Nick Smith Auckland Nat meeting open to public

**Ixion** · 24th November 2009, 09:13

Originally Posted by coolhuskys

Interesting thread...I believe it is a great time to show solidarity here and have lots turn up but have one strong calm spokesperson asking questions with a strong silent presence from the rest of us...but we must remain eerily silent...wouldnt that have effect?? Any group can make alot of noise but it takes a well organised and together group to have control amongst its peers and stand there staring in silence...man it would scare me..Benefit is we get the right questions asked in an orderly manner that the media can easily report. Remember the All Blacks at Munster..Dan Carter found it hard to kick and concentrate with the silence because he wsn't expecting or use to it...maybe we can throw Mr Smith off his stride by doing the same...

I see very grave danger in such an approach.

MKr Smith believes time is on his side. That we will soon become bored with the topic, calm down and pay up.

Going along to his meeting like good docile little sheeple, sitting quietly and obediently, will be read by him as "I'm winning. They've already calmed down, another few weeks and they'll have lost interest completely"

We need to make it very clear that we are STILL ANGRY. Doing the docile and biddable undermenschen gig isn't going to send that message.

As to questions, I( will say there is NO question we can ask that Mr Smith cannot easily refute, simply because the issue by now has resolved itself down to fundamentals. Either one accpets (as Mr Smith does) that ACC is a user pays insurance scheme, or one accepts that it is a no-fault social compensation scheme. And his response to all questions can be very very simple and totally destroy all our arguments. "You paid 12 million. You cost 62 million. Other people are subsidising you".

If Mr Smith closes the meeeting, so what? I'd call that victory , actually.

ours is NOT an agenda of making Smith look stupid.. the idea in all the protests is to convince the government that the increases are unfair and unwarrented

Yes it is . The stupider he looks the better.

And we have ZERO chance of ever convincing the government that the increases are unfair and unwarrented. Because on a user pays insurance model, they are fair and warrented.

Our chance is to convince the government that fair and warrented or not, the political price of forcing them through is too great.

As to convincing anyone in the audience ? No chance, these are party political hacks . They won't step out of line.

**Bodir** · 24th November 2009, 10:16

Has anyone got a schedule of Nick Smith public appearances.

We should be attending all of them. Imagine what it has to feel like if you prepare yourself for a public meeting knowing that you will have to face the bikers again .... and again .... and again. Sooner or later that will show its toll on Nick.

It does not matter if he walks out each time. This will only damage his agenda and reputation.

This approach is easily expandable to other politicians.

They might not listen to you but they cannot ignore you either. And on a personal level this is boarder-lining on psychological warfare.

**Mr Merde** · 24th November 2009, 10:23

Originally Posted by Bodir

Has anyone got a schedule of Nick Smith public appearances.

We should be attending all of them. Imagine what it has to feel like if you prepare yourself for a public meeting knowing that you will have to face the bikers again .... and again .... and again. Sooner or later that will show its toll on Nick.

It does not matter if he walks out each time. This will only damage his agenda and reputation.

This approach is easily expandable to other politicians.

They might not listen to you but they cannot ignore you either. And on a personal level this is boarder-lining on psychological warfare.

It is a war and gaining a psychological advantage is one method to effectively wage war.

What use are you, if those you oppose do not fear you?

Maybe not physically but mentally.

If your opposition is getting to the point that they are looking over their shoulder whenever they do something, because they are worried that you may be there or watching, then you are half way to winning the war.

The government thrives on misdirection, why shouldnt we?

**Ozzie** · 24th November 2009, 10:25

Originally Posted by Ixion

Because on a user pays insurance model, they are fair and warrented.

I would say I strongly disagree with that statement.

Either

a. A user pays fault based system would see those that cause the injuries paying the increased premiums, ie. not us, not the victims.

or

b. The they increase the amount taken from salaries to cover the disproportionate costs of high income earners having their incomes covered whilst unable to work.

In an insurance model, the at fault party wears the cost. In an income protection model, more cover costs more money.

I think we are loosing sight of one of our major beefs, the split between clases or sizes of motorcycles. I for one ride a 600 cc, so not as badly impacted as others, but, that has to be one of the major points of the battle. Equality, across the motor vehicle category as a whole, and definately within the motorcycle category.

ACC (and the Govt) are saying 601cc + cost more, they do, but why is that?

It isn't the extent of the injuries or that they crash more often, it is the cost of the income cover. This cost is the same for people driving flash cars, or more specifically car drivers with high incomes.

Not everyone that rides a big bike is on a high income, just the same as not all that drive BMWs are either.

It is the people with the high income that cost more, irrespective of mode of transport.

If ACC want to apply the costs proportionatly, then they should look at the earner premium IMHO, put any additional cost where it belongs, not in a broadly generalised sub group.

Having said that, that would suck just as much, if not more, for me. But, being a National Government, they arent likely to do that are they?

Long story short, if they want to put blame in it, it should be levied where the blame exists, not on the victim, on the perpetrator.

Rant done!

**NONONO** · 24th November 2009, 15:03

Originally Posted by Bodir

Has anyone got a schedule of Nick Smith public appearances.

We should be attending all of them. Imagine what it has to feel like if you prepare yourself for a public meeting knowing that you will have to face the bikers again .... and again .... and again. Sooner or later that will show its toll on Nick.

It does not matter if he walks out each time. This will only damage his agenda and reputation.

This approach is easily expandable to other politicians.

They might not listen to you but they cannot ignore you either. And on a personal level this is boarder-lining on psychological warfare.

This is spot on, exactly what I was thinking.
To those of you who are arguing for a user pays, fault determining, litigation necessary rout...well I hope you can afford it. The reality (especially in such a low rent economy as ours) is that most of us can't.
If you long for a USA type system and all of the problems that go with it, personal, economic and social, then nothing I can ever say can change one iota of how you think, and I have no need or right to even try. But I wonder what your motives are and I hope you will always be as secure as you now appear to be.
No Fault Universal Compensation and Accident Prevention. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. I can see the lawyers and insurance brokers laughing all the way to the bank.

**Ozzie** · 24th November 2009, 15:35

Dunno if you got the wrong end of the stick, but I sure as shit aint arguin for a user pays system, quite the opposite.

I don't like the words "fair and warrented", no matter which way you cut this, the way they are intending to change this prize system is NOT fair and warrented.

**Ixion** · 24th November 2009, 15:44

Originally Posted by Ozzie

I would say I strongly disagree with that statement.

Either

a. A user pays fault based system would see those that cause the injuries paying the increased premiums, ie. not us, not the victims.

or

b. The they increase the amount taken from salaries to cover the disproportionate costs of high income earners having their incomes covered whilst unable to work.

In an insurance model, the at fault party wears the cost. In an income protection model, more cover costs more money.

I think we are loosing sight of one of our major beefs, the split between clases or sizes of motorcycles. I for one ride a 600 cc, so not as badly impacted as others, but, that has to be one of the major points of the battle. Equality, across the motor vehicle category as a whole, and definately within the motorcycle category.

ACC (and the Govt) are saying 601cc + cost more, they do, but why is that?

It isn't the extent of the injuries or that they crash more often, it is the cost of the income cover. This cost is the same for people driving flash cars, or more specifically car drivers with high incomes.

Not everyone that rides a big bike is on a high income, just the same as not all that drive BMWs are either.

It is the people with the high income that cost more, irrespective of mode of transport.

If ACC want to apply the costs proportionatly, then they should look at the earner premium IMHO, put any additional cost where it belongs, not in a broadly generalised sub group.

Having said that, that would suck just as much, if not more, for me. But, being a National Government, they arent likely to do that are they?

Long story short, if they want to put blame in it, it should be levied where the blame exists, not on the victim, on the perpetrator.

Rant done!

You missed the "on a user pays insurance model" bit.

ACC is NOT a user pays insurance scheme.

Which is why they are not fair and warrented. But if it WERE , they would be . that's what user pays means.

But Nick is claiming it is an insurance scheme. So we are not going to change his mind by argument.

**NONONO** · 24th November 2009, 17:49

Originally Posted by Ixion

You missed the "on a user pays insurance model" bit.

ACC is NOT a user pays insurance scheme.

Which is why they are not fair and warrented. But if it WERE , they would be . that's what user pays means.

But Nick is claiming it is an insurance scheme. So we are not going to change his mind by argument.

Ixion
What values are you giving to the words "fair and warranted"?
In what world is it fair and warranted to demand insurance cover, charge crippling premiums and then use your corporate legal teams to renege on payments at point of claim?
In what world is it "fair and warranted" for the corporate who sells the cover to evaluate the potential cost of the risk, then hike it up again, just in case the risk matures?
Fair and warranted? Read theft and usury.

**Ixion** · 24th November 2009, 17:52

Originally Posted by NONONO

Ixion
What values are you giving to the words "fair and warranted"?
In what world is it fair and warranted to demand insurance cover, charge crippling premiums and then use your corporate legal teams to renege on payments at point of claim?
In what world is it "fair and warranted" for the corporate who sells the cover to evaluate the potential cost of the risk, then hike it up again, just in case the risk matures?
Fair and warranted? Read theft and usury.

Fairly obvious, I would have thought. In the world of international insurance companies.

Pretty much standard operating procedure for them. Fair and warrented by their standards.

Which , again, is why ACC should NOT be truned into an insurance company.

But Dr Smith thinks it should. And thinks insurance companies are good stuff.

**drummer** · 24th November 2009, 18:39

OK... great debate here... but lets get don to the nitty gritty..

A few facts

1)This is our opportunity to make Smith and the government's thinking on ACC look foolish.

2) Inside the meeting we do that with good questioning and if necessary, debate. It has to be the only way... for those of you wanting a noisy meeting... think about it... not all people there are bikers OR Nat hacks... we do not want THEM offside.

3) Outside... I say go for gold! Rockon! However keep it legal.

4) I can't see Smith walking out as a victory which would be greater than if he was stumped and made to look stupid... trust me... he can be made to look like a fool... and surely that is a far greater victory... then once outside... let the shouting begin!

Peter

**DidJit** · 24th November 2009, 21:02

Is SpankMe going to send out a mailout for this? We really need a lot of bikes to turn up to this.

**rob 0** · 24th November 2009, 21:04

with all of the bad press about the nat's at the moment
i think that the public suport is at an all time low
they are simply pissing too many people off!

any thing that you say or do
will be like water of a ducks back to him
he doesn't actualy care!!

numbers matter to him
untill we have the suport of 50% of the population
the nats don't have to listen to us at all

45% against the anti smacking bill
and they didnt think twice about it

there have been a couple of things
that would have made this govt a great one

1 pass the anti smack bill as per the referendum ($9 mill)

2 stop atacking the little guy, as a smoke screen for an across the board tax hike (bike levies)

3 the Copenhagon thing, make the big companies pay their fair share
and not shaft the general population , ( didnt we setle with the Moari already)

4 make the fiber broad band free to
the population and charge the companies a small fee for usage 9 we are paying for it)

2

**drummer** · 24th November 2009, 21:14

Originally Posted by DidJit

Is SpankMe going to send out a mailout for this? We really need a lot of bikes to turn up to this.

Good idea.. will organise

P

**Bounce001** · 25th November 2009, 08:25

I am unable to attend the meeting at this stage due to work commitments. However, I was at an Adult Literacy workshop yesterday and have a copy of a book (published by the Tertiary Education Commission) titled "Teaching Adults to Reason Statistically". This basically shows you how to teach adults to read and interpret statistics.

If anyone going along to the meeting is able to meet me before the meeting date, I am more than happy to give this book to them to present to Nick Smith. Perhaps they might learn something. Please PM me to arrange a meeting point. I live in Tuakau but will travel to pass this book on!