The report released today (12 February)

[candor]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1002/S00169.htm

Hope I'm not reposting as comp is on go slow and can't check other threads easily.

One positive from it, no drunk or drugged or dangerous driver who kills me or you gets a Kings ransom in ACC rewards anymore. Yaaaaaaaaaay :woohoo:

I don't care if they sit in jail or home D going :crybaby: That's just how it is for the Burtons and other bastards of this world. Don't expect to offend on the taxpayer! Finally Nanny State wises up.
Their secret life is not safe with Corrections, it's talking to ACC. I do think they went too far removing suicide cover though.

[Ixion]

Let us hope that in some years time we do not find that the visceral pleasure of shafting a few drink drivers has been paid for by many thousands of injured people having their lives ruined without any effective compensation.

[riffer]

I'm finally getting around to reading this now so I will comment further as I read more.

First thing that concerns me is the bit:

The majority of us recommend amending clause 48 to extend the waiver for the 2010/11 levy consultation requirements for the Earners’
and Motor Vehicle Accounts to reduce the risk of challenge to the validity of the consultation. Clause 48 is a transitional provision, which would allow the consultation requirements for the Work Account levies under the 2001 Act to be waived for the 2010/11 year.

So this says to me that if we don't do something this year we are stuffed as there will be no requirement for them to consult any more on changes.

[riffer]

Some interesting comments in the review. They have paid more than just lip service to the minority view (which, expectedly does not support the bill's amendments).

I'll read it again in the morning but my first impressions are that the majority has offered qualified support to most of the amendments in the bill, but don't agree with some of the harshest ones. Nice to see they come out heavily against the idea of using up your annual leave before entitlement to ACC, and advocate sticking with the 80% of wage support, rather than the 70-60% proposed.

[Pedrostt500]

I'm finally getting around to reading this now so I will comment further as I read more.

First thing that concerns me is the bit:

The majority of us recommend amending clause 48 to extend the waiver for the 2010/11 levy consultation requirements for the Earners’

and Motor Vehicle Accounts to reduce the risk of challenge to the validity of the consultation. Clause 48 is a transitional provision, which would allow the consultation requirements for the Work Account levies under the 2001 Act to be waived for the 2010/11 year.

So this says to me that if we don't do something this year we are stuffed as there will be no requirement for them to consult any more on changes.

What worries me is " Right to Consult" being Waivered for any group, This is the point of the start of the slippery slope to waiver the rights of any group, and why just stop with ACC, if there is a shot from the Gubberment that starts the REVOLUTION this would be it, but it will pass over the heads of Joe and Jane Public, and they will say in 12 months time " what happened there" .

[gazmascelle]

OK so they want to be able to change the rules without consulting the public? Is it just me or are these the actions you'd usually expect from a dictator?

[riffer]

OK so they want to be able to change the rules without consulting the public? Is it just me or are these the actions you'd usually expect from a dictator?

Not really. But they are the actions you would expect of a group that aspires to be one.

[freedom-wedge]

What worries me is " Right to Consult" being Waivered for any group, This is the point of the start of the slippery slope to waiver the rights of any group, and why just stop with ACC, if there is a shot from the Gubberment that starts the REVOLUTION this would be it, but it will pass over the heads of Joe and Jane Public, and they will say in 12 months time " what happened there" .

pretty scary when you consider the wider implications, its becoming somewhat of a trend these days.

[Genestho]

Let us hope that in some years time we do not find that the visceral pleasure of shafting a few drink drivers has been paid for by many thousands of injured people having their lives ruined without any effective compensation.


"Repugnant to Justice"
I expect under this clause, that the many thousands who have non-criminal related injuries, are still to receive entitlements, and will continue to do so, unless wider issues arise within the ACC system itself!

Pity a "few" drink drivers have been convicted of "shafting" innocent road users and families all this time while receiving cash to sit around on their arses for outstanding work in the community, bugger - no entitlements. TOUGH! Here's a tissue!!

[Azi Dahaka]

you know whats really interesting is this part fo the report

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand Labour minority view
We recommend that the bill not proceed. The bill would make New
Zealand’s ACC system worse rather than better. It would shift more
of the costs of being injured to the injured person and the State. It
would erode the protection of New Zealanders who were injured at
work, despite the costs of ACC to employers already being substantially
lower than those paid by Australian employers.
The case for cuts to entitlements is not made out. In the opinion of
Labour members, the recent increase in the liabilities of ACC (that is,
the increase in the amount the ACC needs to have set aside to meet
the ongoing costs of earlier claims) are being used by the Government
as an excuse for unjustified cuts to the ACC scheme.
Most costs saved by cutting ACC entitlements will not go away, but
will be passed to the health system, the injured and their families, and
other State agencies.
We support the extension to the date for full funding of historic
claims, but oppose the bill overall.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

if by this, this is the labour partys view then they support the full funding model which means no matter which govt we are under we as bikers would therotically still have to pay more.

[geoffm]

you know whats really interesting is this part fo the report

-

if by this, this is the labour partys view then they support the full funding model which means no matter which govt we are under we as bikers would therotically still have to pay more.

Since it was Auntie Helen's mob, including Phil that introduced full funding, it is no surprise they support it. Basically NZ motorcyclists are screwed no matter who warms the seat in the beehive.

[Azi Dahaka]

unless it is the greens as they support the pay as you go method but no one wants them as the leading party in parlament FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN