The actual changes as voted through

[StoneY]

Ok peoples.

I have here a PDF of the actual changes that were made yestreday
Typical government document, all legalese and double dutch

One thing I noticed was the fact they have apparently removed 'Prevention and Rehabilitation' from the description of the act (thats how it seems to read) and I wonder what that means for our 'ringdfenced' 30$ for 'Accident prevention and training'

Anyway heres the PDF you smarter folk take a look, and people who can really analyse shit should be commenting here please

I am just posting up the document ACC Futures Coalition and CTU have sent, I aint smart enough to comprehend it all

Cheers

StoneY (very worn out campaigner)

[Ixion]

This is just the Bill to Amend the Amending Bill. It's not the Amending Bill itself. Yes, you are right about the title change. Rehabilitation and prevention are out. No longer part of ACCs responsibilities I guess. I wonder whether the fuss we made about them ignoring those aspects was responsible for them being dropped?

[Bald Eagle]

This is just the Bill to Amend the Amending Bill. It's not the Amending Bill itself. Yes, you are right about the title change. Rehabilitation and prevention are out. No longer part of ACCs responsibilities I guess. I wonder whether the fuss we made about them ignoring those aspects was responsible for them being dropped?

Thats a fairly significant change to slip through under the radar. I wonder if the name change was going to preclude privatisation/sales problems for them.

[Ixion]

The name of the Act has no legal significance. But given that a private insurance company would not want anything to do with Rehabilitation or Preventioon (and probably couldn't legally do much with regard to the latter), I'd guess that ACC are arguing that if they have to compete with the private sector, they need to be on the same footing. So rehab and prevention are ditched- and the Act renamed to stop people pointing out the absence.

[avgas]

Nice one Guys! Thanks for you help thus far.

(this is not sarcasm, I am genuinely thankful for you efforts thus far).

[avgas]

Thats a fairly significant change to slip through under the radar. I wonder if the name change was going to preclude privatisation/sales problems for them.
Does create simple segregation of liability and funds. Does bring up the interesting question that if ACC are not covering rehab - then there is no justification for planned 'future rehab' funds.
Will do some reading tonight when I get home from work

[Kiwi B]

At least the rider training etc makes it in - refer Clause 21.1.B

"finance the cost of programmesto improve the safety of moped and motorcycle riders from the levyreferred to in ....."

Not without a cost though - wonder what it will eventuate into??

[Spratt]

From what I understand of this gobbledegook is that the government will be able to set levies at what ever level they deem appropriate, with a debateble level of consultation, and we will be made to pay an extra levy for the Motorcycle Safety fund. Interesting since we all know that the majority of accidents are caused by other vehicle drivers!

As this legislation has been voted in favour of, what is the next step?

I am wondering what KB members think about a legal challenge based on the Human Rights Act 1993 - not that I have an in-depth understanding of the Act, but potentially there could be a case based on Part 1A of the Act ...

Part 1A Discrimination by Government, related persons and bodies, or persons or bodies acting with legal authority

20I Purpose of this Part
The purpose of this Part is to provide that, in general, an act or omission that is inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination affirmed by section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is in breach of this Part if the act or omission is that of a person or body referred to in section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Essentially, I think moped and motorcycle owners are being discriminated against by the Government because they are enacting a change to legislation that will make this minority group pay more for the same accident compensation cover afforded to all other NZers by ACC, and the decision to make this group pay more is based on incorrect analysis of data leading to false conclusions about accident rates, causes and ACC claims figures for this group.

[riffer]

Nice try Spratt, but I do believe the Insurance INdustry has an out for this one. I'll try and find it.

[Spratt]

That may be the case with insurance companies, who are able to charge premiums based on their calculations of risk, but as yet ACC is not a private insurer (and let us hope it stays that way!), it is meant to be a fair and equitable compensation scheme for all NZers. National's approach contravenes this by making minority groups (especially us bikers) pay levies well above what other people in NZ are paying for exactly the same compensation cover.

By way of example: how would the general public react if the Government decided to tax tobacco smokers at a higher rate to cover the extra health care costs associated with treating tobacco related illnesses? This is a lifestyle choice that costs the country millions in health care dollars, but all NZers contribute equally to receive free health care (well you know what I mean). So, like the supposed subsidisation by car drivers for MC accidents, all the health NZers are subsidising the costs of a lifestyle choice by around 20% of the country. Or, what if Maori and Pacific People were taxed at a higher rate based on their much higher risk of diabetes and heart disease and the associated extra expense of treating these diseases, which you could argue are also related to lifestyle choices?

[riffer]

That may be the case with insurance companies, who are able to charge premiums based on their calculations of risk, but as yet ACC is not a private insurer (and let us hope it stays that way!), it is meant to be a fair and equitable compensation scheme for all NZers. National's approach contravenes this by making minority groups (especially us bikers) pay levies well above what other people in NZ are paying for exactly the same compensation cover.

By way of example: how would the general public react if the Government decided to tax tobacco smokers at a higher rate to cover the extra health care costs associated with treating tobacco related illnesses? This is a lifestyle choice that costs the country millions in health care dollars, but all NZers contribute equally to receive free health care (well you know what I mean). So, like the supposed subsidisation by car drivers for MC accidents, all the health NZers are subsidising the costs of a lifestyle choice by around 20% of the country. Or, what if Maori and Pacific People were taxed at a higher rate based on their much higher risk of diabetes and heart disease and the associated extra expense of treating these diseases, which you could argue are also related to lifestyle choices?

Don't look now but there's currently a select committee in progress dealing with the issues of smoking related illnesses and maori and PIs. They may yet bring in what you are discussing. However, they're just as likely to decide that Maori Tribes have the monopoly to sell cigarettes to Maori, something Machiavellian enough that I wouldn't put it past the Nats.

Slightly off-tangent, I'd be happy for them to let the tobacco companies sell as many fags as they like, but legislate the allowable nicotine content to be absolutely zero. After all, they tell us people buy them for the taste. ;)

[ac3_snow]

which date are the new prices coming into effect?

[kwaka_crasher]

which date are the new prices coming into effect?

1 July. Same as every year.

[irsh]

i just received a notification tyo renew my partners kl 250 and the licening fee came to 405.63 for the year due by 10/07/2010 ...:gob:
this is how it looks

licence fee $24.50
acc levy $297.70
acc safety levy $30.00
other levys $1.64
admin $6.72
gst $45.07
total $405.63

FUCK THAT!!

erm sorry honey but you'll have to get this one !!!
does that mean if i rego it before the 1st i can avoid paying the increased charges ?