Manifesto

[Ixion]

OK. So were're all going down to Wellington. Cos we're opposed to the levies.

So, what do we want? What's our posiiton

We need a manifesto

A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature

So, what are our principles and intentions

And before we go ANY further let's be clear. here, we are ONLY talking about intentions (and I guess principles) about LEVIES.

This manifesto will form the basis of what we say at parliament and what we say to the Minister. It is essential that we work through it NOW because when we confront the media and the Minister we must all "be singing from the same song sheet". We must speak (nay, roar) with one voice.

Privatise/don't privatise ; ACC versus insurance etc aren't part of this remit

Because this thread is bound to turn into a train wreck I've set up (another!) social group , called (duh) MANIFESTO. In there I will rpeserve the sane and meaningful bits from this thread. If I've set it up right () anyone should be able to view it, not post in it

So, lets hear it.. Just give me the points, I'll stitch them together.

I'll start with a few.

• The principles of the Woodhouse report should be preserved and respected
• 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 .
• 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.
• Motorcyclists should not be discriminated against because of their transport choices.
• Those who choose motorcycles instead of cars make a positive social and environmental contribution. motorcycles use less fuel, have a smaller footprint, cause less emission, congestion and pollution
• ACC should be requried, as public policy to take account of social and environmental benefits whn setting levies and accept a responsibility for promoting those
• There is no justification for treating a (small) subgroup of private passenger vehicles differently to othrs. Motorcycles should be in the same classification group as cars (nb this leaves us with an issue re mopeds). And pay the same levies
• The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured
• The present method of levying vehicle registrations causes unjustifiable anomalies and injustice, not only to motorcyclists but to anyone who has more than one vehicle but drives only one at a time. Fairer, alternative collection methods should be introduced as soon as possible
• ACC is not in financial crisis and is not broke. The "crisis" is an artificially engendered one to give spurious justification for actions that the Government could not otherwise justify
• The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.
• There is no justification, statistical or otherwise , for different levy rates on different capacities of motorcycles. The figures put forward by ACC to justify this are fundamentally flawed and do not support their case. (NB this leaves us with the moped problem again)

Please add more. But keep them to the point - LEVIES is what we are focused on. Not redesigning ACC , castigating politcal parties and such like

Keep your eye on the ball. focus. it's all about the levies.

Mr Hitcher, your input would be invaluable here.

[scumdog]

Dunno how to put it but I feel this is the thin edge of the wedge re the levy - will it stop at motorbikes?

Or if they get away with it will the Govt find other sectors to load up levy-wise, i.e. passenger vans because they have potential to injury many more than one car, 4X4 vehicles because they more severely injure others on cycles/motorbikes/smaller cars - as well as the pedestrians they hit....enough rambling from me..

[phred]

[*]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 .

Nice Summary Mr Ixion.
My levied 10 cents worth is to add that the ACC scheme was promulgated on the basis that If all of society benefited from the scheme then all of society was equally burdened with the cost of the scheme.

There is a clause in the woodhouse report that can be quoted. If you want me to locate it again let me know.

[Jantar]

The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted and distorted, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable form a government organisation.

Add in the word "incomplete" to make it:
The statistical data produced by ACC to justify their claims is slanted, distorted and incomplete, and does not present a fair and unbiased viewpoint. This one sided presentation is unacceptable from a government organisation.

[Ixion]

Amended .

[slofox]

Mopeds: Just class all motorised forms of transport in the same way. i.e. one bin for all and one levy for all.

[yachtie10]

OK.

The present method of allocating costs is manifestly unjust to motorcyclists, who must pay whether they are in the right or in the wrong. No other group in society is expected to pay for the privilege of being injured

You may want to reword this as Car drivers currently are in the same boat


Good start though

[MSTRS:Me]

Think you've covered it...but, I would have said:-
Statistically, motorcycles are insignificant in number, and the moped class is even more so, but their contribution in terms of cost benefit in emissions and impact on the roading/parking infrastructure is almost incalculable.

[davereid]

Dunno how to put it but I feel this is the thin edge of the wedge re the levy - will it stop at motorbikes?

http://www.3news.co.nz/Drivers-of-ol...7/Default.aspx

Friday, 3 July 2009 - 12:01pm


Wellington, July 3 NZPA - Plans to make motorists who drive older cars pay more in ACC levies than those in newer, safer cars will simply penalise the poor, a motoring commentator says.

ACC Minister Nick Smith said yesterday an ACC review would look at whether linking the levy to safety ratings of cars would help reduce the annual $336 million cost of road crashes.

Vehicle registration could be matched with a car's make and year and linked to a safety rating and a discount or extra premium.

Dr Smith said he had not made a decision about the change and the financial incentive might be difficult to introduce as New Zealand had a relatively old fleet and not everyone could afford to upgrade to a newer, safer car.

Clive Matthew-Wilson, editor of the Dog and Lemon Car Guide, said today that people bought old cars because they had little money.

"Penalising poor people for having little money is something that only someone in Treasury could dream up."

He said the simplest way to ensure that poor people drove safer cars was to ensure that government departments bought the safest cars in their class.

"That way, in five or 10 years time when these same cars are bought by poor people, the poor people will be driving safer vehicles."

Mr Matthew-Wilson said the Government was also ignoring proven ways to lower the road toll, such as upgrading the seatbelts in older vehicles, and most importantly of all, ensuring that all cars had automatic headlights.

Countries where cars drive with their headlights on at all times had a significantly lower road toll.

Other things being considered in Dr Smith's review were drivers paying levies according to their accident and infringement records, and shifting more of the ACC road levy from registration fees to fuel so those who drive more pay more.

Labour ACC spokesman David Parker said he would oppose a system that saw better-off drivers pay less because they could afford better cars.

[Brian d marge]

Mopeds: Just class all motorised forms of transport in the same way. i.e. one bin for all and one levy for all.

agreed with this

All motering users one price CARS could go Down a llittle and mopeds up or Mopeds up

One levy to rule them all

Stephen

also Ixon your summery was spot on Though would it need ( the main thrust a bit simpler , Say Acc is a no fault , or one from the top of your list

Stephen

[MSTRS:Me]

Can you paraphrase from these two posts?

[Marmoot]

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.

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 is also analogous to taxing certain races (Pacific Islands? Maori?) just because they are overrepresented in the welfare recipient list.

[StoneY]

You people are all smarter than this angry wee ginga.
Keep it comin, great stuff here

[Hitcher]

Does anybody have any contacts amongst the ranks of the organised treadly riders? Given that they have been signalled as the the next target for ACC (number plates and WOFs for treadlies, FFS!), they should be very interested in this manifesto and in joining their powered two-wheeled brethren in protest at Parliament on 17 November. While I know some people who pedal, I have no contact with those who may be politically active.

[MSTRS:Me]

Um, wasn't that a pisstake thread?