Who's up for a flash protest ride this week?

**Ixion** · 27th October 2009, 20:45

We gotta go to the Green office first. Assemble Galbraiths car park northern end , aligned WNW , 12:41:36 hours, Thursday 29th Nov 2009 (precise enough ?)

Thence done the North Rd, to Porter Ave, say Thankee to the Greens, as Official Good Bastards, then back up to the NW motorway in Newton Rd (is it? ). Then to the West Gate to pick up anyone waiting thence to Kumeu to jeer at the arithmetically challenged gentlman (Official Evil Bastards) .

**Littlewheels** · 27th October 2009, 22:21

sent emails to all MPs I could, this reply from Big Jim
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

**Littlewheels** · 27th October 2009, 22:22

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

**Ixion** · 27th October 2009, 22:24

I got a six pack of Good Bastards Dark Ale on it's way to JA and a thank you card. He is an Official Good Bastard

Excuse . I have to go and wash my mouth out with vitriol now.

**Clean_up** · 28th October 2009, 01:12

so thursday afternoon then? Galbraiths Carpark? what is the exact time of meeting? 12:30? Count me in

**phred** · 28th October 2009, 10:00

Thursday good for me. What time we meet and where?

**klingon** · 28th October 2009, 10:20

I can't come along!

Wonderful idea though! Good on you lot! (And no drinking the beer en route)

**JohnR** · 28th October 2009, 11:48

Yep. I'm in... where is this Galbraiths carpark of which you speak?

**klingon** · 28th October 2009, 11:50

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yep. I'm in... where is this Galbraiths carpark of which you speak?

City end of Mt Eden Road. Right on the corner of Mt Eden, Symonds St & New North Roads.

What... you've never been to the Best Boutique Biker Beer Bar?

**JohnR** · 28th October 2009, 11:57

Originally Posted by klingon

City end of Mt Eden Road. Right on the corner of Mt Eden, Symonds St & New North Roads.

What... you've never been to the Best Boutique Biker Beer Bar?

:

Thanks... I'm beginning to realise how sheltered my life has been

**jeffs** · 28th October 2009, 12:46

I'll be there with a few others. 12:30 Galbraiths car park.

**FastBikeGear** · 28th October 2009, 13:44

Originally Posted by Ixion

Double dipper.

Nice bit: Say thank you to the Greens (Official Good Bastards) at their "electorate" HQ and delvier choccies.

Nasty bit: Say "Hands off our bikes y' bastard " at John Key's electorate office in Kumeu. And deliver protest letter and primary scholl arithmetic book. (since he and ACC plainly can't do simple arithmetic) .

All in favour of letting the Greens know that they have won support from the biking community. I'll gladly join you on Thursday for this.

However I think insulting John Key is not in our interests. Sure let him know that he could loose votes from bikers and put our view across (as you did so well on the TV) but let's not make this personal and insulting.

No one ever changed anyones mind by insulting them (Not a marketing strategy I have ever seen).