Bikers able to live with ACC rise?

[mashman]

There was a brief article covering their RFP in Resller News about 5 weeks ago. The new software is to provide them with "standard Insurance" functions such as no claim bonuses and excesses, etc. The decision to spend millions purchasing and integrating this software into their existing system indicates that the decision to become an insurance company was made some time ago.

HOLY SHIT!!!! time to tip the bad data into a black hole again???? Didn't this happen the last time they changed software?

Is there anyway this can be blocked from a legal stand point?

[Ixion]

Thanks for your hard work Ix, we all owe you a vote of thanks.

Here, you have hit the nail on the head.

Bikers now have to seen as supporting other groups campaigning for fairer ACC rather than carrying our own torch.

This has to be led by Unions, the deaf, victims of crime and sexual assault, normal kiwis seeing the damage being done to ACC, not just by us.

Indeed. And in some (perhaps most) cases we will perhaps be support players. We need to realign our focus on to the principles not the number after the dollar sign.

I do not know if the original increases really were intended to destroy motorcycling. Certainly comments by Mr Key might be taken to imply that.And Ms Candor has posted about a government scheme to abolish motorycling by 2050 . If they were, they have failed. I doubt that any significant percentage of bikers will be selling up and going to four wheels. Or that the bikes sales will be much affected (maybe a small shift to 600s instead of 750s or litre bikes. The big crusier market I think will be unaffected.

That is the really important thing.

[candor]

Agree with Les, attack the principal, acc is not broke, higher than forecast investment returns of $600m and investment portfolio rose to $13.56b according to the Treasury, someone is still telling porkies.

I was at select committee again today, and heard Labour admit the scheme IS BROKE - the words were "unsustainable"... and they said for now they agree with the Nats that it needs to be future funded - but that the issue despite their current assent to the Nats wisdom on this, is "still alive" - I think meaning they are very interested in any other workable ideas ie ways to reduce claims or costs so levies need not be so heavy or entitlements so trimmed back in select areas (a band aid), but have yet to hear or rubberstamp any. They will soon produce a Labour "vision" - modern but in the Woodhouse spirit - I think.

With high interest levels ie bright alert eyes and bushy thumping tails, Labour asked submitters if submitters approve of risk rating. It seems Labour is seeking to sniff the wind before deciding positions. They also sought to have private tete a tetes with submitters at later dates - a trick I've never before witnessed in dozens of select committee appearances. It looked like an attempt to rattle the Nats - cat 'n mouse style.

Personally I don't think bikers have got done - I think they've won a significant battle but now the Govt has a big dilemna.... who or what solution is next.
They again got strong messages to fix road safety and then the whole accounts book will look much rosier - and seemed to respond more positively than the 100x we've said it over many years. In fact we noted while discussing it today that we first warned them about ACC in 2005 - go check the Sfe As website - oh yes they removed it

[Ixion]

..
Personally I don't think bikers have got done - I think they've won a significant battle but now the Govt has a big dilemna.... who or what solution is next.
They again got strong messages to fix road safety and then the whole accounts book will look much rosier - and seemed to respond more positively than the 100x we've said it over many years. In fact we noted while discussing it today that we first warned them about ACC in 2005 - go check the Sfe As website - oh yes they removed it

There is nothing that attracts a man's attention better than a pain in the pocket book. And now National (and perhaps Labour also) have realised that a simple "charge 'em more and more" is not going to work. So they now (I think for the first time) realise that they have an actual FINANCIAL interest in not having people injured. Instead of just a vague theoretical one. That clarifies the mind mightily.

And, of course, most of what works for motorcycle safety will work just as well for car safety.

One might therefore hope for a more receptive audience , when pointing out that what has been happening obviously isn't working

[mansell]

There is nothing that attracts a man's attention better than a pain in the pocket book. And now National (and perhaps Labour also) have realised that a simple "charge 'em more and more" is not going to work. So they now (I think for the first time) realise that they have an actual FINANCIAL interest in not having people injured. Instead of just a vague theoretical one. That clarifies the mind mightily.

And, of course, most of what works for motorcycle safety will work just as well for car safety.

One might therefore hope for a more receptive audience , when pointing out that what has been happening obviously isn't working

The most sensible thing I ahve read on this thread. We are going to be charged more, we always were, if we would have rolled over at the first announcement our lords and masters would have been laughing all the way to the bank. Fortunately enough noise was made to get some leeway.

I still think we need to focus on road (and rider) safety - less accidents means we can push for lower premiums.

[Katman]

I still think we need to focus on road (and rider) safety - less accidents means we can push for lower premiums.

Absolutely - it would give us real bargaining power.

[YellowDog]

Yes, I would go along with the general sentiment. Whilst I don't agree with the price hike, it won't now negatively influence my decision as whether I continue with motorcycle ownership.

The system and charging schematic is not fair and steps need to be taken to make it fair. Provided ACC is going to make changes to allow them to qualify and justify their future directions, I will be a lot happier.

I totally dissagree with the 'Pay for the future' policy and find it quite stupid. You should deal with the future when it comes or you will otherwise have your head so far up your are that you create a self fulfilling phophecy.
There is nothing clever about being right about what you made happen by being a complete fool.

Perhaps we may see a future reduction based upon the financial steps that are being put in place.
(yeah right!)

[Ixion]

Absolutely - it would give us real bargaining power.

Well, probably not that. But, at present our hands are very much tied behind our backs. Because, though we could not publicly admit it while the dollar stage of the fight was going on, the reality is that ACC are correct in saying that we crash too much . We do. Simple as that. Too many people falling off their bikes.

And when the opposition can point to the numbers that illustrate that, it's pretty hard to put forward a convincing argument. At best, we are on the defensive, trying to defend that which is , in reality, indefensible.

And it is equally clear that if we KEEP falling off at such a rate, we cannot expect to win in the long run .

[Laxi]

The argument that motorcycles should not pay more than cars was always and will always be a lost cause - for no other reason that the worlds perception, rightly or wrongly, is that motorcycles are a more 'dangerous' from of transport.

Lets see if any Labour MP's still think the increase is unjustified. This will be interesting.

national havn't won shit! the attitude that oh well lets just accept it, will give them everything they want

[Laxi]

Well, probably not that. But, at present our hands are very much tied behind our backs. Because, though we could not publicly admit it while the dollar stage of the fight was going on, the reality is that ACC are correct in saying that we crash too much . We do. Simple as that. Too many people falling off their bikes.

And when the opposition can point to the numbers that illustrate that, it's pretty hard to put forward a convincing argument. At best, we are on the defensive, trying to defend that which is , in reality, indefensible.

And it is equally clear that if we KEEP falling off at such a rate, we cannot expect to win in the long run .

so what next? they double the acc levies on the elderly, or how about the logging or construction industries they have more accidents than everyone else, if bronz are now saying this WAS all just about motorcycles and backing down i'd like to know now, cause I for 1 will cancel my membership in a heartbeat

[Pedrostt500]

Ok the bastards got what they were always after, If you thought they were going to back down and run away at the sound of your hardly, then sorry son you sadly underestimated our opponent, they will be back next year with a simmilar trick, and no doubt they will have other little tricks up their sleves.
They can now call us all spoilt brats if we protest about the Levy rates, so we have to be Clear about What we are Protesting in the future, Don't back down and roll over, we have only just had a few scirmishes.
I still want to do Bikeoi 2010, and take EVERY AFFECTED group along to let the Government and ACC know that we arn't happy, and we are not going to go away.

So what can we do?.
We can make sure that BRONZ is well supported Nation Wide, if you dont have a local branch, either get a group of like minded people together, I think 10 is the magic number, and form a local branch for your area, If you can only get a few together approach your nearest branch, and ask to join as a Satellite branch, you don't have to be an active member, just be a Finacial member, buy just paying your dues every year, and going on the ocasional ride.
You can also organise or take part in actions, organised through KB.
You can ride your bike at every available opertunity, the more bikes on the road the higher the profile we have, be proud to be a Biker.
Send letters to your local paper, If you have some writing skill, see if you can contribute a motorcycle columb to your paper.

[bikemike]

I still think we need to focus on road (and rider) safety - less accidents means we can push for lower premiums.

Levies

BTW
Luck of the Irish
http://www.fineos.com/about/clients/ACC.htm

[Ixion]

so what next? they double the acc levies on the elderly, or how about the logging or construction industries they have more accidents than everyone else, if bronz are now saying this WAS all just about motorcycles and backing down i'd like to know now, cause I for 1 will cancel my membership in a heartbeat

No of course not. I don't see the connection. Of course it's harder to argue against LEVY INCREASES when they can turn round and say "But you guys crash so much". Which is why we have ALWAYS said that the issue is not about risk factors. Or just about how many dollars we pay .ACC wasn't meant to work that way.

And I will shamelessly quote what I said in another thread

Think about it.

Mr Judge says "OK, if ACC is going to run as an insurance company, bikers have to pay $3700. As a first installment , the minimum is $750". And, repeated that even after all the submissions.

Today the Minister came back and said "Shit, sorry John, the country just won't stand for your increases. I have to cut back on them , or my government is toast"

I'd say that todays result is exactly the reverse of turning it into another insurance scheme. It's an admission that , right now anyway, they can't swing that. Of course, that's the game plan and they'll keep trying. But round one, it hasn't worked.


Today's increases mean that the ACC demands for full funding are not a starter. Read the Minister's admission

Quote:

These levy increases are sufficient to stop any further deterioration in ACC’s overall finances but will be insufficient for ACC to close the gap between its assets and liabilities by 2019"

That's Nick Smith's own admission. He couldn't swing the minimum that ACC demanded.

Todays increases were a gesture. They're not enough to give ACC what it needs if it is to be sold. He saved some face with the $30 for injury prevention thing. But the blunt reality is that ACC CANNOT be sold off to insurance companies UNLESS he can find a way to put up levies more than he has today. Or, alternatively, cut entitlements even more.

And my guess is that entitlement cuts is the way he'll go now. He's admitted that the public won't stand for higher levies - and that perception is in no small measure down to us - no-one else was publicly opposing levy increases. So , the option it will be - can't put up levies, cut costs , ie entitlements.

And THAT is the long haul that we need to be in for. The next ACC Amendment Bill next year

[XP@]

There was a brief article covering their RFP in Resller News about 5 weeks ago.

It was also in stuff.co.nz about the new insurance company style software.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/30...ftware-upgrade
I brought it up in my oral submission today on the premise that ACC is not demonstrating Administrative Efficiency in its intended purchase of this software.

The software is estimated to cost $131million. Gartner group's statistics show the initial cost of an application is only 8% of the total lifetime cost. This would put the lifetime cost at a whopping $1.6 Billion! Based on the lifespan of the current system (8 years) this would give the new system an annual cost of $200 Million.

The Gartner group also calculate the average application lifespan to be 15 years (however it is probably closer to 30 for core systems like this one). By cutting the life of the current system by almost half it will cost ACC upwards of $100 Million per year for the next 7-8 years.

[XP@]

More thoughts...

As Les points out we have actually made some real difference. If nothing else we have stopped ACC becoming an insurance scheme as fully pre-funding is no-longer an option.

Watching the news tonight and it was all numbers $'s and %'s I hope this is the end of those as there are different issues on the table. It was good to see the bikers getting the credit for forcing the levies down, including the earners levy.

The government is also cutting costs some of these have the potential to do some real damage to ACC. The question is can bikers get motivated to fight on the issues in the bill?
Its too late to post a submission but oral submissions are being heard at the moment, whilst I was there all were bikers.

We can keep up the pressure in the media and to mp's showing we are not happy about the way the bill is eroding ACC's core principles. Included in this are clauses which:

• stop ACC from needing to take in to account prior income when deciding if you are fully rehabilitated and ready for full time work. Also reduction of full time from 35 to 30 hours.
• effectively exclude cases where mental health system makes mistakes (other medical misadventure is covered)
• allow ACC to take your final holiday pay to cover your own compensation.
• plus a whole heap more...