ACC 'Insurance'

[Hanne]

At the public meeting of 30/11/09 the several questions were put ot the minister regarding John Judge and privatisation.

1. Which Australian Insurance Companies does the Minister intend to sell ACC off to?
Mr Smith's reply: 'none'

2. Despite the minister's claims that the final levies would not be as high as ACC first proposed, John Judge is sticking to his guns with 'the levy, the whole levy, and nothing but the levy'. Is John Judge a loose canon or has the minister lost control of his portfolio?
Mr Smith's reply: 'I have complete confidence in John Judge'

So the minister has no intention to privatise and can assure us that John Judge is making all the right decisions.

Interesting then that John Judge is releasing statements such this one:

"The question I would have is whether the [regularly changing] Government is a good owner of a long-tail insurance scheme."

Source ACC levy rises intended to boost reserve

I really think it is worth following up on the 'Insurance' angle given that Nick repeatedly referred to ACC as a state insurance scheme even though the Act states that ‘it is not a function of the Corporation or any Crown entity subsidiary of the Corporation to provide insurance’ (ACC Act , S262). When the chairman of ACC starts trying to distacne himself from the government and the Minister starts making statements contrary to the ACC Act, things start to get interesting...

[FastBikeGear]

John Judge has also said

source

"You and I, when we drive our cars, are insured for both medical treatment and for earning compensation. If you took my mother, before she ceased to drive, for the last 20 years she's only been insured for medical and yet she's paying the same rate," he said.
Ad Feedback

"At its heart it doesn't seem very fair ... that the poorest people in the community would subsidise the people with the highest incomes in terms of that income-replacement insurance as far as motor vehicles are concerned."

People who owned several cars or motorcycles also faced unfairness because they paid a levy on all their vehicles, although they could drive only one at a time, he said.

"It's a completely valid point. It's certainly the sort of thing I want to bring to the notice of the stocktake."

[Ixion]

That's an interesting couple of concession . The "cheaper deal to oldies" should logically apply to students, too.

Why , I wonder. JJ does not strike me as the sort of guy who makes ANY statement without a motive. And fairness is most unlikely to be it.

[Bald Eagle]

That's an interesting couple of concession . The "cheaper deal to oldies" should logically apply to students, too.

Why , I wonder. JJ does not strike me as the sort of guy who makes ANY statement without a motive. And fairness is most unlikely to be it.

I suspect he like all of us has / had parents. Simple self interest at work.

[Ixion]

Parents ? Him ?? Oh , well I suppose even they *have* parents, just don't know who they are .

[Hanne]

This from ACC when they declined to comment:

If a middle aged biker earning $80,000 a year breaks his back in a motorbike crash, the cost of care for the first three years is estimated at nearly $800,000, rising to over $4 million over his lifetime.

That is to cover the cost of spinal unit rehabilitation, home and child help and income compensation.

See full story here

So ACC are using the ERC argument to back up the increases. They have just outright admitted it. 40% of all expenditure form the Motor Vehicle Account goes towards ERC (thank you Nick, 30/11/09). Why is the burden being targeted towards
a) motorcyclists and
b) specifically those 600cc+
if ERC (which is still paid out in car accidents/ work place accidents etc.) is the problem?

If ERC is their main argument then wow, Ixion bangs the nail on the head, all of us uni bikers who are just starting out should riding but earning ** all really ought to have a discount too, right? Especially those of us riding light bikes like the dr650. Less weight = less chance of injury, Nick Smith IS the expert, after all. And 80% of minimum wage does not even figure when placed next to figures like $800,000.

I honestly think we need to grab this 'equal rights for motorbikes/ abolish wheelism/ one levy for all' idea and run with that. Anything less would be simply ridiculous.

One motor vehicle account for all motor vehicles, one pool to draw ERC from.... one LEVY for all.

[mashman]

PAH!!!! why a biker, why not a painter up a ladder, why not a car driver, why not a sports injury... fuckin scare mongerin to further their agenda........ again!!! ha ha ha...