Reply from Mr Key's office and my response

[Pixie]

Dear Mr Pixie

Thank you for your email to Mr Key. I do apologise for the delay. Unfortunately the address you sent it to goes to Wellington and this is a heavily oversubscribed service that can take up to a month to get through the response queue currently and enquiries from local constituents are directed back to this office.

I have printed below some responses from the Ministers office for your information that by now you are probably already aware of.

The proposed rates that have been released by ACC are not the finalised rates. ACC has released these initial proposals for public consultation. The proposals include increases across ACC’s different levies, not only those for motorcyclists.

ACC has received over 2,700 submissions from the public on its proposals. This is a far greater number than is usually received. Both ACC and I are conscious of the level of public concern at the proposed levy increases and I have also met with a number of representatives from the motorcycling fraternity to hear their concerns directly. The submissions will be considered by ACC before its Board makes a recommendation to me. I will then make final recommendations to Cabinet, which will decide on new levy rates. The new rates will be effective from 1 April 2010 for earners and employers, and from 1 July 2010 for motorists.

Levy rates at the level proposed by ACC so far are unlikely to be acceptable to many New Zealanders, and I am taking steps to prevent increases of this scale, which are aligned to ACC’s current policies and governing legislation.

ACC faces significant and serious financial problems that the Government has had to give urgent attention. ACC lost $2.4 billion in 2007/08 and another $4.8 billion last year. Its unfunded liabilities have increased from $4 billion to $13 billion, as claim costs have risen 57 percent in the last four years.

The financial impact of these funding shortfalls can be addressed by reducing ACC’s costs, increasing levies, improving rehabilitation outcomes, or reducing entitlements, and the Government's approach is a balanced mix. Measures are being introduced to change ACC’s practices and governing legislation, so that levy increases can be kept as low as possible.

Work is underway to improve ACC’s rehabilitation performance and to better manage payments to treatment providers. Gains in these areas will, over time, have a positive effect on levy rates.

I introduced an ACC Reform Bill on 22 October 2009. This legislation will see ACC’s proposed levy increases, including those for motor cycles, reduce. I am also pushing out the date the Scheme needs to be fully funded, from 2014 until 2019, removing some Scheme extensions introduced by the previous Government like suicide, as well as removing entitlements for criminals.

A stocktake of ACC is also underway. The object of the stocktake is to deliver practical recommendations for improving performance and to ensure our accident insurance Scheme is affordable for levy payers and taxpayers. It will investigate, amongst other things, drivers of the cost increases and alternative options for service provision and funding. The Stocktake Group will also look at whether we can make greater use of the private sector for injury management and compensation. However, I remain committed to a 24/7 no-fault accident compensation scheme.

Motorcycle accident claims have risen from 871 in 1998 to 5044 in 2008, a greater increase than any area of claims. While the annual road toll has been decreasing over the past decade, some 27% from 501 to 366, motorcycle fatalities have increased 21%. These increases cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of motor cycle numbers increasing, as the numbers of claims per motor cycle have grown significantly over the past decade.

Levy increases are required. In the case of motorcycles, if the true cost was charged for motorcycle injuries on public roads, levies would range from $1200 for smaller motorcycles to $3700 for those over 600cc. Even with the levy increases proposed by ACC, every car owner will be paying $77 per year to subsidise injuries to motorcyclists. This funding of motorcycle accident costs by other road users occurs notwithstanding the claim that it is cars that cause the accidents. Even if we assume that all accidents involving both motorcycles and other vehicles are the fault of the other driver, the cost of other motorcycle accidents involving no other vehicle still far exceeds the proposed levy. I also stress given the claims to the contrary, that this analysis only includes accidents on public roads and does not include trail bike or farm bike accidents that are charged to other ACC accounts.

I can assure you that the Government will consider levy rates carefully, and will be exploring the best options to minimise levy increases, while ensuring that the ACC Scheme is viable and effective.

I do take on your concerns and can assure you that the Government will not be proceeding with levy increases as large as those initially proposed by the ACC Board.


Kind regards


Genelle Bailey
Electorate Agent for
Hon John Key
Prime Minister


MP for Helensville

Ph 09 412 6935

Dear Genelle

Thank you for your reply.

I take it that Mr Key will not be asking the question in parliament that I requested in my email.I also note that he expects me to be placated by the same tired and highly questionable statistics.

Please relay to Mr Key that he has lost one electorate vote and gained one individual who will work tirelessly to ensure The National party is relegated to the opposition benches at the next election.

Regards

Pixie


My original request:


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

Pixie


They just won't let go of those numbers.

Time to up the ante methinks.

[Skyryder]

Looking forward to see what the Advst Authority say.


Skyryder

[marty]

next you know you'll be driving around having fun like this guy >>> http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/at...1&d=1235848147

[Ixion]

That was written by Nick Smith not John Key

[Pixie]

I think Genelle was that lovely lady we met at the Kumeu Electorate office.

[Ixion]

I think so also, but the content is from Nick.

He met with motorcycling representative, JK never has. And Nick introduced the bill, not JK.

[rainman]

I think Genelle was that lovely lady we met at the Kumeu Electorate office.

Genelle is indeed a lovely lady who is based in Kumeu, and (for her sins, no doubt) is married to a thoroughly decent bloke who I used to work with (and others on this site still do). He does not ride at present, I understand, but I think has a Harley (and an old BSA) in his shed. He certainly knows many a biker, and although I would hesitate to put words into anyone's mouth, I would think he would be friendly to the general biker cause and perspective.

So perhaps the old kiwi 2 degrees of separation thing might have some effect.

[MSTRS:Me]

Motorcycle accident claims have risen from 871 in 1998 to 5044 in 2008, a greater increase than any area of claims. While the annual road toll has been decreasing over the past decade, some 27% from 501 to 366, motorcycle fatalities have increased 21%. These increases cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of motor cycle numbers increasing, as the numbers of claims per motor cycle have grown significantly over the past decade.

They just won't let go of those numbers.

Time to up the ante methinks.

Would you care to email 'him' back with respect to this point?
The figures they give are bullshit.
1998 saw ACC with 2 computer systems. 1 for all incoming claims, and 1 for all of those claims that were serious enough to require ongoing treatment, earnings compo, etc. By 2000, they had one computer system, with some of the old system's content being transferred. But only the content from the 'serious' system. In 2008, serious new claims to ACC were 1335'ish. The 5044 includes all those claims where a medical treatment was required - but no followup of an ongoing nature, and no earnings compo.
So, 871 compared to 1335 shows a DECREASE, or at worst a status quo, in claims per registered bike. I don't have the registered number for 1998, but it will be around the 60,000 mark, whereas in 2008 the figure is 96,000 not including mopeds.