PDA

View Full Version : Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill - Oral Submission



Hanne
11th December 2009, 11:07
Some have already submitted on this, others are due to do so via video conference early next week. Here are a few tips for making a submissio nto a select committee:

First some advice from Ivan Sowry – Social Justice/ACC activist for the Green Party (and Out of Parliament Assistant to David Clendon, MP):


I would suggest that the most important thing is to select the few key points from their written submission that they want to emphasise and expand on. Submitters don't have very long to make their oral submissions, so it is important to make the best use of the time they do have. Trying to cover everything that is in the written submission won't add much to it, and MPs would (or should) have already read the written submissions. It is a good idea to have some written bullet points of the things they want to talk about - otherwise it's easy to forget a key point. Government MPs on the SC may try to divert submitters onto peripheral issues - submitters should keep any response to questions that are not about their key points concise.

Oh, and leave some time for questions at the end.

Klingon has also suggested a few pointers:

Make a note of three (no more than five) bullet points that refer back to issues you raised in your submission but (importantly) are still relevant given the newly-announced decisions.

Allow yourself one minute to introduce yourself and say why you are there, one minute on each of your three key bullet points, and one minute to conclude with a basic summary statement. That is five minutes total. Then ask if any members of the Select Committee panel have questions for you based on your submission.

Be assertive – if they say they have no questions, then use your remaining five minutes to make a further point, or to expand on one of your earlier points.

If the committee members do have questions for you, don’t let them divert you. Be prepared for them to ask you tricky questions like “would you prefer to pay more for ACC, or to have its services cut?” (Of course the answer is “Neither option is necessary because the system isn’t in crisis.”)

Don’t be drawn into detailed discussion of statistics (unless this is your specialist area!) And don’t be afraid to say “I have no opinion on that matter” or “I don’t believe that matter is relevant to my submission” if they try to divert you away from your key messages.

Sample Template:

Intro (1 minute): “My name is Jo Bloggs. I am a primary school teacher and I ride a 250cc motorbike to work every day to save money on petrol, and to reduce congestion on the roads by not driving my car… (more about self – e.g. safe riding history, money spent on safety gear or self-funded skills training, etc)”
Point 1 (1 minute): “As I said in my submission, having ACC levies on motorbikes that are higher than car levies is counter-productive because…”
Point 2 (1 minute): “The effect of the increased ACC levies on me will be…”
Point 3 (1 minute): “While I welcome the announcement that part of the ACC levy will be used for injury prevention, I believe that the only way to reduce motorbike injuries is to improve training of car drivers. In my own experience… (etc etc)”
Conclusion (1 minute): “In conclusion, I ride a motorbike because… (etc etc), the proposed levy increases (even in their revised form) are unworkable because… (etc etc), and the most equitable outcome for all road users would be… (etc etc).”
Questions (5 minutes): “Would the Committee like to ask any questions about my submission?”

If the committee doesn’t want to ask any questions, then…

“Since the Committee has no questions and I still have five minutes left for my oral submission, I would just like to add that I have been very disappointed in the actions of ACC when they used their scarce funds to putting paid ads in daily newspapers… (etc etc).”
[note: don’t make this up as you go along. Make sure you are prepared with your final point if you choose to make one.]

Thanks Klingon and Ivan, and good luck to those still to submit!

Hanne
11th December 2009, 11:12
XP@ Research Thread (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=114516&highlight=oral+submission)

XP@ Write Up of Wellington Submission (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=114664&highlight=select+committee)

Nasty
11th December 2009, 17:30
Feedback from the one i went to:

Charles Lamb was told clearly that this is the bill and not the Levies .. that cut his oral submission (I feel) substantially.

Stick initially to the submission you made and evidence to support that.

If you have time, getting them thinking about things like x-subsidy and multiple hits covering the same thing e.g. bike car wages and fuel is good.

Fuel levies are approx worked out in Xp@ thanks thread ... they are substantial but not as much as they think.

The evidence on ratings is not complete .. and no where near good enough to make such claims due to the lack of evidence collection.

ACC administratively - e.g. new computer system etc is wasting our money.

XP@
12th December 2009, 23:28
The current bill and the governments continued direction is in favor of levies based on risk. If you want to offer an alternative to this you could do so by not only suggesting they remove the risk related clauses in the amendment but offer an alternate solution. I just said can the idea, if i was doing it now I would have looked at this:

Nasty: Who was it on the committee that said fuel is the "biggest proportion of the MC levies"?

Nix Myth said there would be no petrol rise as there are already about 3 other rises in progress. (its in this vid http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-levy-hike-officially-announced-/tabid/370/articleID/133569/cat/67/Default.aspx)

Try running the avg km / year stats for bike and car

See if you can find out % vehicles (car and bike) not registered.

Increase up registration (in-conjunction with tough economic climate) may result in more unregistered vehicles therefore greater reliance on petrol levies and cross subsidisation by those who still pay their levies.

Calculate revenue from 1c/l to about 7c/l and cross ref this with the corresponding change in levies. e.g. a 1c increase would enable levies to be set to, a 2c 3c ... etc.

How many c/l would be needed to maintain a status quo?
How many c/l to get to fully funding for motor vehicle account by 2019 (with no increase in levies)?

Add a new clause which will stop further increases in Motor vehicle levies for the next 10 years but allow use of fuel levies to adjust payments in the motor vehicle account.

Nasty
13th December 2009, 06:03
Nasty: Who was it on the committee that said fuel is the "biggest proportion of the MC levies"?

Nix Myth said there would be no petrol rise as there are already about 3 other rises in progress. (its in this vid http://www.3news.co.nz/ACC-levy-hike-officially-announced-/tabid/370/articleID/133569/cat/67/Default.aspx)



I didn't see his name .. but will check the parlimentary site to see ... was it this bloke? http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/b/e/a/49MP78011-Parker-David.htm

They can't raise the petrol levies without a change in legislation - Nix a little confused methinks - they are maxed at what they can charge at the moment.

XP@
13th December 2009, 12:28
It could have been him, not sure though.

That is what i was thinking the change in legislation (via an amendment to this amendment) could do just that.

And as the levies can't be finalised until this amendment is actually passed in theory there is still time?

How is it that one proposes and gets a clause changed? I mean it is all well and good saying no, but there must be a way to make a viable alternative?

chasio
16th December 2009, 18:20
I was a bit late getting there today so I was waiting outside when Les, Hanne and Grant did their bit today. From what I could hear they did a bloody good job. I heard Les a bit more clearly as he has the kind of voice that transcends walls and mocks mere wooden doors.

I'd like to thank Hanne for posting this up and sharing input from others and Nasty for giving me personal feedback on my prep. I felt a lot more ready for it as a consequence of your help.

To partially quote Isaac Newton, "If I have seen... it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Anyway I stuck the suit on in the end, Nasty: it shows I'm taking them seriously I reckon. No tie though - that's just one step too far :)

I felt I got my key points across pretty well and the Select Committee were actually pretty decent about the whole thing. I'd certainly be prepared to do it again.

Cheers - Chasio :beer: