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

[MSTRS:Me]

I've sent my complaint to the ASA. Off to send same to the Dom and Herald.

I have sent a complaint to ASA regarding the ad run in your paper 5.11.09 by ACC. I felt it only fair to let you know, and I include the body of that complaint for your info.

ACC has used a considerable amount of 'public' money to place an ad in the major dailies in an attempt to use propaganda on the reading public in order to justify their proposed huge levy hikes on motorcycle registrations.It refers to a 'cross-subsidy from car regos of $77' that has been proven wrong. It contains statistical claims that have been proven wrong. It attempts to draw parallels with vehicle insurance and uses that term, when their founding principle is that they 'compensate' in cases of personal injury. There is a direct lie in reference to m/c claims 'on public roads', when the claim form often (up to 80% of the time) only states accident 'was on a m/c' and not the location. And the last point in their ad attempts to portray motorcycles as somehow being different than cars when it comes to people owning more than one.
My biggest problem with this ad is the fact that there has been a lot of publicity around the issue of levy rises on m/cs, most of it being negative towards those rises and this ad is a thinly veiled attempt to sway public opinion in favour of ACC (and to court submissions based on that) by depicting motorcyclists as somehow deserving of being singled out of the general motoring public.

[Pixie]

My complaint to the ASA:

The advertisement is blatant false advertising.
The assertion that Motorcyclists will still require $77 cross subsidy from other vehicle registrations is obviously false.
Simple arithmetic shows that If each of the 2,584,509 registered light vehicles in New Zealand paid $77 the total amount collected by ACC in levy increases alone would equal $199,007,193 ($77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193) which means car and van drivers will be paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists.

This is presenting the public with false information



http://www.asa.co.nz/complaint_form.php

[Deano]

Which would be the best TV channel to give the heads up about the ACC ad and our complaints to the asa ?

[Pixie]

Just thinking about it, the ASA will take FAR too long to do anything about this.

I suggest everybody e-mails the Dom Post about ACC's misleading statements and asking them to run a rebuttal from BRONZ for free.

The idea is to attack ACC on all fronts.
ASA will let them know of the complaints- it may make them think twice about posting more ads.
I'm now going to ask my MP (Jonkey) to ask a question in the house about ACC spending money on anti-motorcycle advertising in the newspapers

My Email to my MP:

Dear Prime Minister

I am an elector in the Helensville Electorate.
This morning in the Dominion newspaper the Accident Compensation Corporation publish an anti-motocyclist advertisement containing obvious falsities.

I ask that you question the Minister of ACC if it is within the Obligations of Minister to allow an organisation that falls within his portfolio to place advertisments with such blatant misinformation.


I draw attention to section 2 under PURPOSE. and section 5 under PRESENTATION in the MP's handbook.

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

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


I have attached the advertisement from the Dominion.


The following is the content of my complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority:


"The advertisement is blatant false advertising.
The assertion that Motorcyclists will still require $77 cross subsidy from other vehicle registrations is obviously false.
Simple arithmetic shows that If each of the 2,584,509 registered light vehicles in New Zealand paid $77 the total amount collected by ACC in levy increases alone would equal $199,007,193 ($77 x 2,584,509 = $199,007,193) which means car and van drivers will be paying $149m more than the total ACC cost supposedly incurred by motorcyclists.

This is presenting the public with false information"



Yours sincerely

[Dafe]

The biker's would be better off pooling some funding together and hiring the best legal representation available. Sue for court costs at the same time, that would pay for a victory BBQ in the main centres.

[wingrider]

I attach comments from a previous post.

Obligations of an MP.

I sought info from the beehive and was reffered to the handbook for MP's setting out their obligations. Statements or publications made available to the public come under the advertising section.

I attach the extract for you to read.

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 Depts.

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 priverlages committee.

Whilst a member may be covered by privelage 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 hope this info may be of use to those that are helping us with this.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/at...5&d=1256701400

These rules apply when public funds are used to advertise.
They are binding on both the minister and heads of department.

[The Pastor]

sent my complaint to the asa

[Mystic13]

Can one of you talented folks take the PDF and re-post it in jpeg form. I'm sorry I don't have the skill or programs (probably both) to do it.

I want to post it up on facebook with a rebuttal.

Cheers and thanks.

[jeffs]

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 ).

[pzkpfw]

Can one of you talented folks take the PDF and re-post it in jpeg form. I'm sorry I don't have the skill or programs (probably both) to do it.

I want to post it up on facebook with a rebuttal.

Cheers and thanks.

Your wish...


(A bit compressed, sorry.)

[MSTRS:Me]

here ya go

[StoneY]

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

[MSTRS:Me]

They may well have truly fucked themselves now.
ASA will be bogged down for weeks. I suspect that every major paper will be flooded with letters to the editor, and may be forced to print a retraction, albeit buried on page 200.
Acc/s head is above the parapet...who's on the Barrets?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

I need a tui... and i don't like beer

[Mystic13]

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