dmouse
4th August 2010, 12:21
I have been actively chasing the government on this issue for a long time now, and i have just had a interesting reply from mr anderton that i have not seen or heard of before, but it looks like nick smith is breaking the rules and reasons why acc was started please read below, i have also sent this and hundreds of more letters to every single member of parliament.
regards to all
dave
Dear David
My thanks for your message of 3 August regarding the increase to the ACC levy payable by the owners of motor bikes.
As it happens I am not the best person to answer your question because I am in Opposition and this is a government initiative over which I have no control. However, I am glad to have this opportunity to set out the Progressive Party view on current government proposals regarding ACC. We are opposed to the increases for two principal reasons:
The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The scheme as originally constituted was a ‘pay as you go’ scheme i.e. the levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to, for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification of the effect of the ‘baby boom’ generation coming to retirement and creating a demand ‘bulge’ on the commitment to pay universal pensions at a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for (the so-called ‘Cullen’ fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.
The problem arises because the current government insists that all of the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme – which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense if the government has a hidden agenda – which looks increasingly likely – to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies. In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.
The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse, whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has recently said precisely that. Saying that owners of particular types of vehicles must pay much more than previously because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
Please be assured that I will continue to oppose the increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.
Yours sincerely
Jim Anderton
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party
God loves ya Mr Anderton.
regards to all
dave
Dear David
My thanks for your message of 3 August regarding the increase to the ACC levy payable by the owners of motor bikes.
As it happens I am not the best person to answer your question because I am in Opposition and this is a government initiative over which I have no control. However, I am glad to have this opportunity to set out the Progressive Party view on current government proposals regarding ACC. We are opposed to the increases for two principal reasons:
The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The scheme as originally constituted was a ‘pay as you go’ scheme i.e. the levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to, for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification of the effect of the ‘baby boom’ generation coming to retirement and creating a demand ‘bulge’ on the commitment to pay universal pensions at a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for (the so-called ‘Cullen’ fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.
The problem arises because the current government insists that all of the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme – which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense if the government has a hidden agenda – which looks increasingly likely – to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies. In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.
The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse, whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has recently said precisely that. Saying that owners of particular types of vehicles must pay much more than previously because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.
Please be assured that I will continue to oppose the increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.
Yours sincerely
Jim Anderton
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party
God loves ya Mr Anderton.