Submission responses

[Indiana_Jones]

While the Greens might be on our side for this one, they can still go fuck themselves cause they want to take my guns from me.

-Indy

[short-circuit]

While the Greens might be on our side for this one, they can still go fuck themselves cause they want to take my guns from me.

-Indy

Go live in the states if the right to bear arms is your number one concern. You might get some clues while your there as to where NZ is headed in terms of accident cover and healthcare.

[Indiana_Jones]

Go live in the states if the right to bear arms is your number one concern. You might get some clues while your there as to where NZ is headed in terms of accident cover and healthcare.

Let's not start that argument and keep it on topic, I guess the point I was trying to make was, don't blindy vote for someone based on one thing they might support you on, or claim to.

such claims are cheap when they're out of government....

But saying that any support is good at this stage.

-Indy

[Slyer]

+1 For the greens.
Good response.
They're still at around -999 for me but it's a start.

[sunhuntin]

good on ya mstrs! be interesting to see what kind of bs they send back to you.

[MSTRS:Me]

The blue is spreading from around my lips...

[rainman]

Looks like the Greens have to be promoted to Official Good Bastards.

See? See? What have I been tellin' ya?



There's plenty of "good" in the Greens to work with. Some "misguided" and the occasional bit of "kooky" to be sure, but nothing to be too scared of!

(Crawls back under rock, trying not to appear too smug).

[SlashWylde]

While the Greens might be on our side for this one, they can still go fuck themselves cause they want to take my guns from me.

-Indy

I know Green party members who own guns. Where do you get the notion that the Greens want to take your guns from you? Unless you are being disingenuous or are referring to automatic weapons...

[slofox]

Anyone notice a common trend in these emails? NO?

I will point it out...


THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!


What the fuck. Oh wow.. Everyone got a response from the greenies.. But its all the same.. Whats up with that!?

Just like the two responses I have had from National Party members (only two I might add). They are both the same as well and trot out the same bullshit stats that are so patently false. I took the time to ask both the responding Nat members to please supply a breakdown of other user groups with the totals they claim and the totals they pay in...like cyclists f'rinstance...Bet I don't get a reply to that!

[Indiana_Jones]

I know Green party members who own guns. Where do you get the notion that the Greens want to take your guns from you? Unless you are being disingenuous or are referring to automatic weapons...

The Greens have made it quite clear they wish to ban all semi-autos

Fully-autos can only be owned with a collectors licence and not used.

-Indy

[Highlander]

Scary thought, what if they actually did want "open & honest conversation with the public" and it is not (contrary to KB rumours and the gut feel of most of us) already a done deal?

Just a thought.

I got a letter back from my local Nat MP, Jacqui Dean. Very polite, restated the Nat case, and said they wanted "open & honest conversation with the public" about how to fund the shortfall. Thanked me for expressing my concern. About what I expected, really.

[sunhuntin]

some more replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charlotte,

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlotte,

Thank you for your e-mail with your views regarding your concerns about the 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

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns.

Regards

Jacqui Dean

Jacqui Dean | Waitaki MP | P +64 4 817 6958 | F +64 4 817 0469 | Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz | Freepost Parliament Buildings Wellington 6160 | www.jacquidean.co.nz | www.national.org.nz

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On behalf of the Prime Minister, Hon John Key, I acknowledge your email concerning the proposed changes to ACC.

The issue you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for ACC. I note you have also copied your letter to the Minister and you will receive a reply from the Minister in due course.

Regards,

Briane Smith

Private Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

[k2w3]

I got identical replies, sunhuntin. Anderton's more personalised one was pleasant. The others, well more of the same crap trotted out again.

[Reckless]

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

CLASSIC end quote on that email!!

They want to take how many bikes off the road with their ACC levy and they're worried about printing one page!! And its from the PM's office!!

SHEESH talk about the Nats making fools of themselves!

[dpex]

I just got the following reply from Jim Anderton. It makes for very interesting reading. See if you can spot the really intriguing points. S'or right. I've highlighted them. :--))


Dear David,

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

I shall be replying to Jim and asking him to provide the financial data supporting his claims. If he can provide that then we can go to the medie to show Key is lying!

Then we get the bastard impeached!