Bikers able to live with ACC rise?

[Rayray401]

what? how? when?, was watching prime news just then and the guy says:"bikers say they can live with the ACC levy increase, but warn the govt not to try something like that again"?????? what???? since when were we ok with any increase??:angry2:

[spookytooth]

Yea its bullshit and just the game they were playing from the start.Say its going up to 700 odd then say oh we feel sorry for you its only going to be around 600 now run along and say how great we are

[CrAzYMoFo]

its a load of crap this is what they planned to do in the first place

they say they are going 2 raise it by like $500 then they 'appear to back down'
and say that the biker campaign has won

saying that we only get about a $100 increase

we would have protested over having a $100 increase but this is made to make people think we have won and to try take the air out of the anti acc rise campaign

the rise is still ridiculous

i for one still wont be paying for acc when i need to renew my current rego cause its still not acceptable

[Squiggles]

I could afford this level of increase, as tight as things might get, but that doesnt mean ill accept any increase...

[CrAzYMoFo]

sure as hell need another protest ride over this to show that we arnt going to take there BULL SH*T

[Rayray401]

I could afford this level of increase, as tight as things might get, but that doesnt mean ill accept any increase...

I agree, I can afford this, but I wouldnt accept any increase at all..

[AllanB]

It will cost me a extra $174 a year - or 47 cents per day.

I can live with that. :niceone: The family will no longer be affected.

It is the next review we need to concentrate on now.

The argument that motorcycles should not pay more than cars was always and will always be a lost cause - for no other reason that the worlds perception, rightly or wrongly, is that motorcycles are a more 'dangerous' from of transport.

Lets see if any Labour MP's still think the increase is unjustified. This will be interesting.

[Quasievil]

yup I can live with it and Im now officially over it, fight over moving on :msn-wink:

[CrAzYMoFo]

acc is a no blame no fult system that means we should all pay the same (cars, bikes,trucks) and if you go buy how it was initially meant to be set up then u shouldent even have 2 pay per car or bike the original concept was to have it marked on your licence

why the hell should we pay for what is practicaly "heath insurance" for every mode of transport we own when we can only use one at a time its like paying for the same thing (in my case) three times how is that fair?

also just because some can afford this increase dont mean all can

frankly if there not going to make ac run as its ment to i want the rite to sue

i dont like the idea of everyone sueing one another but if they arnt going to run the system like its ment to be they wont be getting there cash outa me thats for sure

[nothingflash]

i for one still wont be paying for acc when i need to renew my current rego cause its still not acceptable

Just out of curiosity - how does that work?

[Ixion]

It will cost me a extra $174 a year - or 47 cents per day.

I can live with that. :niceone: The family will no longer be affected.

It is the next review we need to concentrate on now.

..

Just so. Although still *unfair*, and large enough to be a burden, a rise of $174 a year (and about $75 for <600cc) should not see any mass sales of bikes, or great sacrifices needing to be made. Put the sum in context - it's one less beer a fortnight, roughly. I doubt that many riders could justly claim that their budgets were that tight.

It's still not fair. And the mechanism whereby ACC can just dream up a crushing figure is wrong.

We need to fight on. But the focus now needs to be solely on the Big Hairy Audacious Demand - the one we set at the very start - abolition of the separate classification.

Complaining about the amount of dollars now will quickly see the public turn against us, as a bunch of moaners.

In military terms, we were invaded by an enemy in apparently overwhelming strength. We have beaten back the attack, at a cost , but *motorcycling* (as opposed to our wallets) is safe. Now we need to counterattack.

[shrub]

but I don't want to unless I get something for my money. I've been riding 30 years now and had 2 ACC claims - both over 25 years ago.

I know that motorcycling can be (relatively) safe with the right skills, gear and attitude. I would happily cough the extra if ACC were to turn around and say "Mr Motorbicyclist, please come and tell us how we can make things safer for you".

And maybe they are - Good Uncle Nick has said he'll take $30.00 off all of us to spend on something like the Victorian model. I have read the Victorian "Strategic Action Plan for Powered Two Wheelers", and it's surprisingly good. My concern is that $30.00 isn't enough, and instead of involving US in the decision making process (you and I know a fair chunk about motorcycle safety) they'll have well meaning doctors, road designers and cops making all the decisions.

And that's what any future action needs to focus on. They're not going to back down any more - they have made their planned concession. We need to campaign, and campaign HARD on making our lives safer.

[NighthawkNZ]

Complaining about the amount of dollars now will quickly see the public turn against us, as a bunch of moaners.


and this was there plan right from the begining...

I can tell you now that none of the submissions with ideas and a better and fairer collection were ever read... they simpley don't care...

[AllanB]

acc is a no blame no fult system that means we should all pay the same (cars, bikes,trucks) and if you go buy how it was initially meant to be set up then u shouldent even have 2 pay per car or bike the original concept was to have it marked on your licence



You are talking about a total review of the system here.

As far as the why pay twice, thrice, etc for multi vehicles - this argument needs ALL road users behind it - motorcycles will be ignored totally in this argument and should not be singled out for special treatment, if applied it should be to all road users (excluding businesses of course :nono:).

It would be interesting to see just how much higher ACC on a vehicle would be if they changed it so it was charged to a licensed user instead of a vehicle. I imagine it would be substantial.
IMO the best we could hope for is a multi vehicle discount. Anything would be better than the current system which sees me paying for vehicles sitting in the shed.

[Ixion]

Of course. A very shrewd politician is Mr Smith. I wonder if Mr Judge really is the extraordinarily BAD politician he appears to be? Or if Mr Smith is even cleverer- as clever perhaps as fox who's swallowed a cartload of weasel pills.

So, we don't complain about the dollars. We complain about the PRINCIPLE. That's not a U turn, we've said that all along. The whole campaign was "Who's next ?" . Not "I don't want to pay more" Was it not?

[Ixion]

You are talking about a total review of the system here.

As far as the why pay twice, thrice, etc for multi vehicles - this argument needs ALL road users behind it - motorcycles will be ignored totally in this argument and should not be singled out for special treatment, if applied it should be to all road users (excluding businesses of course :nono:).

It would be interesting to see just how much higher ACC on a vehicle would be if they changed it so it was charged to a licensed user instead of a vehicle. I imagine it would be substantial.
IMO the best we could hope for is a multi vehicle discount. Anything would be better than the current system which sees me paying for vehicles sitting in the shed.
Even Mr Judge has signalled that he sees the multi vehicle issue as unfair. And I imagine that most road users would either support or not much care about a change to a method that eliminated that anomaly.

[Pussy]

As mentioned in another post... you came across well on the TV1 news, Les. Made it clear the rise is unfair (multiple vehicle ownership etc)
Peter Mac looked to me to be almost kissing Smith's arse... disappointing

[AllanB]

It is an interesting one as one of ACC's big pushes has been the 'fairness' of charges, unfortunately back up by some suspect statistics.

Lets hope they continue to be concerned about being 'fair' and act promptly on a multi-vehicle discount.

I feel another letter writing session coming on :niceone: I do like this free post to Parliament.

[NONONO]

Of course. A very shrewd politician is Mr Smith. I wonder if Mr Judge really is the extraordinarily BAD politician he appears to be? Or if Mr Smith is even cleverer- as clever perhaps as fox who's swallowed a cartload of weasel pills.

So, we don't complain about the dollars. We complain about the PRINCIPLE. That's not a U turn, we've said that all along. The whole campaign was "Who's next ?" . Not "I don't want to pay more" Was it not?
What happened to the "parity argument; the not one cent more than other road users?
Not sure what you are saying here Ixion, we stop the protests and get into party politics? we accept the hike? We act all grateful for a slap rather than a kick?

[CrAzYMoFo]

Just out of curiosity - how does that work?

ill pay em what the rego costs and not the acc not that hard

ill mail it to them dont expect them to send me a rego card but hey i paied

[bogan]

Just so. Although still *unfair*, and large enough to be a burden, a rise of $174 a year (and about $75 for <600cc) should not see any mass sales of bikes, or great sacrifices needing to be made. Put the sum in context - it's one less beer a fortnight, roughly. I doubt that many riders could justly claim that their budgets were that tight.

The increase is one beer per fornight, and next year itll be another... but the total is unaffordable for some people, $520 for big bikes, and thats 2 beers per week, or a half doz if you go to a supermarket. To me it's the difference between having one and two bikes on the road, as well as a van, to others they may now only be able to afford the van (few years ago that would have been me)

[CrAzYMoFo]

also im not worried about cost just principal

give up your rites one at a time and one day soon you will find you have none left

[scissorhands]

I think they are on the back foot, and quite nervous re a mass dislike for this current national party administration does not take root in the voters mind. Hence the nervous quick decisions from ACC.


We should AT LEAST drive it a bit deeper, before we relax for now. Just so they dont try another swifty too quickly

[spookytooth]

ill pay em what the rego costs and not the acc not that hard

ill mail it to them dont expect them to send me a rego card but hey i paied
Actualy not a bad idea the rego is payed :)

[CrAzYMoFo]

Actualy not a bad idea the rego is payed :)

every one should do this would make em backtrack fast lol

[BMWST?]

I think they are on the back foot, and quite nervous re a mass dislike for this current national party administration does not take root in the voters mind. Hence the nervous quick decisions from ACC.


We should AT LEAST drive it a bit deeper, before we relax for now. Just so they dont try another swifty too quickly

agreed we need to tell them to stick ANY increase we already pay more...

[Ixion]

What happened to the "parity argument; the not one cent more than other road users?
Not sure what you are saying here Ixion, we stop the protests and get into party politics? we accept the hike? We act all grateful for a slap rather than a kick?

The parity argument IS principle. Of course we "accept" the hike - there is no way , short of armed revolution, that you can prevent it .You don't have to pay it of course, that option is as valid as ever, just the numbers have changed a bit. Accepting that is no reason not to continue the campaign for a change to the principles.

Did you ever expect ,seriously , that the arguments on principles would be won in a few weeks? Seriously ? From the start, this was stated to be a campaign of years. November 2011. Remember ?

And we are already in party politics . We have accepted support from Labour and the Greens.

We are (and should be) grateful to the Minister for over-ruling Mr Judge. he didn't have to. Accepting that does not mean that we have to agree with him on everything, or on anything.

I am grateful that the increase is $174 , not $500. And I'm grateful that the extra worker levy I pay will be about $250, not $1000. Doesn't mean I'm happy with either of them.

Analogy : you (hypothetical you) fall off your bike (Stop doing that, BTW). Are you not grateful that you were wearing good gear, and that your injuries are a sprained ankle and some bruising? Instead of a smashed in head and a broken back? I know I would be. Doesn't mean that I'd be happy about it though, still hurts. And doesn't mean that I'd think falling off was a good idea.

[mashman]

Game plan or not, there's still the perception of risk being aportioned and i don't like that at all. I still want to see the data. Didn't someone mention that they are going to be introducing a new software(does that mean the current software is broken~)? Policy is being made using the data they have at their disposal and if it's as dodgy we think, then there's a lot of people getting a free ride (read health providers). If you can't cut costs legitimately the only outcome will be further levy hikes.

I'll certainly keep protesting, if only to keep them on their toes, but i won't be happy until the whole system has undergone a review... i want a breakdown of who got paid how much over a period of time and for what treatment... until then i'll not be happy with ANY levy increase... it's our fuckin money!

[kb_SF1]

Applalled at Peter Mac's comment, what's next? another hit next year, and the year after and by 2012 Judge & co have got the $700 they were looking for.
What happened to the process, second representatives meeting, consultation, submissions to the select committee, recommenations to cabinet in February? :Oi:
Looks like the heat got too much and someone said 'shut it down', the media haven't asked the hard question just reported Smith trying to be the good guy.

Agree with Les, attack the principal, acc is not broke, higher than forecast investment returns of $600m and investment portfolio rose to $13.56b according to the Treasury, someone is still telling porkies.

The education programme has been effective so far, it needs to continue.

[peasea]

The parity argument IS principle. Of course we "accept" the hike - there is no way , short of armed revolution, that you can prevent it.

Sooooo, where/when is the armed revolution kicking off?

I've got some kitchen knives and a baseball bat.

[NONONO]

Sorry Ixion, Bollocks.
No I never thought that the argument would be won in a few weeks, nor did I think that we could win in the long run by accepting gradual increases to a pre determined level set before this bullshit started.
Did YOU seriously expect that the original figure was what they expected to get through?
Every time we accept that our principles are dilutable we achieve a loss. This puts us in the position of trying to win back our losses as the only available strategy. Any gambler will tell you that's a no win situation.
"WE" have ACCEPTED support from no one. Parties have supported us.
And I am grateful to no bastard for charging me more than is fair.
I have ridden 30 odd years and made no claims on ACC. I am willing to pay my share in the interests of No Fault cover.
I WILL NOT accept a slap as better than a kick.

[Ixion]

We'll all be right behind you !

[NONONO]

I'm beginning to doubt that

[CrAzYMoFo]

Sorry Ixion, Bollocks.
No I never thought that the argument would be won in a few weeks, nor did I think that we could win in the long run by accepting gradual increases to a pre determined level set before this bullshit started.
Did YOU seriously expect that the original figure was what they expected to get through?
Every time we accept that our principles are dilutable we achieve a loss. This puts us in the position of trying to win back our losses as the only available strategy. Any gambler will tell you that's a no win situation.
"WE" have ACCEPTED support from no one. Parties have supported us.
And I am grateful to no bastard for charging me more than is fair.
I have ridden 30 odd years and made no claims on ACC. I am willing to pay my share in the interests of No Fault cover.
I WILL NOT accept a slap as better than a kick.


+1 its like saying i only beat him half to death... i could have beat him all the way. as a defence in court

[taff1954]

The parity argument IS principle. Of course we "accept" the hike - there is no way , short of armed revolution, that you can prevent it .You don't have to pay it of course, that option is as valid as ever, just the numbers have changed a bit. Accepting that is no reason not to continue the campaign for a change to the principles.

Hear, hear. The fact remains that a move toward risk assessment exists, as does the threat of (at least partial) privatisation of ACC. Those are two principles we should be more than willing to continue the fight for.

[Ixion]

The comment was actually intended for Mr Peasea. But we will all be bhind anyone who can find a way to "not accept" the rises. That will be the sum on the letters that the rego people send you. how will you "not accept " it? You can not pay, of course, and ride unregistered. As many of us have done for years. But that is hardly "not accepting" them. Will you voluntarily pay the higher amount demanded by Mr Judge?

[CrAzYMoFo]

The comment was actually intended for Mr Peasea. But we will all be bhind anyone who can find a way to "not accept" the rises. That will be the sum on the letters that the rego people send you. how will you "not accept " it? You can not pay, of course, and ride unregistered. As many of us have done for years. But that is hardly "not accepting" them. Will you voluntarily pay the higher amount demanded by Mr Judge?


nope do what i sudgested in another post send them a letter paying the rego and admin fees..

just dont pay the acc part

send it 2 them by mail (dont expect a rego card back)

and hey u paied rego not acc lol

[knuckles24]

as the president of b.r.o.n.z where do you go from here.

[wingrider]

Just so. Although still *unfair*, and large enough to be a burden, a rise of $174 a year (and about $75 for <600cc) should not see any mass sales of bikes, or great sacrifices needing to be made. Put the sum in context - it's one less beer a fortnight, roughly. I doubt that many riders could justly claim that their budgets were that tight.

It's still not fair. And the mechanism whereby ACC can just dream up a crushing figure is wrong.

We need to fight on. But the focus now needs to be solely on the Big Hairy Audacious Demand - the one we set at the very start - abolition of the separate classification.

Complaining about the amount of dollars now will quickly see the public turn against us, as a bunch of moaners.

In military terms, we were invaded by an enemy in apparently overwhelming strength. We have beaten back the attack, at a cost , but *motorcycling* (as opposed to our wallets) is safe. Now we need to counterattack.

Sorry Les but I know of a lot of riders who are scratchin their heads as to how they are going to fund the increase when on a fixed income with no chance of it increasing. They gave up drinkin quite a while ago.
As to the rest of your quote I agree.

A massive campaign getting Joe Q educated as to the REAL intent of national and the implications it will have on everyone.

Change the focus from money( size of the original hikes) to quality of life and affordability with fairness and equity.

ACC was to ensure that we would ALL be treated fairly in the event of "accidental injury".

We need to support those such as them that will now not receive any help if the suffer from hearing loss, are raped or sexually assulted etc.

Its the proposed cuts in services that are of more concern as they could affect us as bikers as well as our children and grandchildren.

We need to be shouting BULLSHIT at these proposals just as loud as we shouted it at our levy increase.

[Headbanger]

I'd like to see a mass boycott, If we are worth our words then we should all be refusing to re-register our bikes.

Its up to us to allow them to do only what we decide is acceptable, They can get fucked. If we don't pay, they don't have our money, and it is all our money those cunts are fucking with.

And yeah, My budget is that tight, The beer fridge is empty. I'm sick of taxes.

[NONONO]

The comment was actually intended for Mr Peasea. But we will all be bhind anyone who can find a way to "not accept" the rises. That will be the sum on the letters that the rego people send you. how will you "not accept " it? You can not pay, of course, and ride unregistered. As many of us have done for years. But that is hardly "not accepting" them. Will you voluntarily pay the higher amount demanded by Mr Judge?

Ixion.
As someone who has admired what you have done so far and watched you stand up to Smith on more than one occasion, I have no wish to get into a slanging match.
In answer to your question 'how do we not accept"? Well, we keep doing what we have been doing.
We refuse to accept the Hike, we protest it at every opportunity, we demand parity, we do whatever we can. We organize protests, we Bikeoi, we write to the papers. We say "Why us and Who's next?"
We can't accept this rise, not now, not ever, or we are the wedge which Smith uses to keep the door open for privatization

[Jizah]

Someone needs to setup a poll, see just how many people still want to carry on the protest.

[Str8 Jacket]

Someone needs to setup a poll

You're fucken kidding me, right?!

[Jizah]

You're fucken kidding me, right?!

By your reaction I am guessing I missed something. Which isn't surprising, I've only had about 2 minutes of total exposure to today's news.

[Headbanger]

Fuck the poll, This isn't over just because Les can personally afford the increase.

Fuck me, I'm sure a heap of people could afford the original increase but they still came along and showed their support for the cause.

Why?, Cause its BULLSHIT.

[Jizah]

Fuck the poll, This isn't over just because Les can personally afford the increase.

Fuck me, I'm sure a heap of people could afford the original increase but they still came along and showed their support for the cause.

Why?, Cause its BULLSHIT.

I don't like it either, but honestly I am not going to partake in any more protests if 95% of motorcyclists are against it. This is why I want a poll.

[Str8 Jacket]

By your reaction I am guessing I missed something. Which isn't surprising, I've only had about 2 minutes of total exposure to today's news.

Sorry mate, there goes my sarcasm button again.

Though I expect to see an abundance on polls starting on KB anytime....... now......

[glegge]

After reading talk about not paying rego it got me thinking, what about all the people that already dont pay there rego on there car/var/bike/trailer.. whatever.. lets face it - plenty of it goes on.

[Ixion]

Ixion.
As someone who has admired what you have done so far and watched you stand up to Smith on more than one occasion, I have no wish to get into a slanging match.
In answer to your question 'how do we not accept"? Well, we keep doing what we have been doing.
We refuse to accept the Hike, we protest it at every opportunity, we demand parity, we do whatever we can. We organize protests, we Bikeoi, we write to the papers. We say "Why us and Who's next?"
We can't accept this rise, not now, not ever, or we are the wedge which Smith uses to keep the door open for privatization

Of course we do. No-one ,as far as I am aware has suggested otherwise. But all these things are protests about principles. Not about the number of dollars.

The original proposals had the capability to destroy motorcycling. These do not. And the public perceived the original numbers as preposterous. They will not see the new ones as such. There is no political mileage left in saying simply "The levy rates are too high, we should not be expected to pay that big a sum". We must realign our protests to the principles. "These increases are wrong, not because we object to paying extra (though of course we are not happy about that); but because ACC is not supposed to work that way". This is realpolitik. We cannot win any victory at all if the mass of the public oppose us. There are 4 million of them, at best 100000 of us (and only maybe one tenth of that number who will actually fight).

Mr Smith did not reduce the levy (even by the amount he did) because of any qualms of conscience. He did it because he perceived that the public supported us, and wanted to eliminate that support. He is a very shrewd politician. I am sure he is right. Continuing to complain about dollars will alienate our support. Focusing on principle - with reference to the fact that we STILL pay more than others, and that motorcycles are the ONLY group thus singled out, as examples of why the system is wrong, will at least sustain it . maybe increase it.

Mr Smith cut back the increases because he hopes we will continue to complain about them. And his judgement and research shows that will antagonise the public. By doing so we would be playing right into his hands. He doesn't care about a few thousand bitching bikers. He does care about bikers telling a tale that the public listen to.

He is a very cunning man. We must be more cunning , not just louder.

Woodhouse, not dollars.

[Ixion]

Someone needs to setup a poll, see just how many people still want to carry on the protest.

Most everyone wants to carry on the protest. But what are you protesting ABOUT?

Are you protesting that you, personally, shouldn't have to pay any increase. And if that were so, who cares what the government does to ACC?

Or are you protesting because you want to protect the Woodhouse based ACC scheme from incursions ?

Woodhouse ? or dollars?

[zahria]

I have to admit I was surprised to see our Reps on TV saying that the reduced increases are ok, given the hype and rhetoric that is in various threads on this site.
Surely they were not speaking for us as a whole?
Because I am still furious at the whole issue.
This should still be an issue to be protested.
Has BRONZ given up the fight?

The Issue has not gone away. The ACC restructuring and Levie system is deviating from the principles on which it was founded.
Why the bloody hell are we paying more for a service which is delivering less?

[nothingflash]

nope do what i sudgested in another post send them a letter paying the rego and admin fees..

just dont pay the acc part

send it 2 them by mail (dont expect a rego card back)

and hey u paied rego not acc lol

I'd imagine it's not paid until the cheque is presented - given your account wouldn't be debited until then - so you haven't actually bought anything by definition.

If the unthinkable did happen I doubt my insurance company would agree with me that because I sent a cheque (even though it was never presented) I paid for the rego despite not receiving a rego card back. I also doubt a cop would be terribly sympathetic either.

Don't get me wrong, I am as angered as the next person but I don't see how making my personal condition worse (riding without a registration) will help.

[NighthawkNZ]

Or are you protesting because you want to protect the Woodhouse based ACC scheme from incursions ?



For me it has always been this...

I want ACC to go back to the way it was suppose to be run the way it was setup... the single account, and a fairer collection model

[zahria]

He is a very cunning man. We must be more cunning , not just louder.

Woodhouse, not dollars.[/QUOTE]

Thats better.

[Squiggles]

I have to admit I was surprised to see our Reps on TV saying that the reduced increases are ok

Can you tell me what report they said it was "ok" on, or is that an interpretation of what was presented, perhaps a misinterpretation? :msn-wink:

[Elysium]

I will say that I can manage the amount put by Nick Smith finacialy. Though I'm still against paying any increase but at least I can somewhat afford to run my only form of transport at the moment.

[davereid]

Mr Smith cut back the increases because he hopes we will continue to complain about them. And his judgement and research shows that will antagonise the public. By doing so we would be playing right into his hands.

Thanks for your hard work Ix, we all owe you a vote of thanks.

Here, you have hit the nail on the head.

Bikers now have to seen as supporting other groups campaigning for fairer ACC rather than carrying our own torch.

This has to be led by Unions, the deaf, victims of crime and sexual assault, normal kiwis seeing the damage being done to ACC, not just by us.

[FastBikeGear]

G Didn't someone mention that they are going to be introducing a new software(does that mean the current software is broken~)?

There was a brief article covering their RFP in Resller News about 5 weeks ago. The new software is to provide them with "standard Insurance" functions such as no claim bonuses and excesses, etc. The decision to spend millions purchasing and integrating this software into their existing system indicates that the decision to become an insurance company was made some time ago.

[mashman]

Woodhouse ? or dollars?

It's a trap either way, because Woodhouse requires $$$. We need a plan C, but we can't chose a plan C blindly. Unfortunately we don't have the ACC accounts or access to the data on which to base a logically thought out "policy" for plan C to be effective.

The down side is that we'll argue and bicker, but the world will turn, levies will be collected, protests will continue blah blah...

It's a political minefield... no disrespect to those who are advocating not paying for rego, or trying not to pay the ACC part, but you do realise that if enough people do that then you're screwing over some old lady that needs her hip replaced!!! and thus opening the door for more levy hikes!!! WTF do you think not paying your ACC levy was going to prove?

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFO ON WHICH TO BASE A SOUND PROPOSAL, KNEE JERK REACTIONS WILL DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD FOR EVERYONE!

Take a look at the reasoning behind the levy hikes... seriously, it's all based on information from a database and some fucking noddy probability calculations. This is where the ACC and Ministers get their figures from to justify the hikes.

Cry all you like, but until you can prove that the figures are shit and have the population understand the ramifications of shit figures (which they're seeing now, but not understanding) the world will turn, your tears will fall, your voice will be unheard and your pockets will get lighter, just because some twat added an extra 0 to the number of claims!!!!!!

[zahria]

Can you tell me what report they said it was "ok" on, or is that an interpretation of what was presented, perhaps a misinterpretation? :msn-wink:


http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-levy-increases-for-all-confirmed/tabid/370/articleID/133632/cat/65/Default.aspx

[mashman]

There was a brief article covering their RFP in Resller News about 5 weeks ago. The new software is to provide them with "standard Insurance" functions such as no claim bonuses and excesses, etc. The decision to spend millions purchasing and integrating this software into their existing system indicates that the decision to become an insurance company was made some time ago.

HOLY SHIT!!!! time to tip the bad data into a black hole again???? Didn't this happen the last time they changed software?

Is there anyway this can be blocked from a legal stand point?

[Ixion]

Thanks for your hard work Ix, we all owe you a vote of thanks.

Here, you have hit the nail on the head.

Bikers now have to seen as supporting other groups campaigning for fairer ACC rather than carrying our own torch.

This has to be led by Unions, the deaf, victims of crime and sexual assault, normal kiwis seeing the damage being done to ACC, not just by us.

Indeed. And in some (perhaps most) cases we will perhaps be support players. We need to realign our focus on to the principles not the number after the dollar sign.

I do not know if the original increases really were intended to destroy motorcycling. Certainly comments by Mr Key might be taken to imply that.And Ms Candor has posted about a government scheme to abolish motorycling by 2050 . If they were, they have failed. I doubt that any significant percentage of bikers will be selling up and going to four wheels. Or that the bikes sales will be much affected (maybe a small shift to 600s instead of 750s or litre bikes. The big crusier market I think will be unaffected.

That is the really important thing.

[candor]

Agree with Les, attack the principal, acc is not broke, higher than forecast investment returns of $600m and investment portfolio rose to $13.56b according to the Treasury, someone is still telling porkies.

I was at select committee again today, and heard Labour admit the scheme IS BROKE - the words were "unsustainable"... and they said for now they agree with the Nats that it needs to be future funded - but that the issue despite their current assent to the Nats wisdom on this, is "still alive" - I think meaning they are very interested in any other workable ideas ie ways to reduce claims or costs so levies need not be so heavy or entitlements so trimmed back in select areas (a band aid), but have yet to hear or rubberstamp any. They will soon produce a Labour "vision" - modern but in the Woodhouse spirit - I think.

With high interest levels ie bright alert eyes and bushy thumping tails, Labour asked submitters if submitters approve of risk rating. It seems Labour is seeking to sniff the wind before deciding positions. They also sought to have private tete a tetes with submitters at later dates - a trick I've never before witnessed in dozens of select committee appearances. It looked like an attempt to rattle the Nats - cat 'n mouse style.

Personally I don't think bikers have got done - I think they've won a significant battle but now the Govt has a big dilemna.... who or what solution is next.
They again got strong messages to fix road safety and then the whole accounts book will look much rosier - and seemed to respond more positively than the 100x we've said it over many years. In fact we noted while discussing it today that we first warned them about ACC in 2005 - go check the Sfe As website - oh yes they removed it :Pokey:

[Ixion]

..
Personally I don't think bikers have got done - I think they've won a significant battle but now the Govt has a big dilemna.... who or what solution is next.
They again got strong messages to fix road safety and then the whole accounts book will look much rosier - and seemed to respond more positively than the 100x we've said it over many years. In fact we noted while discussing it today that we first warned them about ACC in 2005 - go check the Sfe As website - oh yes they removed it :Pokey:
There is nothing that attracts a man's attention better than a pain in the pocket book. And now National (and perhaps Labour also) have realised that a simple "charge 'em more and more" is not going to work. So they now (I think for the first time) realise that they have an actual FINANCIAL interest in not having people injured. Instead of just a vague theoretical one. That clarifies the mind mightily.

And, of course, most of what works for motorcycle safety will work just as well for car safety.

One might therefore hope for a more receptive audience , when pointing out that what has been happening obviously isn't working

[mansell]

There is nothing that attracts a man's attention better than a pain in the pocket book. And now National (and perhaps Labour also) have realised that a simple "charge 'em more and more" is not going to work. So they now (I think for the first time) realise that they have an actual FINANCIAL interest in not having people injured. Instead of just a vague theoretical one. That clarifies the mind mightily.

And, of course, most of what works for motorcycle safety will work just as well for car safety.

One might therefore hope for a more receptive audience , when pointing out that what has been happening obviously isn't working

The most sensible thing I ahve read on this thread. We are going to be charged more, we always were, if we would have rolled over at the first announcement our lords and masters would have been laughing all the way to the bank. Fortunately enough noise was made to get some leeway.

I still think we need to focus on road (and rider) safety - less accidents means we can push for lower premiums.

[Katman]

I still think we need to focus on road (and rider) safety - less accidents means we can push for lower premiums.

Absolutely - it would give us real bargaining power.

[YellowDog]

Yes, I would go along with the general sentiment. Whilst I don't agree with the price hike, it won't now negatively influence my decision as whether I continue with motorcycle ownership.

The system and charging schematic is not fair and steps need to be taken to make it fair. Provided ACC is going to make changes to allow them to qualify and justify their future directions, I will be a lot happier.

I totally dissagree with the 'Pay for the future' policy and find it quite stupid. You should deal with the future when it comes or you will otherwise have your head so far up your are that you create a self fulfilling phophecy.
There is nothing clever about being right about what you made happen by being a complete fool.

Perhaps we may see a future reduction based upon the financial steps that are being put in place.
(yeah right!)

[Ixion]

Absolutely - it would give us real bargaining power.

Well, probably not that. But, at present our hands are very much tied behind our backs. Because, though we could not publicly admit it while the dollar stage of the fight was going on, the reality is that ACC are correct in saying that we crash too much . We do. Simple as that. Too many people falling off their bikes.

And when the opposition can point to the numbers that illustrate that, it's pretty hard to put forward a convincing argument. At best, we are on the defensive, trying to defend that which is , in reality, indefensible.

And it is equally clear that if we KEEP falling off at such a rate, we cannot expect to win in the long run .

[Laxi]

The argument that motorcycles should not pay more than cars was always and will always be a lost cause - for no other reason that the worlds perception, rightly or wrongly, is that motorcycles are a more 'dangerous' from of transport.

Lets see if any Labour MP's still think the increase is unjustified. This will be interesting.

national havn't won shit! the attitude that oh well lets just accept it, will give them everything they want

[Laxi]

Well, probably not that. But, at present our hands are very much tied behind our backs. Because, though we could not publicly admit it while the dollar stage of the fight was going on, the reality is that ACC are correct in saying that we crash too much . We do. Simple as that. Too many people falling off their bikes.

And when the opposition can point to the numbers that illustrate that, it's pretty hard to put forward a convincing argument. At best, we are on the defensive, trying to defend that which is , in reality, indefensible.

And it is equally clear that if we KEEP falling off at such a rate, we cannot expect to win in the long run .

so what next? they double the acc levies on the elderly, or how about the logging or construction industries they have more accidents than everyone else, if bronz are now saying this WAS all just about motorcycles and backing down i'd like to know now, cause I for 1 will cancel my membership in a heartbeat

[Pedrostt500]

Ok the bastards got what they were always after, If you thought they were going to back down and run away at the sound of your hardly, then sorry son you sadly underestimated our opponent, they will be back next year with a simmilar trick, and no doubt they will have other little tricks up their sleves.
They can now call us all spoilt brats if we protest about the Levy rates, so we have to be Clear about What we are Protesting in the future, Don't back down and roll over, we have only just had a few scirmishes.
I still want to do Bikeoi 2010, and take EVERY AFFECTED group along to let the Government and ACC know that we arn't happy, and we are not going to go away.

So what can we do?.
We can make sure that BRONZ is well supported Nation Wide, if you dont have a local branch, either get a group of like minded people together, I think 10 is the magic number, and form a local branch for your area, If you can only get a few together approach your nearest branch, and ask to join as a Satellite branch, you don't have to be an active member, just be a Finacial member, buy just paying your dues every year, and going on the ocasional ride.
You can also organise or take part in actions, organised through KB.
You can ride your bike at every available opertunity, the more bikes on the road the higher the profile we have, be proud to be a Biker.
Send letters to your local paper, If you have some writing skill, see if you can contribute a motorcycle columb to your paper.

[bikemike]

I still think we need to focus on road (and rider) safety - less accidents means we can push for lower premiums.

Levies

BTW
Luck of the Irish
http://www.fineos.com/about/clients/ACC.htm

[Ixion]

so what next? they double the acc levies on the elderly, or how about the logging or construction industries they have more accidents than everyone else, if bronz are now saying this WAS all just about motorcycles and backing down i'd like to know now, cause I for 1 will cancel my membership in a heartbeat

No of course not. I don't see the connection. Of course it's harder to argue against LEVY INCREASES when they can turn round and say "But you guys crash so much". Which is why we have ALWAYS said that the issue is not about risk factors. Or just about how many dollars we pay .ACC wasn't meant to work that way.

And I will shamelessly quote what I said in another thread


Think about it.

Mr Judge says "OK, if ACC is going to run as an insurance company, bikers have to pay $3700. As a first installment , the minimum is $750". And, repeated that even after all the submissions.

Today the Minister came back and said "Shit, sorry John, the country just won't stand for your increases. I have to cut back on them , or my government is toast"

I'd say that todays result is exactly the reverse of turning it into another insurance scheme. It's an admission that , right now anyway, they can't swing that. Of course, that's the game plan and they'll keep trying. But round one, it hasn't worked.


Today's increases mean that the ACC demands for full funding are not a starter. Read the Minister's admission

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> These levy increases are sufficient to stop any further deterioration in ACC’s overall finances but will be insufficient for ACC to close the gap between its assets and liabilities by 2019" </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

That's Nick Smith's own admission. He couldn't swing the minimum that ACC demanded.

Todays increases were a gesture. They're not enough to give ACC what it needs if it is to be sold. He saved some face with the $30 for injury prevention thing. But the blunt reality is that ACC CANNOT be sold off to insurance companies UNLESS he can find a way to put up levies more than he has today. Or, alternatively, cut entitlements even more.

And my guess is that entitlement cuts is the way he'll go now. He's admitted that the public won't stand for higher levies - and that perception is in no small measure down to us - no-one else was publicly opposing levy increases. So , the option it will be - can't put up levies, cut costs , ie entitlements.

And THAT is the long haul that we need to be in for. The next ACC Amendment Bill next year
<!-- / message --><!-- controls -->http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

[XP@]

There was a brief article covering their RFP in Resller News about 5 weeks ago.

It was also in stuff.co.nz about the new insurance company style software.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/3042835/ACC-billing-software-upgrade
I brought it up in my oral submission today on the premise that ACC is not demonstrating Administrative Efficiency in its intended purchase of this software.

The software is estimated to cost $131million. Gartner group's statistics show the initial cost of an application is only 8% of the total lifetime cost. This would put the lifetime cost at a whopping $1.6 Billion! Based on the lifespan of the current system (8 years) this would give the new system an annual cost of $200 Million.

The Gartner group also calculate the average application lifespan to be 15 years (however it is probably closer to 30 for core systems like this one). By cutting the life of the current system by almost half it will cost ACC upwards of $100 Million per year for the next 7-8 years.

[XP@]

More thoughts...

As Les points out we have actually made some real difference. If nothing else we have stopped ACC becoming an insurance scheme as fully pre-funding is no-longer an option.

Watching the news tonight and it was all numbers $'s and %'s I hope this is the end of those as there are different issues on the table. It was good to see the bikers getting the credit for forcing the levies down, including the earners levy.

The government is also cutting costs some of these have the potential to do some real damage to ACC. The question is can bikers get motivated to fight on the issues in the bill?
Its too late to post a submission but oral submissions are being heard at the moment, whilst I was there all were bikers.

We can keep up the pressure in the media and to mp's showing we are not happy about the way the bill is eroding ACC's core principles. Included in this are clauses which:

stop ACC from needing to take in to account prior income when deciding if you are fully rehabilitated and ready for full time work. Also reduction of full time from 35 to 30 hours.
effectively exclude cases where mental health system makes mistakes (other medical misadventure is covered)
allow ACC to take your final holiday pay to cover your own compensation.
plus a whole heap more...

[StoneY]

what? how? when?, was watching prime news just then and the guy says:"bikers say they can live with the ACC levy increase, but warn the govt not to try something like that again"?????? what???? since when were we ok with any increase??:angry2:

I sure didnt man

Peter Mac and anyone who says this is acceptable can kiss my lilly white ass (thats officially MOFO territory for thos who dont know me)

[FastBikeGear]

frankly if there not going to make ac run as its ment to i want the rite to sue



I invite you to join P.A.I.N. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=114021

[FastBikeGear]

And maybe they are - Good Uncle Nick has said he'll take $30.00 off all of us to spend on something like the Victorian model. I have read the Victorian "Strategic Action Plan for Powered Two Wheelers", and it's surprisingly good.


I'd prefer that they just fgive me a $30 discount on my rego/acc if I show that I have attended an approved riding school.

[FastBikeGear]

It's a political minefield... no disrespect to those who are advocating not paying for rego, or trying not to pay the ACC part, but you do realise that if enough people do that then you're screwing over some old lady that needs her hip replaced!!! and thus opening the door for more levy hikes!!! WTF do you think not paying your ACC levy was going to prove?

That the inequity is unfair, that we are not going to accept it and the govement needs another rethink on ACC.

[Rayray401]

Well, i agree with Ixion, we need to campaign. The media is all bitching on about how the govt 'backed down', no media group is going to realise/report saying that this was the original plan with the politicians. But honestly though, ACC's just been going up and up, there was never a time where it did come down. Isnt it abit strange that we can be paying more and more yet the govt still cannot make the roads 'safer'?

[mashman]

That the inequity is unfair, that we are not going to accept it and the govement needs another rethink on ACC.

I agree 100% and somehow "unfair" really doesn't convey our feelings. I'm still spitting tacks at being ignored, but i'd just like to do something without inconveniencing those whom we are "fighting" for.