
Originally Posted by
Winston001
Good stuff and I'm pleased to see a robust alternative view on the issue.
"No Fault" means "No Blame" in the compensation/damages sense. However it does not mean "No Risk".
So.......if you choose a risky occupation then you pay more ACC. The problem arises in the context of non-work injuries. At present there is no distinction or levy imposed for high risk activities.
Personally I'm happy for that to continue and support the protest actions.

You keep on bringing the not a "no risk" but a "no fault" scheme to the fore. In regards to risk assessment of workplaces - the employer (i.e. the representative of the workplace and thus the risk associated with it) pays the inflated ACC levy that goes with a higher risk assessment. The proposed ACC levy increase for motorcyclists effectively corresponds to applying the burden of an increases ACC levy upon the worker who is employed at a high-risk workplace.

Originally Posted by
Ixion
But that's NOT the case. Only motorcyclists are singled out. And moreover, the basis upon which the risk loadings are made in workplace levies is very open and transparent and contestable. That assigning higher levies to motorcycles certainly is not.
Indeed, not to mention the statement from the ACC report, which you used on Close-up, about wanting to provide a stable and predictable levy environment.
Imagine if you got told by your home insurance provider that your premium would be up by >200% next year. You'd first assume that a mistake had been made, then you would get frustrated and then you would find another insurance company. ...except there wouldn't be any.
It is preferential to refrain from the utilisation of grandiose verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualisation can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities. (...such as the word fuck.)
Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. - Joseph Rotblat
Bookmarks