Email List of MPs - Copy and Paste to SEND!

[vindy500]

i emailed em all, got the odd reply, mostly telling me to email someone else

[Warr]

Sent email to these 2 tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz; j.key@ministers.govt.nz

[rok-the-boat]

I got a few boring replies to my emails, probably the standard blurb they send back, and the occasional thoughtful one. I guess, at least, someone is reading them.

[rok-the-boat]

I have been asked to respond on behalf of all nine Green Party MPs Metiria Turei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke, Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty and Kennedy Graham, to your email.

The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. We consider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principles set out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One of those principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owen himself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach the Government is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treble levies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims back to work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents, breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967 Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.

The community responsibility principle recognises that the various activities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and that harm and benefit flow on to others, rather than rest solely with the people undertaking those activities.

In the particular example of motorcycle use, the community responsibility principle recognises that even though a disproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involve motorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actually caused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises that increased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmental benefits if single driver car usage is consequently reduced, since the greenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles is significantly less than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel is significantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective, the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to car use - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcycles does the opposite.

It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned in Sir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme was derived, including the community responsibility principle, and we therefore oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government's proposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specific activity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.

Kind regards

Ivan Sowry, Issues Assistant to Green Party MPs

[rok-the-boat]

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred per cent.

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 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 very recently said precisely that. 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.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader

[slofox]

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred per cent.

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 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 very recently said precisely that. 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.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton
MP for Wigram
Progressive Party Leader

Yep - I got the same reply...he's actually dead right here.

I have had the standard reply from Nat party members which is no doubt quoted often enough already. Here is what I have written back to this reply...




Dear ________,

I have had pretty much the same reply from those National Party members who have had time to reply so far. Actually, each party has a fairly standard line that I have been quoted ,so you are not alone in that.

I wonder if you could clarify two issues for me please. Both relate to the reply I have received.

First, the following statement:

"In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies."



I have no reason to doubt these figures. But I do wonder just how much of this payout related to injuries that occurred in years prior to the 2008 /2009 year? Under the current fully funded model, those injuries would have been covered by levies collected in the year that they occurred. Which means that only the injuries occurring in the 2008/2009 year are relevant to that figures quoted. In other words, that figure is not quite truthful as it is stated.



Secondly, the following statement:



"The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes."



How does this statement reconcile with the figures I quoted in my original email? As below:



1. In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report (http://tr.im/BV1k), ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims:




Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim

Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim





So far, not one reply to my letter (from any member of any party I might add) has even mentioned the figures I quoted. If they are incorrect then I need to know this. I also need to know how they are incorrect and what the correct figures are. As far as I can see, ACC's own report states the numbers I have cited.


Finally, I wonder how many other groups within the scope of ACC fully fund their own payouts from the levies they pay. I see that cyclists and pedestrians also make claims against the motor vehicle account but I don't see an ACC levy imposed upon them. I am sure there are many other groups in the same position. Singling out one group as not fully funding itself seems inequitable unless the same criterion is applied to every other group as well.


I bet they continue to ignore those points...

[rok-the-boat]

Hey it's Sunday - when you get back from your ride, send an email to all the people in the list!

[flyingcrocodile46]

Right! I have done (and sent off) an appropriate letter using some of the stuff from this thread (thanks everyone).

Have pasted a copy below in case any others would like to utilise it themselves. Please do so. It makes a difference


Dear MP,

I have attempted to keep this letter as short and to the point as possible. Please read all of it.

As I understand, it is your duty as a member of Parliament to represent the interests of those in your area and voice them to parliament - as such I am writing to urge you to make clear my voice, and the voice of those around me.

The proposed ACC Levy increase is based on highly questionable (read fraudulently represented) statistics re historical ACC claims for motorcyclists. The claim figures touted include claims relating to off road motorcycles involved in Motocross racing when they are not even registered road users (we are talking tens of thousands off road motorcycles). It is no more appropriate to levy the registrations of road legal motorcycles for claims relating to off road motorcycles than it is to to levy fishermen for claims relating to mountain climbing.

Additionally the proposed method of levy collection is inherently inequitable for the purpose when it is considered that the ACC compensation claims and payouts are are not made for damage to the motorcycle itself, but are made in relation to injuries sustained by the individual riders. Any levy proposed to target a group which represent a higher risk, should be charged on an individual basis. Not on the basis of size or number of motorcycles owned. Are you aware that as an owner of several post classic motorcycles (which I only ride one at a time for an approximate total of 5000km per year) I am expected to pay several times more in ACC levy than an individual who only owns one motorcycle but whom rides 20000km per year. That is I would have to pay $5,250.00 pa for my 5000km ($1.05 per km) as opposed to $750 for 20000km ($0.04 per km) for the individual who theoretically is 4 times more likely to make an ACC claim. Unfortunately I can only ride one motorcycle at a time. Why aren't we imposing a levy on chainsaws and other highly dangerous equipment that are associated with high ACC payouts?.


In ACC's Injury Statistics 2008 report http://tr.im/BV1k , ACC details claims against the Motor Vehicles account - the virtual pool that gets claimed upon whenever a road-registered vehicle is involved in an accident. The report gives statistics for the number of new claims, the number of active claims and the cost of those claims. As the report breaks down the claims by vehicle type, it's easy to compare the cost of claims... as follows;

Cyclists:
- 567 active claims
- $12,573,000
- $22,174 per claim... (Note these individuals are not paying a registered vehicle levy yet they use the road and create the risk situations that result in the claims that cost more than motorcyclists) How many are run over by cars rather than motorcycles?? I hazard a guess that it's 90% or more

Pedestrians:
- 1115 active claims
- $24,494,000
- $21,967 per claim... (Note these individuals are not paying a registered vehicle levy. How many are run over by cars rather than motorcycles?? I hazard a guess that it's 90% or more )

Car Occupants:
- 8525 active claims
- $208,305,000
- $24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
- 3173 active claims
- $62,523,000
- $19,704 per claim...... (the least amount)


I trust that after reading this email (and others no doubt) that you will have an awareness of the inequity of the proposed registration increases and will take appropriate action to ensure that a fairer approach is taken to ACC's mismanagement of it's allocated funds rather than one that simply passes on the bill to an individual group of taxpayers.

Needless to say, future votes are to be won or lost on this issue.

Regards

a concerned voter


Be sure to send it here consultation@acc.co.nz as a formal submission on the matter and include you name. email and snail mail addy and phone number

[sammcj]

Dear Sam McLeod,

I acknowledge receipt of your email concerning proposed ACC levies.

I have noted your views and the fact that you have sent your email to all MPs. Please be aware that many MPs do not respond to generic emails because we receive so many of them - i.e. it doesn't reflect a lack of interest but the major difficulty we face in keeping on top of them. The priority for most backbench MPs is to concentrate on matters that affect our electorates or Parliamentary responsibilities, and responding to our own constituents.

The following is a statement of the Government's position on this issue. I encourage you to take advantage of your opportunity to submit your suggestions during the consultation period, via the weblink provided:



Proposed changes to motorcycle levies



The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance scheme.



ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and unaffordable.



In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.



The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.



To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.



We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.



The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.



Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.



To have your say on the proposals go to www.acc.co.nz/consultation



You may also receive a detailed response from the Minister in due course, and perhaps from your local MP if you included your address.


Yours sincerely,


Tim Macindoe | MP for Hamilton West
Parliament Buildings Room G-025 | Wellington 6160 | Tel: 04 817 8229 | Fax: 04 817 6445 |www.national.org.nz
Hamilton West Electorate Office: 5 King Street, Frankton | PO Box 382, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton 3240 | Tel: 07 846 0055 | Fax: 07 846 0056 | www.timmacindoe.co.nz

[flyingcrocodile46]

The issue of statistics is a bit perplexing. As long as the general public is presented with (and politicians believe) these figures of 62 $mil out and only 12 $mil in Our arguments in respect to inequity of the levies is going to make no impact at all.

How does one verify the facts of the matter and then have them presented to the public and politicians? All of our arguments will be dead in the water if we can't discredit their figures.

[mtroskill]

Thanks for the heads up..heres my effort:

Dear MP,
I would like to share my frustration at what I consider to be an unjust and ill-conceived ACC levies proposal.
The cc/engine size based calculation of ACC payments is flawed, for example 650cc/60-70hp bikes that would be considered very learner friendly,
with linear power curves (er6n/ninja650r, sv650 etc) will be more expensive to register than 600cc/100hp+ super sport race bikes
that have a very non-linear and peaky power curve and are far more risky to learner motor-cyclists.
As another example of this unjustness, a motorcyclist who commutes daily, covering in excess of 15,000km per year versus will pay far less in ACC
levies than a casual weekend rider/bike collector with four bikes in the garage, having to pay in excess of $3000 per year in registration and levy costs.
Motorcycles as a percentage of all road crash fatalities - moving average has shown a significant trend down since 1987,
this indicates motorcycles are becoming safer as road infrastructure and motorcycle technology improves.
Crashes per 10,000 has been significantly trending down since 1995, as have injuries.
As with other transportation groups, demographics (age in particular) appear to be the biggest risk contributor,
with the 15-24 age group contributing disproportionately to motorcycle casualties. This indicates that the 15-24 age bracket
should be paying proportionately more levies, as they contribute proportionately more to accidents.
The same charges could be applied to drivers of high powered cars in the 15-24 age bracket, as they also
show a far greater chance of being involved in an accident.
Table 33 and 34 (Movement Classification) fails to show other vehicles/cars as a cause of crashes, I expect that this classification
would feature highly in statistics were it included.
There are other road user types with comparable contributions to accident statistics to motorcyclists who do not
have to pay any acc levies at all. Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
As a rugby player or sports player, I have made several claims over the years that have been fully funded by tax payers while offering no return.
As a motorcyclist I have not made any claims.
Motorcycles contribute to less congestion on the roads, more parking spaces available,
less emissions, less non-sustainable resources consumed and are an efficient and environmentally friendly method of transportation.
These benefits should be taken into consideration.
A lack of thought has been demonstrated to the proposed changes and I urge you to reconsider the current ACC levies proposal
and to consider an equitable/across the board levies scheme.
Yours sincerely,

[rok-the-boat]

I've had a busy week.

Just moving this post back up to the top to remind you guys to post mail to the MPs. It's easy, go on, do it!

[flyingcrocodile46]

Thanks for the heads up..heres my effort:

Dear MP,
I would like to share my frustration at what I consider to be an unjust and ill-conceived ACC levies proposal.
The cc/engine size based calculation of ACC payments is flawed, for example 650cc/60-70hp bikes that would be considered very learner friendly,
with linear power curves (er6n/ninja650r, sv650 etc) will be more expensive to register than 600cc/100hp+ super sport race bikes
that have a very non-linear and peaky power curve and are far more risky to learner motor-cyclists.
As another example of this unjustness, a motorcyclist who commutes daily, covering in excess of 15,000km per year versus will pay far less in ACC
levies than a casual weekend rider/bike collector with four bikes in the garage, having to pay in excess of $3000 per year in registration and levy costs.
Motorcycles as a percentage of all road crash fatalities - moving average has shown a significant trend down since 1987,
this indicates motorcycles are becoming safer as road infrastructure and motorcycle technology improves.
Crashes per 10,000 has been significantly trending down since 1995, as have injuries.
As with other transportation groups, demographics (age in particular) appear to be the biggest risk contributor,
with the 15-24 age group contributing disproportionately to motorcycle casualties. This indicates that the 15-24 age bracket
should be paying proportionately more levies, as they contribute proportionately more to accidents.
The same charges could be applied to drivers of high powered cars in the 15-24 age bracket, as they also
show a far greater chance of being involved in an accident.
Table 33 and 34 (Movement Classification) fails to show other vehicles/cars as a cause of crashes, I expect that this classification
would feature highly in statistics were it included.
There are other road user types with comparable contributions to accident statistics to motorcyclists who do not
have to pay any acc levies at all. Why are motorcyclists being singled out?
As a rugby player or sports player, I have made several claims over the years that have been fully funded by tax payers while offering no return.
As a motorcyclist I have not made any claims.
Motorcycles contribute to less congestion on the roads, more parking spaces available,
less emissions, less non-sustainable resources consumed and are an efficient and environmentally friendly method of transportation.
These benefits should be taken into consideration.
A lack of thought has been demonstrated to the proposed changes and I urge you to reconsider the current ACC levies proposal
and to consider an equitable/across the board levies scheme.
Yours sincerely,

Good effort. I like some of the arguments you have used.

Too late for me though as my 4 submissions have already been accepted by ACC

Note... it doesn't appear that they are checking for double ups.

[rok-the-boat]

Note... it doesn't appear that they are checking for double ups.

Ha ha - Nice one.

[rok-the-boat]

Keep those emails rolling ...