ACC ad in Dominion Nov 5 (now with 100% more PDF)

[riffer]

Emailed to Darren Hughes ; phil@goff.org.nz; chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz

Good day gentlemen.

I note with interest that ACC is running an advert in today's DomPost and Herald which is continuing with their misleading and inaccurate information regarding motorcycling, a copy of which I have inclded with this email.

It contains statements such as motor vehicles are subsidising motorcyclists to the tune of $77 per year. According to LTSA's own statistics freely available here:

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/m.../docs/2008.pdf

there were 3,308,930 cars, trucks, vans or utes registered in 2008. This suggests a total of $254,787,610 subsidy of motorcyclists PER YEAR.

Information freely available from ACC here:

http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/stati...ount/IS0800157

shows that in the 2008 year (the latest year we have the information available from) the following claims were made:

Cyclists
567 active claims
$12,573,000
$22,174 per claim

Pedestrians
1115 active claims
$24,494,000
$21,967 per claim

Car Occupants:
8525 active claims
$208,305,000
$24,434 per claim

Motorcyclists:
3173 active claims
$62,523,000
$19,704 per claim

which quite clearly indicates that only $62 million is being spent. Hardly $254,787,610 is it? This information is clearly false.


I would like to draw your attention to the MP's Handbook - In particular I draw attention to section 2 under PURPOSE. and section 5 under PRESENTATION.

These rules govern both an MP and also heads of Govt Departments.

There is a ruling to state that the ONUS falls on the Minister to ensure that statements are true, factual and not misleading.

Any member can ask a written question of the speaker to have a ruling made on the validity of any statement made either in the house or outside of the house.
The speaker is obligated to act without bias and if he finds that the statements are not factual or are misleading can have the member appear before the privileges committee.

Whilst a member may be covered by privilege within the house, if the same false statements are made outside he can face litigation. The committee can also rule against a head of department.

I shall also be making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority regarding this.

In the meantime feel free to check my information and do what you like with it; after all, it's freely available and no secret to anyone; unlike the real agenda here, whatever that may be.

Yours faithfully
Simon Gotlieb

Rimutaka Electorate (a very marginal one for Labour).

===

reply from ASA:

Dear Simon Gotlieb,
Complaint submitted

Thank you. Your complaint form has submitted successfully and the Advertising Standards Authority will contact you regarding the complaints process.

This is an automated response, please do not reply to this email.

[Big Dave]

you want facts for a rebuke.

Fact 1. According to the Ministry Of Transport statistics there are Approx 2.4M registered cars. ( FACT )

ACC's stated cross-subsidies to cars of $77 even after the levy increases would equate to $184M (FACT ). The ACC pay out in claims for motorbike accidents last year was only $62M (FACT ). ACC will be collecting 3 time the money they are paying out (FACT ).

Where is the money really going ?

I think you need to ask the ACC who funded these adverts.

Whoever organized for Phil Goff to be at the Auckland rally should contact Phil Goff and have the question asked in parliament. This will get you extra free advertising debunking the ACC claims.

Also get him to ask why they are placing such ads before the submission process is complete, because until this is done ACC do not have a balanced view ( the reason for the submission process ).

Nice work. We're 100% on those facts?

[Pixie]

Tis ad was the last straw for my workmates (who were LARGELY anti-biker cyclyst crowd 3 weeks ago)

The 3 guys in my office who all supported the Levy hike against us as righteous and truly deserved, have just put down their calculators, appologised to all of us through me, and are signing my copy of our final petition

Whoever does the petition, I suggest a 'tick' collumn or box to indicate 'Motorcyclists, yes/no'

Back to the Ministers secretaries..... busy busy busy

Good Work!!

[Azi Dahaka]

i posted a new thread for the rebuttal please respond if you can

[wingrider]

I have written to Darren Hughes regarding this advert and asked for his reply to my request that they make a written submission to the speaker of the house as to the validity of this advert.

Heads of Govt Departments are bound by the same rules as a minister when using public funds to advertise.
Please read the attachment in my earlier post.

[Mystic13]

After the Bikeoi leaves parliament it should wander around to ACC. I think a mass visit from riders to Keiths office asking for an explanation might be in order.

This has gone personal. It's clear our submissions to ACC aren't worth a bean. they've already made up their mind. And they're becoming more resolute. My god they've adopted a them and us mentality. Scary. they want to make independant sound judgement but clearly that's not the case.

[Big Dave]

Emailed to Darren Hughes ; phil@goff.org.nz; chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz

Good day gentlemen.

I note with interest that ACC is running an advert in today's DomPost and Herald which is continuing with their misleading and inaccurate information regarding motorcycling, a copy of which I have inclded with this email.http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.co...vertising.html

I know you are a reader cause I just sent you 3 mags.

http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.co...vertising.html

[wingrider]

OOPPPSSSS, sorry guys and gals. wasnt updating the thread as I was busy typing to Darren.

Is it possible that someone pass this on to the persons at Chapman tripp who are working for us??

[riffer]

I know you are a reader cause I just sent you 3 mags.

http://kiwiridermagazine.blogspot.co...vertising.html

[ManDownUnder]

I respectfully submit that ACC should discount all submissions in support of the increased levies received from November 5 on as they are based on false information put forward by ACC themselves.

ACC also need to submit a retraction and full apology for the advertisement immediately, most certainly before the submission closeoff date of November 10

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

ACC also need to submit a retraction and full apology for the advertisement immediately, most certainly before the submission closeoff date of November 10

As long as we don't have to pay for it... the head honcho on $500,000 can pay for it out of his own pocket

[ckai]

I agree this is bullshit but from a marketing point of view it's pretty well written to catch the fence sitters. It's written in a lovely and sincere way and pretty much polite.

A complete contrast to the likely "what utter crap!" that would come from those opposed.

I love the way everyone jumps on it and does something about it though any marketing department would love that sort of get-up-and-go.

[Bald Eagle]

Have emailed by local member of parliament requesting she raise the appropriate question in the house.
Also just left a phone message with her electorate office.

[Azi Dahaka]

my works comms advisor informed me about it and his first words apart from it makes sence was it is designed in such a way to make people hate motorcycles.

i sit in my office with my bikoi advertising fluro jacket hanging over my chair and he said event if you go to parlament now without a rebuttal done before hand if you create any traffic jams motorists are going to get pissed off and support acc more.

[Kinje]

Thanks guys and now this is where the $77 comes from.

Last year ACC paid out $62 million in ACC claims. And you've all been foolishly basing your numbers on that. You need to realise ACC haven't done that. They picked an arbitrary number for next years claims. They chose $252 million. And on this basis if these claims come to fruition then motorists would be cross subsidising us by $77.65. (This excludes all of the other mis-information.) So ACC are right... on the basis of these absolutelty sound figures produced with a large sprinkling of fairy dust. And no they're not out to get us just to justify the fee increase. Bastards.

If someone would like to do some bed time reading they can tell us how they got to $252 million. It'll be imbedded in earlier pages.

I refer you to page 29 of "Levy Consultation 2010/11" "Levy Rates for Motorists"

I decided not to post the PDF because of it's size but here's the link.

http://www.acc.co.nz/search-results/...+for+motorists

ACCs own stats seem to contradict the 16 times more likely to claim (pg 28 of consultation doco). In fact, it seems more like the 3 times more likely that others on here have determined themselves.