There are two issues

[FastBikeGear]

There are just two debates that should be taking place involving all New Zealander's right now around ACC. The ACC and government should be stimulating informed debate/discusssions and seeking submissions on these two issues.


Are New Zealanders willing to abandon the no-fault principals?


The sub issues here are, if we do this do we do it right across the board or just for a subset of specific risk groups?
If we do it right across the board, do we do it all at once or do we target the easiest groups first. There are a number of other risk groups that require licenses or permits and this makes them the easiest next targets, e.g hunters, fishermen, Milford track walkers, etc. maybe someone can add to this list?
If we do, should we re-introduce the right to sue?


If we do what is a fair risk premium for each group to pay for this insurance?

[NONONO]

Nope, wrong premise.
Only one issue.
ACC or private litigation.
GOT THE FUCKING PICTURE YET?

[PhantasmNZ]

I think we need to be careful with the "No Fault" thing...

It's great to use to get public onside, and as a carefully considered throw in comment in a speech - but the reality is the no-fault thing doesn't actually really relate to risk based levy settings - it related to the accident itself.

It's the upholding of the "no fault" principle that means the ACC doesn't give a toss that car drivers are causing 40% of the claims. ACC aren't allowed to care about this because there CAUSE of the ACCIDENT is irrelevant.

The circumstances of the person covered (whether that is what job they have, or what type of vehicle they drive) however is important in the risk-based levy setting. It's this that says - "you are more likely to cost me money - so you will have a higher levy - "No Fault" means I don't care WHY you are likely to cost me more"

Herein lies the root of why the system is unfair - the government are sticking to "No Fault" which means that the person causing the accident gets away with no financial penalty, wehereas - because we're now going overboard with risk based levies (that should have never happened in the first place" - now the VICTIMS get pinged with the financial penalty.

The government aren't really breaking the "no fault" principle by saying it the "bikers fault they choose to rise on 2 wheels" - but the risk based levies - especially when led out of control and targeted against a minority is where the problem lies.

Add to that the arbitrary decisions about which stats to use to set worst case statistical splits of engine size, and alleged increase in accidents and you have the whole gory story

[NONONO]

I think we need to be careful with the "No Fault" thing...

It's great to use to get public onside, and as a carefully considered throw in comment in a speech - but the reality is the no-fault thing doesn't actually really relate to risk based levy settings - it related to the accident itself.

It's the upholding of the "no fault" principle that means the ACC doesn't give a toss that car drivers are causing 40% of the claims. ACC aren't allowed to care about this because there CAUSE of the ACCIDENT is irrelevant.

The circumstances of the person covered (whether that is what job they have, or what type of vehicle they drive) however is important in the risk-based levy setting. It's this that says - "you are more likely to cost me money - so you will have a higher levy - "No Fault" means I don't care WHY you are likely to cost me more"

Herein lies the root of why the system is unfair - the government are sticking to "No Fault" which means that the person causing the accident gets away with no financial penalty, wehereas - because we're now going overboard with risk based levies (that should have never happened in the first place" - now the VICTIMS get pinged with the financial penalty.

The government aren't really breaking the "no fault" principle by saying it the "bikers fault they choose to rise on 2 wheels" - but the risk based levies - especially when led out of control and targeted against a minority is where the problem lies.

Add to that the arbitrary decisions about which stats to use to set worst case statistical splits of engine size, and alleged increase in accidents and you have the whole gory story

Reasons not to have a few pints before posting!

[PhantasmNZ]

Reasons not to have a few pints before posting!

Sorry - I can't even hide behind alcohol for that one I was a bit distracted though - but I see what u mean - doh

My point was (sorry I didn't really get to it LOL)

"no fault" is not the same principle as "risk-based levies" - but it's easy to confuse the issues...

[p.dath]

When I talk to people I like to emphasise the word "compensation". That is certain how Owen Woodhouse referred to it.

ACC was simply designed to compensate people for medical costs and a loss of earnings related to an accident.

Own Woodhouse also described it as a community cost, not an individual or sector of the communities cost.

That's about it. Quite simple really.

[FastBikeGear]

Sorry - I can't even hide behind alcohol for that one I was a bit distracted though - but I see what u mean - doh

My point was (sorry I didn't really get to it LOL)

"no fault" is not the same principle as "risk-based levies" - but it's easy to confuse the issues...

I understand your point totally. But once you get rid of concept that the person who casues the accident is not at fault, you open the opportunity for litigation. Once you open the opportunity for litigation then people must seek insurance to cover themselves for litigation and this insurance is risk-based!

I think this is why everyone in these discussions has broadened the meaning of 'no-fault'

[mashman]

I think this is why everyone in these discussions has braodened the meaning of 'no-fault'

Most of the comments i have read seem to be along the lines of, yes we want a "no-fault" system, but they have concerns over covering certain groups of people, gang members, bludgers, those who lose a leg in a police shooting etc... also being covered. Whilst what they're saying does kind of negate the idea behind "no-fault", you still have to assess a claim!

Unfortunately there are bludgers everywhere. There will be those who want "more". Those that aren't just happy to get fixed up and back to work. People will scam the system, there's just no getting around it. Now there's a scheme in the UK, you can get paid to rat out someone de-frauding the state... pretty ugly idea, but the principle is sound.

If you monitor ACC payouts properly, nay, police them properly, i can't see why the system couldn't work! even for the future!

But that's just my take

[Ixion]

When I talk to people I like to emphasise the word "compensation". That is certain how Owen Woodhouse referred to it.

ACC was simply designed to compensate people for medical costs and a loss of earnings related to an accident.

Own Woodhouse also described it as a community cost, not an individual or sector of the communities cost.

That's about it. Quite simple really.

Not quite. It was ALSO intended to compensate for losing the right to sue. A very valuable right, which we gave up .

[short-circuit]

There are just two debates that should be taking place involving all New Zealander's right now around ACC. The ACC and government should be stimulating informed debate/discusssions and seeking submissions on these two issues.


Are New Zealanders willing to abandon the no-fault principals?


The sub issues here are, if we do this do we do it right across the board or just for a subset of specific risk groups?
If we do it right across the board, do we do it all at once or do we target the easiest groups first. There are a number of other risk groups that require licenses or permits and this makes them the easiest next targets, e.g hunters, fishermen, Milford track walkers, etc. maybe someone can add to this list?
If we do, should we re-introduce the right to sue?


If we do what is a fair risk premium for each group to pay for this insurance?


I wouldn't even entertain issue 2.

[ready4whatever]

I dont know what the magic bullet is for this beast. seems to be what groups should cop the costs and who shouldnt. seems that bikers are getting picked on when really everybody should contribute to acc if they use it. maybe sports players should pay a levy, even if its 10 bucks a year. ?
nobody really knows until the books are wide open, for all we know acc is fine