Video: Nick Smith getting yelled at in parliament

[Winston001]

But why does Mr Smith then deviate on the free market principle established by insurance companies that the party that caused the damage does not pay, and is paid for by the victims.

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way employers ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.

[Coldrider]

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.

Sorry mate, I'm a beanie, what it means is that the ACC may be allocating their internal costs onto each claim, like business do when doing full cost analysis.
ie clerical staff, lawyers, bank, phones, salaries, depreciation of buildings or rent.
This would make sence as theres lot of costs to tag onto each claim.

[bogan]

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way the employer ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.

firstly, the 16 times is a blatant lie, see the wiki or sanx's thread for risk assesments generated from NZ MOT data, its around 3-5x depending on injury/fatalitiy..

Aside form that, i can see where they are coming from, but I do not understand why it is the bikers only that are targeted, other more risky sports don't pay ANY acc levies, let alone the full cost. The simple fact we are a minority, and the infrastructure to police these changes already exists, makes us the perfect target for National and ACC.

[Coldrider]

Much as I hate to argue the other side, we need to have our ducks in a row.

The ACC position is that if you choose to ride a motorcycle, then you place yourself at risk 16 times more than in other forms of mechanised transport. No fault involved, no blame, it's a free choice, but if you make that choice then you should contribute more to the pot because you've taken a risk.

In the same way employers ACC premium is assessed on the job risk. If you work with chainsaws, your boss will pay 6 times the amount compared with you working in an office. Hard to argue with.

Yes Winston that is how I see it too, but Mr Smith does seem to beg the arguement to happen.
ACC has made recommendations, he happens to be who has to fire the bullets, but it can be discussed for more manageable levels.
After all ACC is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not the fence at the top, and that is what us motorcyclist are totally ignoring.

[bogan]

Sorry mate, I'm a beanie, what it means is that the ACC may be allocating their internal costs onto each claim, like business do when doing full cost analysis.
ie clerical staff, lawyers, bank, phones, salaries, depreciation of buildings or rent.
This would make sence as theres lot of costs to tag onto each claim.

hmmm, I'm no beanie but that sounds like a massive amount of internal dissipation of funding, maybe thats where they should be looking to cut costs, rather than extracting it from motorists.

[Coldrider]

hmmm, I'm no beanie but that sounds like a massive amount of internal dissipation of funding, maybe thats where they should be looking to cut costs, rather than extracting it from motorists.

That would be the gain for privatisation of ACC for each Insurer Company, as their structures and costs are aleady set up, ACC premiums would be just additional marginal income for them.

[Coldrider]

I have read a couple of submission letters to ACC, written by business organisations, I have to say they are very balanced, and passive to read.
I think emailed responses would be a waste of time, especially identical emails, whereas a correctly addressed letter would have to be opened.

[Winston001]

Aside form that, i can see where they are coming from, but I do not understand why it is the bikers only that are targeted, other more risky sports don't pay ANY acc levies, let alone the full cost. The simple fact we are a minority, and the infrastructure to police these changes already exists, makes us the perfect target for National and ACC.

Mmmm you've answered your own question - m/c are a small and easily defined group.

Tell me - how would ACC impose and collect levies on skateboarders, skiers, rugby players, kids in a playground......??

After all ACC is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not the fence at the top, and that is what us motorcyclist are totally ignoring.

An excellent point. Instead of increasing levies we should expect ACC to examine the costs and compensation paid out. The rise in claim payments is huge and is the cause of the current funding deficit.

[bogan]

Mmmm you've answered your own question - m/c are a small and easily defined group.

Tell me - how would ACC impose and collect levies on skateboarders, skiers, rugby players, kids in a playground......??



An excellent point. Instead of increasing levies we should expect ACC to examine the costs and compensation paid out. The rise in claim payments is huge and is the cause of the current funding deficit.

I agree with your second point, more preventative action should be taken.

And I agree that it would be very hard to collect levies from other sports. However I still maintain that it is unfair to levy one and not the other; the fact that it is difficult to levy the other in no way justifies this unfairness.
Levy all the population equally, or put all the population into a user pays scheme; these seem to be the only fair options.

[Ixion]

That would be the gain for privatisation of ACC for each Insurer Company, as their structures and costs are aleady set up, ACC premiums would be just additional marginal income for them.

That is just to transfer a benefit from the public sector (ACC) to the private.

Since the private insurance companies will never agree to take on the "old" cases, or the "hard" ones ,they will want to cherry pick the profitable business.

That means that ACC is left with what the private sector does not want, and , in the reverse of the private sector picking up extra business without any investment, ACC will lose income but still be expected to maintain its existing structure.

Prior to the creation of ACC, we had compulsory third party insurance, through the private sector (why does no-one remember this?) . But the insurance companies didn't get to pick and choose the business- those that wished to participate had to set a fee for a specified cover and accept any takers that wanted to take it up . It was done when you paid your rego, like now. I always chose NIMU (North Island Motorists Union) , anyone remember them

[Coldrider]

That is just to transfer a benefit from the public sector (ACC) to the private.

Since the private insurance companies will never agree to take on the "old" cases, or the "hard" ones ,they will want to cherry pick the profitable business.

That means that ACC is left with what the private sector does not want, and , in the reverse of the private sector picking up extra business without any investment, ACC will lose income but still be expected to maintain its existing structure.

Prior to the creation of ACC, we had compulsory third party insurance, through the private sector (why does no-one remember this?) . But the insurance companies didn't get to pick and choose the business- those that wished to participate had to set a fee for a specified cover and accept any takers that wanted to take it up . It was done when you paid your rego, like now. I always chose NIMU (North Island Motorists Union) , anyone remember them

Yes, the old cases would have to be bought out or grandfathered somehow. That is another reason for the levies to adjust to self-funding by 2014. Acc would be able to fund the old cases, and sell of the customers so to speak.
The old system was when I as more worried about what was in my lunchbox on the way to school.

[Coldrider]

Mmmm you've answered your own question - m/c are a small and easily defined group.

I'm not so conviced, 96,000 rego'd motorcycles, 20,000 on hold (I think), that is a couple or two seats in parliament, more of a force across many marginal seats, have to play our cards right.

[Winston001]

Levy all the population equally, or put all the population into a user pays scheme; these seem to be the only fair options.

And yet general taxation is levied unequally - and people seem happy with that. Indeed there is a common NZ attitude to taxing anyone who earns more than the average. Higher incomes pay higher rates of tax. People with children claim Working For Families tax credits even at levels of $100,000 income. Lots of inequality in there - in fact having children is a cost to the state and should incur more tax.....

The proposed ACC levies are an attempt to impose user pays. M/Cs cost more to treat = pay more.

I don't like it, I think the figures are suspect, but I can see the general logic.

[Katman]

After all ACC is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, not the fence at the top, and that is what us motorcyclist are totally ignoring.

Well the fence at the top would be motorcyclists cleaning up their own game.

Good luck with that one.

[Katman]

In fact, here's a radical idea (and totally hypothetical in case anyone thinks I've become even more deranged)........

Imagine if they said "Ok, you've got 12 months to half the number of motorcycle accidents or we're going ahead with the increases."

Imagine what the ensuing peer pressure could do to combat irresponsible riding.