An idea and a reply concerning ACC levies from Tauranga National MP

[jed4czar]

Thank you for you reply Mrs Dean.

How can we have a "no fault accident insurance programme" and yet attribute liability for costs??? This is oxymoronic in my opinion.

Pedestrians and Cyclists claimed $37,067,000 in 2008 for road related accidents and they pay nothing specifically for this towards ACC! This makes any "user pays" argument quite specious. Why are they, as victims of road accidents and road users, not also asked to pay towards their own care and recovery? How many of the 8525 motorcycle claims are from people that also own cars and pay their own "subsidy"? Most I would suggest, with some owning more than one car. If we as a community are bearing the financial burden for sports injuries and for those whom work is medically not possible, without attributing fault or asking them to increase their contributions due to their "choice" to play sport or engage in heavy manual work, then why would we suddenly decide that a relatively small sector of the community should bear all costs associated with their "choice" ?

The figures you quote $77 per motorist depend upon how you cut it - The MOT Annual Vehicle Fleet Statistics for 2008 states there are 2,584,509 light passenger vehicles in New Zealand, light passenger vehicles are defined as cars and vans a if we divide the $50,000,000 shortfall (from ACC's own stats) by this number of vehicles we arrive at $19:35 this doesn't include 519,992 Goods vans/trucks/utilities, buses, motorcampers or any of the other road registered vehicle if we did include these vehicles we come to $16:50 subsidy per vehicle. I do not understand how the figure of $77 was arrived at.

Your statement "The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes" is demonstrably incorrect, again by ACC's own figures, as defined in my original email, they are in fact the cheapest in costs per claim!

Why are we having to bail out ACC from its own mismanagement - The > $500,000 salary of the CEO seems to be taxpayer's money not well spent. ACC have failed the people of NZ who have relied upon them to provide this service, while exorbitant and mismanaged projects such as the Nelson office move add insult to injury! Perhaps out of control medical costs also need to bear some of this blame.

Incidently your link to ACC consultation results in "Page not found". Why would I state my case to an organisation that, very clearly, has its own interests at heart and not those of the people it is paid and equipped to serve? ACC has already stated it's position and preference, the public consultation is at best insulting and patronising.

Regards

Jed

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

For whatever reason they're aiming to collect 252 million... why? They've yet to front up with the answers. A contact in ACC has suggested that $62million is possibly the cost of existing claims + this years worth of new claims and that $252mill may represent the actual cost of new claims (Only their thought, they werent able to get ahold of the Analysis team for their take on it)... Or maybe $252million is the amount needed per year till 2014 to put us in the green? Answers are needed and they're not forthcoming!

If that is the case then the cost per claim would alot lower across the board, if we are only to use this years claims and payout???

So the contacts suggestion is that it could be this years claims + this years payouts as well as the continuation of previous years payouts. yes/no to my limited understanding

[Squiggles]

If that is the case then the cost per claim would alot lower across the board, if we are only to use this years claims and payout???

So the contacts suggestion is that it could be this years claims + this years payouts as well as the continuation of previous years payouts. yes/no to my limited understanding

Yes and yes (this is my interpretation of their suggestion too), which imo doesnt line up with any of their or the ministers... Where do the figures come from =\