David Parker's post-BIKEOI press release

[StoneY]

You got it here on KB first as always before the press got it



17 November 2009 Media Statement

Smith continues to manipulate ACC numbers

ACC Minister Nick Smith has once again been caught out trying to mislead the public with his dodgy use of figures – this time around motorcycle crashes, says Labour’s ACC spokesperson David Parker.
“Nick Smith today claimed there has been a significant increase in motorcycle accident fatalities over the past decade.
“Yet if you compare the number of fatalities which include motorcycle pillion passengers as well as motorcyclists themselves, there were four fewer fatalities last year than there were in 1998, when there were 54.
“In addition, the average number of fatalities for motorcyclists each year over the last decade was 34 – which compares with an average of 90 motorcyclist fatalities each year in the preceding decade,” David Parker says.
“Nick Smith conceded in Parliament today, there has also been a 60 per cent rise in the number of bikes on the road, which further skews his logic. This is because more people are using motorcycles because of higher petrol prices.
“As the figures supplied to me by his office show, the number of fatalities per 10,000 motorcycles on the road has significantly declined in recent years. In 1998 there were 8.9 fatalities per 10,000 bikes, while in 2008 there were 5.2 fatalities per 10,000 bikes – a significant reduction,” David Parker says.
“The longer term reduction is even better. In 1988 there were 14.1 fatalities per 10,000 bikes on the road.
“These figures aren’t something to be happy about – any fatality is one fatality too many and we do need to bring down the number of motorcycle crashes. But slapping ridiculously high levies on motorcyclists is not the answer.
“Nick Smith’s claim in Parliament today that Labour had done no injury prevention work amongst motorcyclists was simply another untruth.
“Just last year the Labour Government signed off on a series of new initiatives as part of the ‘Road Safety to 2010 Strategy’.
“They included restrictions on the use of powerful motorcycles by novice riders, changes to the Graduated Driver Licensing System to encourage riders to take up more motorcycle-specific training and the introduction of safer motorcycling practices such as improving the visibility of motorcycle and moped riders to other road users.”

David Parker, Labour MP

[Genestho]

“Just last year the Labour Government signed off on a series of new initiatives as part of the ‘Road Safety to 2010 Strategy’.
:doh::2guns:

Watch buying into this Labour vs Nats, labours 2010 road safety strategy is under scrutiny. big time.

[NighthawkNZ]

][/B]such as improving the visibility of motorcycle and moped riders to other road users.”


As long as if it is NOT me wearing one of them so called HiVis vests

[mashman]

At least we have someone on our side. I still think the whole ACC system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and ACC management should be sacked... there's no other way to win... failure to deale with ACC now will only allow them to get stronger, make stupid decisions and force the population to fund what?

Oh yeah, happy belated 95th birthday Stones... bet ya feel that age this morning... thanks for giving me the opportunity to salvage some of my soul and dignity!!!

[Bren]

Ya beat me to it StoneY, I just read that on the Labour website....

Sent a thank you email to our main man in Parliment Mr Phill Goff....

After all, the Enemy of your Enemy is your friend

there is this piece too


Nick Smith gets rev up over ACC bike hike

Hon. Phil Goff (http://www.labour.org.nz/mps/hon-phil-goff) | Saturday, October 31, 2009 09:12
Slapping huge increases on ACC levies for motorbikes is unjustified, unfair and divisive, Labour leader Phil Goff said today.

Phil Goff was speaking after attending in Manukau the Auckland part of the Ulysses motorcycle club’s National Ride-in Day – a nationwide protest by thousands of motorcycle enthusiasts against the Government’s plans to hike ACC levies for bikers.

“The Government is proposing trebling the levy from $252 to $735 for bikes over 600cc, an increase of just under $500 a year, Phil Goff said.

“That’s the biggest ever increase in ACC levies – and that 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 most accidents involving motorbikes are caused by cars.

“Nick Smith has made it clear he wants to introduce a user pays scheme – but that will play one sector of New Zealanders off against another. He is already working on changing the system so that owners of older cars would pay more than new car owners.

“If ACC was user pays, levies would be charged on sports clubs and schools because of the risk of playing sport, elderly people who have more falls because of frailty would be charged for growing old and push bikes would pay huge levies because of the high cost of their accidents, also often not their own fault.

“Also, according to Statistics New Zealand, men make three times as many claims to ACC each year than women (at 22,500 claims) which following Nick Smith’s thinking means men will be charged much more in levies than women.

“None of that makes sense. Labour will try to force some sense out of the Government and a fair deal for bikers and all New Zealanders.

“Nick Smith keeps saying ACC is an insurance scheme. But 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,” Phil Goff said.

[NighthawkNZ]

I still think the whole ACC system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and ACC management should be sacked...

Just the way they collect the money


and there are better ways where they would raise more than enough.

levy on all traffic infringments if it was 100% it would be 650 million more than the 635 million the current traffic account is at. Leving on fuel, license when a vehicle is sold and small levy on wof and final token levy on the vehicle

it could easily raise 1.2 billion twice as much as the traffic account needs...

finally they have to merge all the accounts back to the way it was suppose to be run. ACC wasn't designed to have them seperate its suppose to abe a full community account...

once this is all over we turn round and say we will see you again in 15 years as it seems that how often this type of thing is raised... and all national if I remember correctly

[wingrider]

Nasty Nick got taken to task by the speaker of the house yesterday after the protest.
on 3 consecutive questions put to him by david parker he got told to stop giving evasive answers to the questions put.

Today he has had to give concessions regarding his statistics.

JK not backin him up either. Can't afford to have the smile removed.

Me thinks he's got some problems. Looks like he startin to get hung out over this and his BULLSHIT has started to cause a stink.

[mashman]

Just the way they collect the money


Nooooooo, it is these people who are building the wall, telling us what the facts and figures are... you'd rather they stayed where, fragmenting accounts as they see fit, pointing the finger at whichever group they feel needs to pay more instead of trying to make the ACC system the envy of the world, run by humans, for humans, not by politicians and their puppets all in it for personal gain...

The only way to get rid of a boys club is to get rid of every member! and start again...

The accounting structure doesn't really matter, primarily as you'll still get your standard bottom line for total money in v's money out (although i agree that there should be 1 account, which there most likely probably is and the "account" that they're talking about is most likely a criteria filter that's been applied for group reporting purposes).

Obviously the funding is there, but where's the extra going? why is it not being used for a rainy day, or for future years claims? there's something very very wrong with these numbers!!!

[R6_kid]

"They included restrictions on the use of powerful motorcycles by novice riders, changes to the Graduated Driver Licensing System to encourage riders to take up more motorcycle-specific training and the introduction of safer motorcycling practices such as improving the visibility of motorcycle and moped riders to other road users.”

Is anyone able to back this up? I'd assume I'm out of the 'novice' bracket after 6 years the only program I'm aware of is the "Ride Forever" website and associated material.

[325rocket]

I still think the whole ACC system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up and ACC management should be sacked...

if you remember Nick Smith did sack the ACC board and put a new one in place just before all this started.
Surely they didn’t have this all planned out when they first got into power … new tui ad maybe

[rainman]

So why can't we fire Nick for being an incompetent twit? Dishonesty offences should be grounds for eviction from parliament, I reckon. Getting it this wrong in a commercial enterprise would certainly make for an interesting next performance review, that's for sure. :2guns:

I s'pose we might end up getting rid of most of them on that basis, though...

[Corse1]

Seems to be a focus on fatalaties rather than injuries. Surely the greater cost to ACC is through wage subsidies and rehabilitation of motorcyclists, hospital care etc.
Does the reduction in fatalities paint a clear relationship to reduction in injured motorcyclists (I would hope so)?

Don't get me wrong. I in no way approve of the hike in ACC fees for all the reasons publicised......F**kers :2guns:
Just another thought..................

While I did not participate in BikeOI, I did write to MP's and put a submission to ACC

[Babelfish]

“
Watch buying into this Labour vs Nats, labours 2010 road safety strategy is under scrutiny. big time.

Abso-bloomin-lutely! While having vocally adept people on our side in a debate is a good thing, I hope nobody gets sucked into that one. At the end of the day we should keep in mind it takes a hundred policy analysts to make up the logic of one decent citizen.


Seems to be a focus on fatalaties rather than injuries. Surely the greater cost to ACC is through wage subsidies and rehabilitation of motorcyclists, hospital care etc.
Does the reduction in fatalities paint a clear relationship to reduction in injured motorcyclists (I would hope so)?

Don't get me wrong. I in no way approve of the hike in ACC fees for all the reasons publicised......F**kers :2guns:
Just another thought..................


:eek5: HELL, careful there!

Actually, I think its more about disproving erroneous statements toward the idea that all other statements could be disproved by association...this is a debate after all, albeit thankfully one sided due to the lack of savvy from Mr Smith.

JK definitely separated himself from all this yesterday and left Mr Smith hanging (as I am sure we'd all like to) so the pressure needs to increase to bust him.

[Ronin]

As long as if it is NOT me wearing one of them so called HiVis vests

Unfortunately we can hardly argue for improved rider education and safety schemes and then not play our part can we? Don't get me wrong, I choose not to wear a hi vis vest but if I have to I will.

All of our efforts need to (and I'm guessing already are) be turned into making ourselves a powerful lobby group so that we can have our fair say in these things.

[mashman]

if you remember Nick Smith did sack the ACC board and put a new one in place just before all this started.
Surely they didn’t have this all planned out when they first got into power … new tui ad maybe

Whew thanks for clearing that up... for a moment there i was afraid he might try to bring in the yes men in the future... oh hang on... damn Slick Nick is pretty, well, slick...

[MacD]

Watch buying into this Labour vs Nats, labours 2010 road safety strategy is under scrutiny. big time.

OK, it's not just a simple Nats vs Labour argument. However one of the first acts of Nick Smith was to replace the ACC Chair and the majority of the board. They are working under National's stated pre-election policy of privatising ACC ("opening it up to competition"). What they didn't tell you was that in order to acheive this they had to change the actuarial basis of ACC's accounts in order to make it attractive to private insurers.

Have a look at the attached graph from the ACC consultation document and notice the sudden 45% increase in the levy per motorist from $287 in 2009/10 to $417 in 2010/11. Nick Smith is right, all motorists are being targeted by this process, motorcyclists are just taking the biggest hit.

[phantom]

For what it's worth I heard a report a couple of weeks ago that said that Nick Smith was very likely to be demoted in the next cabinet reshuffle largely because of his stuff ups over the ACC and carbon tax legislation:2guns:

[Genestho]

OK, it's not just a simple Nats vs Labour argument. However one of the first acts of Nick Smith was to replace the ACC Chair and the majority of the board. They are working under National's stated pre-election policy of privatising ACC ("opening it up to competition"). What they didn't tell you was that in order to acheive this they had to change the actuarial basis of ACC's accounts in order to make it attractive to private insurers.

No I know it's not that simple mate, a fully funded model is an extremely lucrative investment for the rumoured Aussie insurers.
I believe I addressed this mid october in a thread, to watch for the bigger picture, being privatisation.
Have a look at the attached graph from the ACC consultation document and notice the sudden 45% increase in the levy per motorist from $287 in 2009/10 to $417 in 2010/11. Nick Smith is right, all motorists are being targeted by this process, motorcyclists are just taking the biggest hit.

Again, I know all motorists are being targeted. I probably understand more than you know.
My point is, there are some damning reports floating around that indicate the underlying reasons we are here today should be independantly reviewed, analysed and investigated, and it does include the previous govt.

[Jantar]

Unfortunately we can hardly argue for improved rider education and safety schemes and then not play our part can we? Don't get me wrong, I choose not to wear a hi vis vest but if I have to I will.....
I do believe that Hi Vis vests just makes the rider a target. Hell, mine even has a target printed on it. :eek:

[mashman]

Again, I know all motorists are being targeted. I probably understand more than you know.
My point is, there are some damning reports floating around that indicate the underlying reasons we are here today should be independantly reviewed, analysed and investigated, and it does include the previous govt.

Can you give us any more? As i understand it first stage of privatisation was under Labour, 10 years ago? (i wasn't here) They didn't have a road map for the sale of ACC to the insurance world did they? Or a signed contract to provide services in X amount of years?

[Pixie]

Nasty Nick got taken to task by the speaker of the house yesterday after the protest.
on 3 consecutive questions put to him by david parker he got told to stop giving evasive answers to the questions put.

Today he has had to give concessions regarding his statistics.

JK not backin him up either. Can't afford to have the smile removed.

Me thinks he's got some problems. Looks like he startin to get hung out over this and his BULLSHIT has started to cause a stink.

Eeehxcellent

[NordieBoy]

Dishonesty offences should be grounds for eviction from parliament, I reckon.

Instead of a requirement?

[Pixie]

OK, it's not just a simple Nats vs Labour argument. However one of the first acts of Nick Smith was to replace the ACC Chair and the majority of the board. They are working under National's stated pre-election policy of privatising ACC ("opening it up to competition"). What they didn't tell you was that in order to acheive this they had to change the actuarial basis of ACC's accounts in order to make it attractive to private insurers.

Have a look at the attached graph from the ACC consultation document and notice the sudden 45% increase in the levy per motorist from $287 in 2009/10 to $417 in 2010/11. Nick Smith is right, all motorists are being targeted by this process, motorcyclists are just taking the biggest hit.

I encourage you all to send this graph to all your non biker contacts