Response letters from MPs

[u4ea]

Yep. Got the same reply. Trotting out the party line. Totally ignored ALL the content of my own mail. As you would expect.

Jeesus thats shocking aint it!!

That's an attractive bit of spin. And it has to do with M/c levy increases, what?

Yer i was kindov puzzled at the reply to motorcycle levies too

[rainman]

Gawd he's an arse.

[pete376403]

I sent a civil and sincere email to opose the increases and got this reply
...By keeping ACC as a monopoly, and not properly allowing risk pricing to emerge, we are in fact increasing the number of workplace accidents...

Never let the facts get in the way of good spin
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/heal...steady-decline

Also that bit about every monopoly opened up to competition has resulted in lower costs, etc., doesn't rodney use electricity for anything? Hasn't noticed what has happened to pricing?

[ckai]

The benefits of competition become apparent when you listen to the nonsense peddled by Labour in their opposition to it. The first thing Labour will tell you is that costs will increase, because we now have to pay for the profit margin of private companies.

This actually makes sense - from Labours point of view. Keeping it Govt owned means they can just break-even every year. Unfortunately this never works in practice because if they don't make a profit, the head honcho team can't get bonuses that they don't deserve - and the profit margin can't be reallocated to the "kitty". Logical in theory, doesn't happen in the real world.

Well, look at it this way. Every single monopoly - be it in forestry, shipping, or coal mining, has always delivered more for less when it has been opened to competition.

Whoopse, forgot about Telecom as well. Oh but there is an excuse for that one, they didn't write the rules well enough. Who honestly thought they were opening up competition when they gave the both the lines and the service to one company!?!?! Dodgy, brought politicans.

In fact, it is even more important to open ACC to competition. Currently, ACC sets a flat rate levy based on the risk in an industry. Those employers which have safe environments subsidise those who have unsafe environments. There is little commercial incentive to create safer workplaces.

Mmmm, they seem to forget that if you are ACC accredited you pay lower ACC premiums. I know this because I had to put together the changes for the old company and make the work-place "safer". Ended up saving the company a crap load.

You do gotta love the way politicians seem to divert current situations to fuel their own agendas. "Yes I agree m/c levies are stupid, those poor safe businesses paying too much for safe work places. Let's privatise ACC, then I get free insurance for life."

[The Pastor]

this is what i recieved from Dr John Coleman, my MP for northcote.

Dear Scott

Thanks for your email. I value your support and want to hang on to it. I note your points and have copied your email to Hon Nick Smiths office to respond to your concerns directly.

Kind regards

Jonathan



Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman

MP for Northcote

Minister of Immigration, Minister of Broadcasting

Associate Minister of Health, Associate Minister of Tourism

Ph +64 4 817 9849

[sammcj]

Dear Sam McLeod,

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

[The Pastor]

now that is a good reply.

[k2w3]

Dear

Thank you for your recent email about the Government’s plan to raise motorcycle levies.

The current ACC levy on motorbikes is $252.00.

The Government is proposing to treble that to $735.00 for bikes over 600cc, an increase of just under $500 a year.

That represents the biggest ever increase in ACC levies.

It is unacceptable, it's outrageous, and it's not warranted.

The clear message from the Government is that it wants motorbikes priced off the road.

It ignores the fact that bikers use less petrol, create less pollution, and cause less congestion.

It ignores the fact, too, that nearly two thirds of accidents involving motorbikes are caused by cars.

And what about the people who are motor bike enthusiasts who have a number of bikes, though don't necessarily do high mileage on them? They'll pay an extra $500 on each bike.

ACC Minister Nick Smith keeps saying that this is an insurance scheme and it should be user pays – each category should meet the cost of accidents in that area.

ACC was never designed as a pure user pays insurance system. It was intended as a no-fault comprehensive system of protection for people who suffered injuries.

If it were user pays:

• some occupational areas, like farming, would be priced out of existence
• levies would be charged on sports clubs and schools because it's riskier to play sport than sit on the couch and watch it on TV
• elderly people who have more falls because of frailty would be charged for growing old
• push bikes would pay huge levies because of a high rate of accidents, also often not their own fault

None of that makes sense, and the Government shouldn't be playing one sector of New Zealanders off against another.

The decision is arbitrary on a number of other fronts. The cut-off points in terms of cc ratings do not, for example, take into account the relative power of motorcycles and would treat a vintage 650cc motorcycle as more dangerous than a 250cc modern bike capable of doing more than 200kph.

National is undermining ACC by reducing the scope of entitlements for injured New Zealanders, while it disproportionately hikes up levies for groups like motorcyclists.

To make matters worse, the National/Act/Maori Party government is privatising major parts of ACC. The insurance and management of injuries is being privatised. Instead of being provided by ACC this will be provided by private insurance companies. ACC has very low administration costs. The profits that Australian owned private insurance companies expect to earn have been estimated by Merrill Lynch to total $200million per annum. New Zealanders will end up paying more for less cover.

The government has been claiming ACC is insolvent. But it’s scaremongering. ACC has over $11 billion of reserves and last year collected $1 billion more in levies than it spent on claims.

In Parliament, Labour has and will continue to fight against the unprecedented cost burden that the Government is trying to impose on bikers.

We will work with you to try to get some sense out of the Government and a fair deal for bikers.

New Zealand has the world’s best accident compensation scheme. Labour wants to keep it that way

Thank you for writing on this important issue.


Yours sincerely


Hon David Parker

[Ixion]

Ah. Labour had been very quite until now. We were commenting on it the other day.

And they have just had their caucus meeting. David Parker is shadow ACC spokesspoke.

Looks like Labour have swung behind us.

So we now have support from Labour, Greens and Progressive.

Anyone tried the Maori party?

The good thing is Labour are in the fray then it becomes a very clear political matter, not an "internal" ACC one.

[Ozzie]

Well done, perhaps you can reply and ask if/how bikers and Labour can hitch together (ish) to get major support.

Perhaps suggest a Labour contingent comes to the rally in Manukau on Saturday.

Just an idea.

But back to you, again, good effort!

[Mystic13]

You need the Labour guy on the steps of Parliament. We can then boo for nick and cheer for Labour. For some of us that may be a feeble cheer for labour not being traditional supporters but bugger it, they're supporting us so I'll cheer loudly.

What would be great is if ACC or National could man up, do a back track adn admit the error of their ways and avoid many of us paying for two nights away from home and 3 days off work.

I have my fingers crossed for good weather.

Is it appropirate to hand your submission into a local ACC office before 5pm on the 10th. Of course I think it should be wrapped around and brick and thrown through the window but I digress. I've done the email version.

[k2w3]

I'm the same way, Mystic13. Hardly grass roots Labour, here. I'm probably more poster-boy Tory, but there you go. Side with those who agree with you is an equally as good mantra.

[YellowDog]

Nice words, but these arguaments haven't been put to parliament.

This ACC Bill sailed through parliament a couple of days back with a majority of 40 odd.

[Ixion]

Labour opposed it. It was passed by National+ACT+Maori

But that bill only indirectly impacts on our levies.

[Ixion]

You need the Labour guy on the steps of Parliament. .

I understand that may happen.