BRONZ Update

BRONZ

Published on 7th January 2010 14:31

49 Comments

BRONZ (Auckland) held its first meeting of 2010 last night, and confirmed its position regarding ACC levies .

BRONZ has outstanding and ongoing concerns about :

The size of the levy (for large bikes in particular), and the probability of large increases next time round.
Separate cc classifications
The problem of multi vehicle ownership

BRONZ confirmed its three objectives

Abolition of the separate motorcycle classification
Abolition of cc distinction
Abolition of statutory full funding requirement

(achieving no 1 would automatically eliminate no 2 , but they were both kept because no 2 may be a stepping stone to no 1)

BRONZ also confirmed its opinion that a fairer method of collection should be established.

BRONZ considered specific actions for Q1 2010.

No specific BRONZ organised protest action is planned for Q1, but BRONZ will continue to endorse protests that meet BRONZ criteria (legal, not having disruption as the primary reason, though recognising that protest usually entails some disruption to someone)

BRONZ will undertake a program of education and persuasion targeted at the public and at decision makers and influencers, focused on the objectives above. These targets include National and Labour MPs, media, and the general and motorcycling public

BRONZ will review specific protest action (ie megaphones, bikes on the road) as ACC actions or events provide a 'hook' to centre protest action on - noting that the next such event is likely to be the release of the report of the ACC Stocktake Group, forecast for March

BRONZ also noted the invidious position of the AA as regards motorcycles and resolved to communicate concerns to the AA.

_{This article was originally published in forum thread:

BRONZ Update
started by
BRONZ} _{View original post}

Categories:
ACC Levy News

49 Comments

p.dath - 7th January 2010, 14:35
- Reply
Originally Posted by BRONZ

BRONZ also noted the invidious position of the AA as regards motorcycles and resolved to communicate concerns to the AA.

With regard to this one, refer to my thread about the AA:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...se-from-the-AA

shrub - 8th January 2010, 10:16
- Reply
I think those are important issues. What are BRONZ's strategies to achieve them? Do they need any help?

Tink - 8th January 2010, 14:14
- Reply
As anyone heard of the new ACC levies on the ski fields, whose next?

p.dath - 8th January 2010, 17:36
- Reply
Originally Posted by Rocketgal68

As anyone heard of the new ACC levies on the ski fields, whose next?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3214...rage-skifields

Tink - 8th January 2010, 18:38
- Reply
Originally Posted by p.dath

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3214...rage-skifields

thanks.....

birdhandler - 9th January 2010, 10:48
- Reply
Originally Posted by p.dath

With regard to this one, refer to my thread about the AA:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...se-from-the-AA

I cannot see the govt budging on this because this is the only way you can privatise ACC , something that the national party have been vetry keen on in the past so by 2019 all outstanding claims will be fully funded and new claims will be fully funded each year

caseye - 9th January 2010, 15:42
- Reply
Good work there Les and BRONZ's exec, I know that the meetings are advertsied but could they please be posted up a few days beforehand so us idiots out here can make time to come along. I recently rejoined the AA and paid for the AA Plus,What do ya know 2 weeks after doing that I had occassion to have the wifes bike transported home. Ya a win.But the real reason I re upped is to get inside and see whats what. so wish me luck.

riffer - 9th January 2010, 16:07
- Reply
Nice one guys. I imagine we'll be providing some feedback after BRONZ Welly's meeting second Tuesday of February. (bump)

YellowDog - 10th January 2010, 08:22
- Reply
Much of this crap was related to the fact that ACC claims have failed to accurately distinguish and classify accident types. i.e. Off road, race track, farm, etc.etc. 'Commuter Boys' and 'Ornamental Bike Polishers' should not have to suffer the consequenses of accidents by such unrealated groups. I would like to see some efforts put into getting ACC to update the claims process to be more specific and hence accurately classify the claim type. The next time ACC throw figures at us we at least what to have a degree of confidence in their accuracy.

p.dath - 10th January 2010, 09:48
- Reply
Originally Posted by YellowDog

Much of this crap was related to the fact that ACC claims have failed to accurately distinguish and classify accident types. i.e. Off road, race track, farm, etc.etc. 'Commuter Boys' and 'Ornamental Bike Polishers' should not have to suffer the consequenses of accidents by such unrealated groups. I would like to see some efforts put into getting ACC to update the claims process to be more specific and hence accurately classify the claim type. The next time ACC throw figures at us we at least what to have a degree of confidence in their accuracy.

I do not agree.

The requirement for pre-funding should be removed. Then there wouldn't even be a seperate motorcycle charge. There would be a simple flat road user charge, as it was originally.

The more you ask ACC to sub-classify accidents and assess risk, the more you are re-inforcing the desire for insurance. We want an accident compensation scheme - not an insurance policy.

Pussy - 10th January 2010, 10:51
- Reply
Thanks to BRONZ!
All the rest of you that haven't already..... fork out a paltry $20.00 and join!

YellowDog - 10th January 2010, 14:35
- Reply
Originally Posted by p.dath

I do not agree.

The requirement for pre-funding should be removed. Then there wouldn't even be a seperate motorcycle charge. There would be a simple flat road user charge, as it was originally.

The more you ask ACC to sub-classify accidents and assess risk, the more you are re-inforcing the desire for insurance. We want an accident compensation scheme - not an insurance policy.

OK - So I do agree with what you have said, but I do think it will easier to get ACC to play their own game rather than change it to what we consider to be fair and reasonable.

bogan - 10th January 2010, 14:37
- Reply
Originally Posted by p.dath

I do not agree.

The requirement for pre-funding should be removed. Then there wouldn't even be a seperate motorcycle charge. There would be a simple flat road user charge, as it was originally.

The more you ask ACC to sub-classify accidents and assess risk, the more you are re-enforcing the desire for insurance. We want an accident compensation scheme - not an insurance policy.

exactly, accidents from unrelated groups etc would eventually be removed if nick smith gets his way, it'll be after they privatize it in 2019 once its fully funded of course, but itll happen. The issue is now more about the future of ACC itself. Though in saying that, I'm not gonna be shafted from now until 2019 just to facilitate the disassembly of ACC. BRONZ is doing the right thing by me as a biker, and also the right thing by me as a kiwi

p.dath - 10th January 2010, 18:19
- Reply
Originally Posted by YellowDog

OK - So I do agree with what you have said, but I do think it will easier to get ACC to play their own game rather than change it to what we consider to be fair and reasonable.

Negative. We want ACC to go back to how it was originally implemented. Letting ACC play by their own rules is the reason why we are where we are today.

caseye - 11th January 2010, 16:35
- Reply
Your'e both right! Stop the in fighting and come up with a viable solution to ACC's most immediate problem.Getting bikers to pay anything for their ACC content of the next registration. LOL, sorry guys but your disagreeing(though really only over which way the message is delivered) with one another is exactly what the Govt and ACC heads want. Ideally we and I'd wager most of the driving/riding population of NZ simply want a simple ACC as it was, flat fee for accident compensation. To allow them(ACC head and the Govt) to do anything else is to allow that there is wriggle room.There must not be and they need to know this sooner rather than later. BRONZ is I believe the best vehicle for getting whatever message/suggestion we collectively come up with across to the Govt.

YellowDog - 11th January 2010, 19:27
- Reply
Originally Posted by p.dath

Negative. We want ACC to go back to how it was originally implemented. Letting ACC play by their own rules is the reason why we are where we are today.

IMO - You're dreaming. I wish you good luck.

craneman - 16th January 2010, 10:54
- Reply
whats happening with Bronz Wellington - I went to a meeting in Lower Hutt late last year and joined, but Ive heard nothing since

Skyryder - 16th January 2010, 23:06
- Reply
Originally Posted by YellowDog

OK - So I do agree with what you have said, but I do think it will easier to get ACC to play their own game rather than change it to what we consider to be fair and reasonable.

Jeeeez ya not serious. "Play their own game?" By this I takeit that you mean they make up the rules as they go along.

And on top of this you believe that they should not be fair and reasonable. I'm surprised ya still riding with such sentiments.

Skyryder

Skyryder - 16th January 2010, 23:08
- Reply
Originally Posted by YellowDog

IMO - You're dreaming. I wish you good luck.

All things start with a dream. Without them nothing happens.

Skyryder

pornoshauno - 17th January 2010, 12:00
- Reply
When are we going to protest outside the ACC offices around the country? Come on, i'm sick of being mr nice guy and want to kick some ASS!!! For a BIG city like Auckland we dont seem to be doing much protesting!The more money the government extracts out of me, more of my "life force" is getting drained from my soul.