Kiwirider: Gareth Morgan's ACC position

**p.dath** · 24th August 2012, 13:08

I recently bought myself a copy of the September issue of Kiwirider, and it had an article in it by Gareth Morgan (chairman of MOTONZ, the organisation that gets our $30).

It is very apparently he does not uphold the views of the Woodhouse Commission that was the foundation of ACC, for he is personally suggested we should consider putting back in place a very similar scheme to what existed prior to ACC. Basically it would be like forgetting all the grief that people went though before the Woodhouse report investigated it, and then ACC was put in place to resolve. Things were *substantially* worse before ACC, which is why a Royal Commission of Inquiry was created to fix it.

I should say he is only proposing these changes for Motorcyclists.

Some things he mentions are:
* Having an excess on claims.
* Levying riders instead of bikes - so that we can charge riders who have accidents more, identify returning riders more easily, and basically make a risk assessment based on the rider rather than the bike
* Giving people the right to get private insurance

I grow so tired of the argument for the above. You only have to do a bit of research on how bad things were before ACC to realise things are currently *really* good.

So Gareth, I realise these are your personal views, but please don't push them forward. Otherwise in 20 years we'll be looking back at how good things used to be wondering what we screwed up.

**caspernz** · 24th August 2012, 14:30

The overall message is personal responsibility isn't it?
Given that ACC in its current form is in essence too expensive, some form of user pays seems fair to me. You choose a risky hobby or sport, or mode of transport in our case as motorcyclists, only seems fair to pay ACC in some proportion to the risk.
What I find unfair is that if I have a commuter bike for weekdays, a tourer for trips and a dirt bike for hooning around on the weekends, then why should I pay 3 lots of ACC fees when I can only ride one at a time? So levying the rider instead of the bike gets the thumbs up from me. Hard to administer and/or police though, just like rego...

None of this matters, for the cynic in me reckons the outcome has already been decided, what's going on at present is just the window dressing to get us to the unveiling of the master plan

**Katman** · 24th August 2012, 17:07

I see no problem with what he's proposing.

**bogan** · 24th August 2012, 17:12

Thats the same speil he had a few months ago in a newspaper right? Was a lot of discussion in another thread; he even weighed in a called us spoilt wingers or something to that effect.
Is it any wonder our $30 is up to fuck all with this pillock running the show.

**merv** · 24th August 2012, 17:20

Surely only those that crash a lot and cost the rest of us money at the moment will be against any personal style of ACC cover. I would have earnt a lifetime no claim bonus long ago if it had been like that, but instead at our peak me and Mrs merv were paying ACC levies on 15 vehicles between us, costing a fortune at the time, but we rationalised the fleet before it cost the megafortune it otherwise would have today.

**Katman** · 24th August 2012, 17:24

Originally Posted by bogan

he even weighed in a called us spoilt wingers or something to that effect.

If the cap fits.....

**bogan** · 24th August 2012, 17:27

Originally Posted by merv

Surely only those that crash a lot and cost the rest of us money at the moment will be against any personal style of ACC cover. I would have earnt a lifetime no claim bonus long ago if it had been like that, but instead at our peak me and Mrs merv were paying ACC levies on 15 vehicles between us, costing a fortune at the time, but we rationalised the fleet before it cost the megafortune it otherwise would have today.

They don't just base the levies on how often you crash, but how often people they think are like you crash. Some would have you think this means more personal responsibility, but you could be the safest 21yo 600cc male rider in the world, and still pay more than some barely awake womble on a rustbucket; I don't see how that encourages personal responsibility.
Then factor in the added costs of running a risk based insurance scheme, and chances are the lifetime cost you pay to them will be significantly more, and you'll be saddled with the highest cost when you have the least income.
The numbers look shit at the moment because we are paying both past and present claims.
Also, TPTB keep trotting out that we should pay between 1500 and 3k if it were properly assigned risk based levies, are you sure you'd be better off?

**bogan** · 24th August 2012, 17:30

Originally Posted by Katman

If the cap fits.....

Don't know about that, but one thing is for certain, the 'insult riders' cap and 'rider representative' cap should never be worn at the same time. He should remove the later, and shove the former up his arse.

**merv** · 24th August 2012, 17:31

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

**bogan** · 24th August 2012, 17:33

Originally Posted by merv

... but if this was a proper insurance scheme I would have my own personal cover based on my personal record, no one else's, and it would be way less than I pay now through rego, that I do know.

So what do they charge you while you establish your personal record? People taking the me-me-me approach is what got us into this mess, looking at the big picture is the only way to find the best solution.

**oldrider** · 24th August 2012, 17:38

There was nothing in place before ACC ... insurance companies would not have a bar of it!

The original Woodhouse concept worked until it got choked up with debt and subsequent political interference and tinkering!

**merv** · 24th August 2012, 17:47

An insurance company could be allowed to review your existing ACC records if that's the path the gubbermint wants to take. You hardly need to build up a record if you've already lived a while.

As for newbs, sure they've got to earn it, but even they would have a record of a sort up to the time they get a motorcycle licence. First accident claim after that could whack them with a loading, what's wrong with that compared to now where we pay for all the ones that won't listen to Katman's advice?

**mashman** · 24th August 2012, 17:57

Originally Posted by p.dath

I should say he is only proposing these changes for Motorcyclists.

Some things he mentions are:
* Having an excess on claims.
* Levying riders instead of bikes - so that we can charge riders who have accidents more, identify returning riders more easily, and basically make a risk assessment based on the rider rather than the bike
* Giving people the right to get private insurance

I've had a bad day, so let me start by saying, are you off your rocker Mr Morgan... believe me 4 letter word expletives where begging to be written.

An Excess on claims: Why? If people can barely manage the ACC rego payments, what good is an excess when you can't afford it? I assume that if you don't pay the excess you are politely told to suffer until you do.

Levying riders instead of bikes: I used to think this was a good idea, but it's not not even close. It is great for those who have more than 1 motorcycle, but the resulting hike in ACC levy would push many off the roads, it will simply be way too expensive to ride. And for those who say "well if you can't afford it, you can't ride", then you're gonna be shit out of luck at some point as several thousand people being pushed off the road will mean 1 thing. Higher premiums for those who are left on the road.

Giving people the right to get private insurance: that's just another way of saying privatise the motor vehicle account (if not the entire ACC). It goes hand in hand with levying the riders. Exactly the same thing will happen for cars and their drivers. Now as we are fully aware, there are more cars than there are motorcycles. So those who can afford it get insurance and what is the result for ACC? Less revenue, hmmmm that could only mean one
thing... Higher premiums.

Accept anything other than the Woodhouse principles and watch ACC vanish!

Either way we're screwed and destined to become an ACC less country. Unless of course we do something smart, like taking the entire ACC bill for the year (all accounts) and levying directly off of wages (which would cover all dangerous activities, including getting out of the wrong side of bed)... but we're too fuckin stupid to think about something like that, irrespective of the FACT that we use our "salary" to pay for ALL of our ACC levies (apart from fuel I guess).

Have these scenarios been considered Mr Organ? If so, how did the numbers look? I am laughing as I highly doubt that you brainy folk have attempted to look at ACC as anything other than a dying institution. Fuck you very much for your indulgence.

**bogan** · 24th August 2012, 18:10

Originally Posted by merv

As for newbs, sure they've got to earn it, but even they would have a record of a sort up to the time they get a motorcycle licence. First accident claim after that could whack them with a loading, what's wrong with that compared to now where we pay for all the ones that won't listen to Katman's advice?

How many riders have more than one claim though? Most people I hear about have one accident then wise up, I guess increasing their levy could be said to pay for that previous accident rather than the risk though. Also, you're very naive if you think it is all down to your record, it would still be a no claims bonus, which only modifies the existing price for your demographic; still not seeing how it increases personal responsibility.
Of course I still wouldn't accept paying a higher premium if somebody else drove into me, would you? So there goes the no fault thing, in come the lawyers, and the overall costs go up 30% (iirc from the PWC report).