candor
26th November 2009, 16:29
Presented at Parliament to the ACC bill today and as things ran late heard most other subs.
One from bikers but didn't catch org name. Covered expected stuff. Lots from people upset over cuts to deaafness compo.
Unions basicly said this is a dismantling of the ACC scheme with no right to sue being returned. A lawyer said thats not right as you can sue if not covered.
More use of risk rating etc was denounced widely as likely to lead to disputes and legal wrangles.
It was hotly disputed by presenters, Nats, Labour whether the scheme was in as much poo as the board says, but ultimately noone appeared trained to interpret the 400 page review of accounts. Much posturing but sense in room accorded with my view that scheme is in deep crap... due to increased road crash injury + increased cost of medical care in hi tech era.
A funny moment when one group suggested increased migration / population could foot the bill - but then another pointe out more people equals more accidents. Business NZ said its no support to privatise and wants ongoing scheme but obviously it needs a major renovation job to be sustainable - they began waffling on some possible plans but it was business jargon and it lost me.
Labour tossed the idea round of making it their policy not to fully fund but to pay as you go, but concerns were generally aired that this overburdens future generations. It kept asking submitters and the Nats if they knew how the cost of our scheme compares to Oz which has private cover options.
Several submissions underscored that cuts in cover etc are short sighted and the real issue is not enough injury / claim prevention. Systemic weaknesses were strongly highlighted such as ACC - despite having statutory rsponsibilities to reduce injury - being kept out of injury prevention by other teritorial depts, no research into epidemiology etc
General impression is that the committee has little idea of the cost increase drivers or solutions and is reserving judgment till the ACC stocktake review is complete early next year.
The world may be the oyster for any with bright ideas. We suggested cutting motor vehicles loose from the ACC scheme to allow the shift fully or partly to 3rd party - which was the most supported option in safer journeys out of 60 so far as 2000 submitters or survey participants were concerned.
3rd party instead of ACC would see bikers with good safety records pay minimal premiums and a**holes in cars who squish them paying the most if they've a bad record. I like it - it is both free market and it encourages better safety culture (on global evidence) + has the advantage of forcing freaks off the road, since noone but ACC would have ever been dumb enough to insure them.
Like the frequent drug driving crasher who killed my mum - I'd love to see his 3rd party premiums based on his crash , killing and traffic offence record.
Driving without 3rd party is captured on roadside cams and severely sanctioned overseas - but alas our govt seems determined to reward obvious car chainsaw massacres with large lump sums.... yay I killed someone drunk driving but hey its all good because I get 30g for a numb leg - Yaaaaay. Sux.
One from bikers but didn't catch org name. Covered expected stuff. Lots from people upset over cuts to deaafness compo.
Unions basicly said this is a dismantling of the ACC scheme with no right to sue being returned. A lawyer said thats not right as you can sue if not covered.
More use of risk rating etc was denounced widely as likely to lead to disputes and legal wrangles.
It was hotly disputed by presenters, Nats, Labour whether the scheme was in as much poo as the board says, but ultimately noone appeared trained to interpret the 400 page review of accounts. Much posturing but sense in room accorded with my view that scheme is in deep crap... due to increased road crash injury + increased cost of medical care in hi tech era.
A funny moment when one group suggested increased migration / population could foot the bill - but then another pointe out more people equals more accidents. Business NZ said its no support to privatise and wants ongoing scheme but obviously it needs a major renovation job to be sustainable - they began waffling on some possible plans but it was business jargon and it lost me.
Labour tossed the idea round of making it their policy not to fully fund but to pay as you go, but concerns were generally aired that this overburdens future generations. It kept asking submitters and the Nats if they knew how the cost of our scheme compares to Oz which has private cover options.
Several submissions underscored that cuts in cover etc are short sighted and the real issue is not enough injury / claim prevention. Systemic weaknesses were strongly highlighted such as ACC - despite having statutory rsponsibilities to reduce injury - being kept out of injury prevention by other teritorial depts, no research into epidemiology etc
General impression is that the committee has little idea of the cost increase drivers or solutions and is reserving judgment till the ACC stocktake review is complete early next year.
The world may be the oyster for any with bright ideas. We suggested cutting motor vehicles loose from the ACC scheme to allow the shift fully or partly to 3rd party - which was the most supported option in safer journeys out of 60 so far as 2000 submitters or survey participants were concerned.
3rd party instead of ACC would see bikers with good safety records pay minimal premiums and a**holes in cars who squish them paying the most if they've a bad record. I like it - it is both free market and it encourages better safety culture (on global evidence) + has the advantage of forcing freaks off the road, since noone but ACC would have ever been dumb enough to insure them.
Like the frequent drug driving crasher who killed my mum - I'd love to see his 3rd party premiums based on his crash , killing and traffic offence record.
Driving without 3rd party is captured on roadside cams and severely sanctioned overseas - but alas our govt seems determined to reward obvious car chainsaw massacres with large lump sums.... yay I killed someone drunk driving but hey its all good because I get 30g for a numb leg - Yaaaaay. Sux.