ACC AND MOTORCYLE LEVIES
AUTHOR: Peter Dunne
The recent protests by motorcyclists over proposed massive increases in ACC levies highlight a problem that occurs all too often.
Upfront, I think the proposed increases are too steep, and should be revisited. I also think there is an essential conflict between the “no fault” principle which underpins the whole ACC philosophy, and the argument that the costs to ACC from motorcycle accidents outweighs the levies collected from that sector. “No fault” is one of the great strengths of ACC, and to discard it is to fundamentally overturn ACC’s most unique feature.
However, leaving all that aside, there is a more fundamental issue.
Too often, governments make decisions on the basis of particular items or machines, and not the people who use them. So, we decide that because, for example, guns are dangerous and can kill or maim people, every single gun has to be licensed, even though a gun without someone to fire it is relatively harmless. Similarly, with motorcycles, we decide that each one of them has to bear an ACC levy, even though they have to be ridden dangerously to cause harm. In short, we blame the machines for the foibles of the users.
Where does personal responsibility fit into this? Should not the onus be on the individual, rather than the equipment they use? And should the licensing regime reflect this? After all, you can only fire one gun, ride one motorcycle or drive one car at a time.
In the 1950s and 1960s people used to have a separate radio (and then television) licence for every item they owned. That was on the basis that people probably owned only one radio or television, but as times changed (and transistors arrived, followed shortly after by portable televisions) that quickly changed too, and now we do not even pay a broadcasting fee at all.
While I do not envisage there will ever be a time where people pay no ACC levies, I do think the current debate provides an opportunity to have a fresh look at the way these levies are imposed. Instead of basing the system on individual items, maybe we should be looking at a flat charge for all motor vehicle owners that could be struck on an annual basis. I acknowledge the potential complexities inherent in such an approach, but I also understand the inequity of the current system.
We need to strike a better balance, and more of the same in this case simply will not do.
Originally Posted by skidmark
Reply With Quote
It's actually a pity that politicians have to bitch at it other just because they're the "opposition" and can't just put their ego's aside and say "let's work out what is actually best for the country".
off topic sorry.
Bookmarks