened at about the same time as MMP came about, perhaps they were worried the voters who are discontented with the big blowhard partys may actually vote enough for them to get a seat in the big house!!

Damned shame if you ask me, if they HAD managed a seat it would have livened things up no-end and brought millions in tourist dollars to the country. Imagine the public gallery; it'd be the size of the biscuit tin.

[StoneY]

Yea not bad.Still wouldnt mind seeing one of these geniuses come up with something worthwhile and do-able like cutting off the thousands upon thousands of benefit fraudsters in this country as a way of helping Govt coffers instead of targeting us.:bash:off topic sorry.

Nah I like ya post mate
As long as its the fraudsters and not the truly temporary needful, I agree

[NONONO]

Take away the guns people will still kill people... but the gun won't

No correlation there then...
People With guns kill people faster, better, more often and with much less effort or pre meditation....
I repeat
Peter Dunne..:whocares:

[slofox]

It's actually a pity that politicians have to bitch at it other just because they're the "opposition" and can't just put their ego's aside and say "let's work out what is actually best for the country".


You said it cuzzie....but probably only happens in cloud cuckoo land....Been my pet beef for several centuries now...

[MSTRS]

Interesting, Intelligent, Peter Dunne...
Never thought I'd see a sentence that mentioned all 3, and still be right.
The forces are gathering...

[Conquiztador]

Peter Dunne has always been sensible. Sadly too sensible for his own good. He tends to be forgotten as he never is front page news.

And then he, sadly, had to combine the forces with the Christians to get some momentum.

A long time ago I spent some time reading all political parties agendas and what they wanted to achieve. Most had something I agreed on, but also stuff that I would have fought. Apart from Peter Dunne (and whatever his party was called then?). I agreed to almost 100% with his look at things.

I always thought that he would make a good leader of this country.

[Ixion]

I bet he has a collection of zip up cardigans. he and Uncle Les should compare cardy notes

[Mully]

Looks like Peter Dunne can hear the braying of the mob and smell the blood.

[Ronin]

Whatever happen to the McGillicuddy Serious Party?

Now there was some genius politics.

I think they went Green

[doc]

I agree with the idea that instead of a levy on each vehicle it should be on the licence. But in my reckoning wouldnt that mean an even bigger increase in our levies. ie say 2 million vehicles to pay the levy against say only 1 million licences to suck up the same money. Surely it would cost us all more.

[Skyryder]

I think he's been on KB having a look at the lie of the land.


He's in with the Nats.....................so lets see how he votes.

I'm not holding my breath. Dunne will go with what he thinks is best for him and experiance with this man is............. we will get done.:bash:


Skyryder

[NighthawkNZ]

I agree with the idea that instead of a levy on each vehicle it should be on the licence. But in my reckoning wouldnt that mean an even bigger increase in our levies. ie say 2 million vehicles to pay the levy against say only 1 million licences to suck up the same money. Surely it would cost us all more.




Levy per driver.
Levy on traffic infrigement which must be paid even if the actual infringement is dropped. (if 100% would generate 650million the entire traffic account)
Levy on Wof's. ($5 for 6 months is 50 million)
Levy on fuel.
Levy on all vehicles being sold. Flat fee of $50 to change ownership
* If required a token levy on the vehicle. *


This would generate more than what is being paid in to the traffic accouunt now and is spread out across the board. It would mean you could drop the rego levy or shrink it to $50 token plus on road. It targets those who are at high risk and causing the risk. Those that travel more and the one vehicle at a time argument. It would also mean it would be very difficult to work out who has paid what... which means it keeps inline with the principles of the ACC as we know and want it to be.

The thing is there will never be a 100% fair system for everyone.

[ckai]

Levy per driver.
Levy on traffic infrigement which must be paid even if the actual infringement is dropped. (if 100% would generate 650million the entire traffic account)
Levy on Wof's. ($5 for 6 months is 50 million)
Levy on fuel.
Levy on all vehicles being sold. Flat fee of $50 to change ownership
* If required a token levy on the vehicle. *


This would generate more than what is being paid in to the traffic accouunt now and is spread out across the board. It would mean you could drop the rego levy or shrink it to $50 token plus on road. It targets those who are at high risk and causing the risk. Those that travel more and the one vehicle at a time argument. It would also mean it would be very difficult to work out who has paid what... which means it keeps inline witht he principles of the ACC as we know and want it to be.

The thing is there will never be a 100% fair system for everyone.

These are good ideas. Especially like the infringment one. Makes sense. If the gov't wants to go along the lines of punish instead of educate then this would be right up their alley. Of course, all those young hoons don't pay their fines anyway :)

So what are the flaws? Can't see any myself but someone must do though. It is KB ;)

[Dadpole]

Looks like Peter Dunne can hear the braying of the mob and smell the blood.

That is just Peter Dunne seeing which way the wind is blowing.
He is good at stating common sense then getting into bed with whoever offers the best deal for Peter Dunne

[NighthawkNZ]

These are good ideas. Especially like the infringment one. Makes sense. If the gov't wants to go along the lines of punish instead of educate then this would be right up their alley. Of course, all those young hoons don't pay their fines anyway :)

So what are the flaws? Can't see any myself but someone must do though. It is KB ;)


the flaws? well as you said the young hoons don't pay their fines anyway and they are probably in unregistered cars so no different, however the levy will always be there, and can not be dropped by the court.

the $50 dollar token vehicle levy on you rego still adds up to $145,957,550.00
the Wof is about 50mill of the total fleet incliding cars, bikes, vans, modes, buses, trucks etc
levy on the fuel bikes pay around 9million a year in acc levy not sure on total fee
change of ownership would easily make 10-20 million a year
as I sai the traffic infringement is 650 million if 100% levy.

we are nearing a billion dollars... way more than the current traffic account requires and will help the fully funded model

[Mully]

That is just Peter Dunne seeing which way the wind is blowing.
He is good at stating common sense then getting into bed with whoever offers the best deal for Peter Dunne

Yeah, that too.

But then that's why he's been around for so long.

[Conquiztador]

Yeah, that too.

But then that's why he's been around for so long.

And so you have to ask your self the question: Where can Peter Dunne have the biggest influence. From inside the government or from outside? Clearly he has sussed that out.

He does not have a strong group around him. He is a lone campaigner. That for the most speaks sense. A seasoned politician who knows how to survive, and is prepared to sell bits of his ideology to achieve the more important stuff.