Quote Originally Posted by jistdowit View Post
Here is the answer I got from Jim Anderton to my email to him, some moot points!!!

Dear Peter,

I am opposed to this 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 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......to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies.... a fully funded scheme...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......... Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently 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.

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader
Exactly. So how to we effectively stop them at their dirty little game? That is the real question.