Video: Nick Smith getting yelled at in parliament

**Varkp** · 19th October 2009, 10:11

Can't acc put levies on sex. You know using the same case they using against us bikers, sex could cause pregnancy, in turn could cause the birth of a retard that eventually lands itself in a government position which would cause the rest of us to pay for it.

**Coldrider** · 19th October 2009, 10:33

"Hon David Parker: Does the Minister accept statements by motorcyclists that they are now paying for accidents caused by cars, and given Mr Judge’s comments on the radio today that the setting of levies is a political decision, does he accept that his Government has got it wrong?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The interesting thing about motorcycle accidents is that even if we assume that every single accident between a motorcycle and a car is the car’s fault, the levies would still have to be over $750. The actual cost for large motorcycles is $2,700. I think that the increase the board has proposed in respect of motorcycles is a big ask, but this country needs to have an honest discussion about the cost of motorcycle accidents and where responsibility for that should rest. It is a final decision for the Government to make and I look forward to the discussion about it. I make the point that if motorcyclists are not to pay for the cost of those accidents, then someone else has to."
Extract of Parliament questions 15 Oct 2009

**Skyryder** · 19th October 2009, 11:00

Originally Posted by Coldrider

"Hon David Parker: Does the Minister accept statements by motorcyclists that they are now paying for accidents caused by cars, and given Mr Judge’s comments on the radio today that the setting of levies is a political decision, does he accept that his Government has got it wrong?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The interesting thing about motorcycle accidents is that even if we assume that every single accident between a motorcycle and a car is the car’s fault, the levies would still have to be over $750. The actual cost for large motorcycles is $2,700. I think that the increase the board has proposed in respect of motorcycles is a big ask, but this country needs to have an honest discussion about the cost of motorcycle accidents and where responsibility for that should rest. It is a final decision for the Government to make and I look forward to the discussion about it. I make the point that if motorcyclists are not to pay for the cost of those accidents, then someone else has to."
Extract of Parliament questions 15 Oct 2009

Yea I picked that up but lost it further down the track with the cockup Labour Party question.

I think the man can be turned. It depends who can make the most noise.

Smith makes the comment 'if we can assume.' I might be reading inbetween the lines but I suspect that Smith is having a look at 'at fault' stats. If this is the case then he is going to increase the costs to motorists. In doing so the load could be spread as there are more vehicles than bikes. Either way most of us are going to have to pay one way or the other.

This is from another thread. ACC FOUNDER ANGRY AT ACC. and warrants inclusion.

The "blow-out" in losses that led to last week's changes stemmed from a decision by the last National Government in 1998 to allow private sector competition for accident insurance, which required transforming the Accident Compensation Corporation on to the same funded basis as private insurers.

from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10604027

It's a damming indictment on those that believe that this ACC fiasco was Labours fault. I do not disagree that this should have been 'sorted' before now. But to suggest that privatization is the answer when the man who was instrumental in developing the ACC scheme claims otherwise, shows that privatization is an ideology based solution not a cheaper one as those that support the privatization claim.

Rodney Hide and ACT have little interest in the citizens of this country and their willingness to allow the privitsation of NZ assets and services seriously needs closer scrutiny. His comments that ACC has a structural problem may well be correct but not in the manner that he is espousing. The structural problems are those that were removed from the foundation of ACC and replaced with the private sector in 1998 by Jenny Shiply's National Govt

Skyryder

Skyryder

**Coldrider** · 19th October 2009, 11:03

By privatising the govt can wash its hands of the dealings, sit back and put its hand out for kickbacks.

**Coldrider** · 19th October 2009, 11:10

Nick wants the discussion so he should have it.

I myself have no problem with ACC being self sufficient in funding, a free market approach.
I have no problem with user pays, another free markrt approach, I pay my fair share of perceived vs actual risk based on accurate costs.
But why does Mr Smith then deviate on the free market principle established by insurance companies that the party that caused the damaged does not pay, and is paid for by the victims.

**Skyryder** · 19th October 2009, 11:12

Originally Posted by Coldrider

By privatising the govt can wash its hands of the dealings, sit back and put its hand out for kickbacks.

And they will be a bit smarter than Fielding.

Skyryder

**Skyryder** · 19th October 2009, 11:14

Originally Posted by Coldrider

Nick wants the discussion so he should have it.

I myself have no problem with ACC being self sufficient in funding, a free market approach.
I have no problem with user pays, another free markrt approach, I pay my fair share of perceived vs actual risk based on accurate costs.
But why does Mr Smith then deviate on the free market principle established by insurance companies that the party that caused the damaged does not pay, and is paid for by the victims.

You are wasted in here. You should be in Parliment.

Skyryder

**Coldrider** · 19th October 2009, 11:19

Originally Posted by Skyryder

You are wasted in here. You should be in Parliment.

Skyryder

It was quoted on 'The Tudors' last night, 'if he is a very wise man, he will know nothing about politics.'
Be-headings were in progress.

**Coldrider** · 19th October 2009, 11:23

ACC all up is in debt to the tune of $5,000 per household.
Young Nick is a cornered rat with the ACC portfolio.

**bogan** · 19th October 2009, 11:56

Originally Posted by Coldrider

There is some figures on SANX thread, 96,952 rego'd mcs.
Came to average $644 each all up.
Mr Smiths comments are probably a random nervous affliction he is developing.
It is totally incorrect only with is other statistics, misrepresenting the public.

can you give me a link to the reference where that number was obtained, once i have the reference i can add it to the wiki

**nadroj** · 19th October 2009, 11:57

Does anyone have some hard facts as to what is included in the biker group for payouts?
Do farm bikes, skateboarders, Cyclists, BMXers etc get included in our group as per rumour? If they do, few pay ACC so we effectively subsidize them.

Not only are a lot of bikes not used every week, the rider probably has more than one so is paying more than his share!

I am also wary of digging a hole for ourselves as the minister is stimulating discussion on the subject by rumoured options. If we go in accepting the lesser evil of options we may be agreeing to more than they would accept as their bottom line.

**Coldrider** · 19th October 2009, 12:05

Originally Posted by bogan

can you give me a link to the reference where that number was obtained, once i have the reference i can add it to the wiki

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=110116
The extra $1950 ($2700-750) is most likely the internal ACC admin cost and overheads allocated maybe, plus oppertunity cost (the loss of the next best income the investment could have derived).

**Winston001** · 19th October 2009, 12:11

Originally Posted by nadroj

Does anyone have some hard facts as to what is included in the biker group for payouts?
Do farm bikes, skateboarders, Cyclists, BMXers etc get included in our group as per rumour? If they do, few pay ACC so we effectively subsidize them.

This link suggests they are separated out.

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...aims/IS0800367

**bogan** · 19th October 2009, 12:13

Originally Posted by Coldrider

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=110116
The extra $1950 ($2700-750) is most likely the internal ACC admin cost and overheads allocated maybe, plus oppertunity cost (the loss of the next best income the investment could have derived).

Thanks for the link, found cited doc in there and have updated the wiki (those figures look more official than the ones I was using)

not quite sure what all those terms mean, but for them to be charging an extra 1950 for every 750 paid out in a claim sounds a little ridiculous.