Four questions for Judith Collins the Minister of ACC

[FastBikeGear]

Just sent the following to Hon Judith Collins the minister of ACC. (Also sent similar to Hon Jerry Brownlee the Minister of Transport)

Good morning Hon Judith Collins

I have just paid my latest motorcycle registration fee and I am again reminded of just how much I am paying in total motor vehicle ACC levies.

I have four vehicles that I pay ACC levy on.

I have a motor home which I pay ACC levies on.

I have a Motorcycle which I pay $396 ACC levy on!

I have a car which I pay ACC levies on

I have a work van which I pay ACC levies on.

I am the only driver in my household who has a license to drive the motorcycle or motor home (My motorhome requires an HT license to drive)

I obviously can only drive/ride one vehicle at a time yest I pay over four times as much ACC in motor vehicle ACC levies than the average motorist.


Judith, can you please advise if the ACC system is supposed to be fair?
If you believe it is supposed to be fair can you please explain how it is fair that I pay four times the levy of the average motorist
Can you please explain why I am not just charged one ACC levy?
If you do not think this is a fair situation can you please advise me of what actions you are personally taking to remedy this situation?




Many thanks

Liam Venter
csp_liam@yahoo.co.nz

mob: +64 (0)275 985 266
Office: +64 (0)9 834 6655

[jellywrestler]

and at all times you only have one person in any of these vehicles?

[Winston001]

Good on you, nice to see people being active.

One response you may get is that assessing everyone who holds a drivers licence could result in an annual ACC bill of $700 (or whatever) each. That includes grannies who do 2k a year and school kids. A family with three drivers but only one vehicle would call that unfair.

Just being a devils advocate.

[Rhys]

I think that we all agree that we need to pay for ACC.
The problem as I see it is how do you apportion it , a charge on petrol, an annual licence fee, a road user fee (similar to RUC) or as we have at the moment a motor vehicle charge

What is the fairest ? or is there an alternative form of fund ACC

[JimO]

the fairest would be a charge on petrol, the more u use the moer u pay, this would also catch the boaties and off road people who seem to cost a bit in acc payouts, i also have 4 cars, 2 motorbikes, trailor, boat and caravan i pay acc levies on

[Bald Eagle]

The bigger rort is the move away from the Woodhouse principals to run it like a profit making insurance business. Until that political change is reversed we are all getting screwed

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

[FastBikeGear]

and at all times you only have one person in any of these vehicles?

Interesting point you raise. But of course if I only had one vehicle I would still be just as likely to carry passengers and would have to pay only one ACC levy.

[Crasherfromwayback]

the fairest would be a charge on petrol, the more u use the moer u pay, this would also catch the boaties and off road people who seem to cost a bit in acc payouts, i also have 4 cars, 2 motorbikes, trailor, boat and caravan i pay acc levies on

I've been saying this from the start. But they won't do it, as it'd get them voted out asap.

[FastBikeGear]

The bigger rort is the move away from the Woodhouse principals to run it like a profit making insurance business. Until that political change is reversed we are all getting screwed

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

Agreed but I only want to fight one battle/issue at a time and I am picking on the simplest issue that I think is the hardest for the politicians to defend.

Hey 36 pedestrians got killed on pedestrian crossings in the last 12 months and over 80 people drowned and don't get me started on other road users like cyclists not paying ACC (and I used to be an active cyclist). But if you get into a discussion on the Woodhouse principals with National party politician they throw so many red herrings into the discussion and then pretty soon someone mentions Hitler, at which point all reason and logic is abandoned.

So I am picking on the black and white issue. There is no reason that someone who owns multiple vehicles should pay more ACC than someone who owns just one vehicle....and of course motorcyclists are more likely to wown more than one vehicle than most other road users....so I think this is a good issue for motorcyclists to lobby on at this time.

[MSTRS]

To the OP...expect the standard answer from the minister and/or anyone else you direct such a question to.

*Standard answer = all vehicles belonging to you remain potentially useable by anyone, regardless of whether it is you at the time.* (or words to that effect.

In which case, you must ask whether all men are to be charged as rapists, since they all have a penis which is 'potentially useable in such a way'...

[5150]

In which case, you must ask whether all men are to be charged as rapists, since they all have a penis which is 'potentially useable in such a way'...

how did you get on with that approach?

[FastBikeGear]

To the OP...expect the standard answer from the minister and/or anyone else you direct such a question to.

*Standard answer = all vehicles belonging to you remain potentially usable by anyone, regardless of whether it is you at the time.* (or words to that effect.

I suspect your right and I will get that response. But note that I have mentioned that I am the only person in a house hold to be licensed to drive two of these vehicles and damned if I am going to loan out the others.

Of course the suggestion by others that ACC is collected as a levy on mileage (like road user tax on diesels) or on petrol would get around that issue). Hey if you want a fair user pays system then it really has to be on mileage.

I have already received a response from Gerry Brownlee's office.....they has referred it to Judith Collins and forwarded my correspondence on to her.



Dear Mr Venter

On behalf of Hon Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Transport, thank you for your email dated 1 August 2012 regarding ACC levies.

The comments you have raised fall within the responsibilities of Judith Collins, the Minister of ACC. Accordingly your email has been forwarded to her office for consideration.

Kind regards

Sarah Cameron
Private Secretary
Office of Hon Gerry Brownlee | Minister of Transport
7.4 Beehive, Parliament Buildings, PO Box 18041, Wellington 6160, New Zealand

[MSTRS]

how did you get on with that approach?

I never tried it....didn't think to :weep:

But it does say EXACTLY the same thing as the bullshit standard answer....an item that is not being used, but is available for use, should be treated as though it is being used.

[merv]

I never tried it....didn't think to :weep:

But it does say EXACTLY the same thing as the bullshit standard answer....an item that is not being used, but is available for use, should be treated as though it is being used.
Point being it would be used by a licensed driver who should also pay only one amount of levy for that driver.

I have always said I'm all for covering the person not the vehicle. I wouldn't care if it changed to personal accident insurance because me and Mrs merv would have done very well out of no claim bonuses over the years and would have rated as low risk. Currently if we licence all our vehicles all the time we pay an astronomical amount, hence we've put a few on hold lately. Probably means we are paying less now than we used to, just using less of the fleet regularly but still covering about the same km per year in total.

[duckonin]

Just sent the following to Hon Judith Collins the minister of ACC. (Also sent similar to Hon Jerry Brownlee the Minister of Transport)

Good morning Hon Judith Collins

I have just paid my latest motorcycle registration fee and I am again reminded of just how much I am paying in total motor vehicle ACC levies.

I have four vehicles that I pay ACC levy on.

I have a motor home which I pay ACC levies on.

I have a Motorcycle which I pay $396 ACC levy on!

I have a car which I pay ACC levies on

I have a work van which I pay ACC levies on.

I am the only driver in my household who has a license to drive the motorcycle or motor home (My motorhome requires an HT license to drive)

I obviously can only drive/ride one vehicle at a time yest I pay over four times as much ACC in motor vehicle ACC levies than the average motorist.


Judith, can you please advise if the ACC system is supposed to be fair?
If you believe it is supposed to be fair can you please explain how it is fair that I pay four times the levy of the average motorist
Can you please explain why I am not just charged one ACC levy?
If you do not think this is a fair situation can you please advise me of what actions you are personally taking to remedy this situation?




Many thanks

Liam Venter
csp_liam@yahoo.co.nz

mob: +64 (0)275 985 266
Office: +64 (0)9 834 6655

Suppose you had to ask some person, waste of time asking an ignorant bitch like that. :oi-grr: Collins, just look at a pic of the idiot and u expect an answer ! Nope not going to happen but best of luck to you go hard.:lol:

[Katman]

The bigger rort is the move away from the Woodhouse principals to run it like a profit making insurance business.


New Zealand society has been making a complete joke of the Woodhouse principles for a while now.

[tigertim20]

and at all times you only have one person in any of these vehicles?
I will counter that question with this.

If the acc component is relative, to the maximum amount of occupants legally entitled to be in a vehicle, then considering the fact that the average car (5 seats) has 2.5 times the max capacity of a bike (2 seats) then shouldnt cars pay 2.5 times the acc levy since they have a greater likelihood of injuring a greater number of persons?

[SMOKEU]

I will counter that question with this.

If the acc component is relative, to the maximum amount of occupants legally entitled to be in a vehicle, then considering the fact that the average car (5 seats) has 2.5 times the max capacity of a bike (2 seats) then shouldnt cars pay 2.5 times the acc levy since they have a greater likelihood of injuring a greater number of persons?

Then I bet she will say something along the lines of "car occupants are significantly less likely to be injured than the occupants of a motorcycle in the event of an accident".

[avgas]

Gee you guys are lucky. I never got a reply. Mine went like this:

Dear Mr Smith.

Eat shit and die. Don't get sick, do no pass go and go directly to death. I don't want to have to pay for your sick corpse. Just eat shit and die

Kindest Regards
Jack Daniels

[mapsanji]

:killingme:killingme:killingme

[rastuscat]

Gee you guys are lucky. I never got a reply. Mine went like this:

Dear Mr Smith.

Eat shit and die. Don't get sick, do no pass go and go directly to death. I don't want to have to pay for your sick corpse. Just eat shit and die

Kindest Regards
Jack Daniels

They didn't answer? Imagine that.:wacko:

[Marmoot]

They didn't answer? Imagine that.:wacko:

because it wasn't formatted in a question.