Close Up tonight (22 October)

[Marmoot]

Who decided the fault in these cases? My daughter (in a car) got hit from BEHIND by a petrol tanker and the cops held her accountable for not being seen just because she was on her Restricted Licence! Seems on that count the most vulnerable is the cause of most accidents so of course bikes are usually the cause.

And you decide your daughter's case is a representative argument because...?

[Molly]

Shit. Have I missed the article? It's only 10.15pm. Can't have been on long. Baby was crying so had to tend to her. What did I miss?

[Mikkel]

any ideas what we do if ACC has its figures spot on?

The statistics are irrelevant insofar ACC is supposed to remain a no-fault scheme. If so, makes no sense to distinguish as to who suffers the injury when it doesn't matter who caused the injury. The whole logic behind different ACC levies for different types of vehicles is basically flawed.

Statistics can be manipulated to show pretty much anything depending upon what bias the commentator chooses. As such approaching this issue from a statistical angle is both difficult and tenuous - and it will never be as credible as if approached from a more ideological point-of-view.

However, being able to point flaws in the origin of the - alleged - motivation for the proposed ACC levy increases serves to discredit the entire movement. So studying and understanding the statistics is certainly worthwhile - but it shouldn't be the "angle of attack" so to speak.

[Cloggy]

any ideas what we do if ACC has its figures spot on?

I think they have their figures spot on. But spot on to suit their needs.

small errors...
130,213 x 3700 = $481,788,100 just under half a billion (even if not all regestered etc still does add up)

the combined car and bike claims is only $270,828,000

somewhere something is simply not adding up



270,828,000 / 2,919,151 = $92.78 levy required by each car, bike and moped to cover this years claims

Like that the figures don't add up. That is because we are looking at the figures from our point of view, not ACC's needs.

Because National are trying to pull a snowjob on the NZ public.

They are bullshitting the figures to pay for FORECASTED future costs.

And remember it suits their agenda (they pledged this pre election)to privatise ACC for their business toadies.

Exactly. That is the way I understand it too.
Currently ACC have 11 billion dollars in the kitty. ACC need to have 23 billion dollars in the kitty by 2014 to become fully funded as required by the government. Last year they made 1.5 billion dollars surplus. That is not enough to build the fund from 11 billion to 23 billion in 4 years time. Hence the steep increases needed to reach 23 billion. Motorcycle levies are only the start.
It all sucks and we need to fight it. 2014 is only some date plucked out of thin air. It can be extended to 2019 without any problems and would mean no steep increases in levies.

[Mikkel]

Having just seen the Close-Up video on the net I have to concur! Les you did a brilliant job, good on you - not at all nervous were you

Such a short time, it would be very good if more air-time could somehow be procured - without having to firebomb and embassy or something silly like that.

[325rocket]

just finished it now. good job, well done.

[ManDownUnder]

Les you fucken beauty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just watched it online... be sure to let Mark Known when you haven't received the data from them... and copy him on anything saying BRONZ would need to pay 10k for the data.

[James Deuce]

Good work Mr Ixion. Cool under fire and let the ACC chap hang himself. Best way to do it. Saves on rope burns.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

It can be extended to 2019 without any problems and would mean no steep increases in levies.

agreed... and I have no quarms if it takes another 20 year personally...

we were in a recession in 1999 when they changed it from "Pay as you go" to "fully funded"

It is kind of funny and ironic that the only government arm that makes a profit every year, is the one the nats want to sell...

[Gareth51]

Just watched it online,Les your the man,well done

[merv]

any ideas what we do if ACC has its figures spot on?

Its been said on other threads but if its user pays that counts then its time we all simply had personal accident insurance and have premiums with no-claim bonuses and the like with each of us identified by an ID card (like a licence) or something. Why should me and Mrs merv subsidise the crashers of the world in registering as many vehicles as we do?

Oh that's right, this is meant to be "help each other society" where we the wider group help pay for the unfortunate to ease their burden.

Anyway, good on you Ixion.

Katman do you sleep well at night?

[Owl]

Not sure about that being a slip of the tongue as they (ACC, and the minister) have used that language in the media before, I am sure its a well thought out line, there was a statement made motorcycles were 16 percent more likely to be involved in a crash recently.

I think that would be 1600%

[JMemonic]

PB's comment got me thinking, they might be a little random but here goes.

Is this agenda being pushed by the same party that was supposed to have employed one of the most secretive company of spin doctors available, one that had a record of assisting US presidential elections etc?

Did they not play on and use emotive issues in their campaigns over the last two elections, play on New Zealanders fears, and use adapted information?

Are there not emotive terms being used in this campaign?

Is the National party members in government using the same lines as ACC, with identical wording, and figures (which don't add up)?

Weren't the auditors and figures according to tonight's interview calculated and check by and Australian company, and weren't the spin doctors based in Australia?

To my mind this is motivated campaign, well funded (by the NZ tax payer), playing on emotional issues, ACC seems to be the major push for this government currently. I do not wish to get in to arguments about political parties and their respective leanings, again to me this appears to be a push to offer up a national asset, (which is where National seems to come from), as has been done before for privatisation. I see coming up an altered sales pitch, which will see New Zealanders being sold the idea of a total privatisation of ACC being more cost effective, vehicle rego's and workers contributions will suddenly be able to be maintained at current levels or lower levels if there is a move towards the offering of our scheme to private providers.

Call me cynical if you wish, but this kind of sales pitch to average Kiwi's, (who happen to be one of the most studied and predictable groups for marketing), would be easy for some spin doctors to push, and its not like we have not seen other supposed assets of the countries sold off at effectively discounted prices, stripped of anything profitable, leaving the country effectively screwed and having to catch up.

[pete376403]

Originally Posted by JMemonic
Not sure about that being a slip of the tongue as they (ACC, and the minister) have used that language in the media before, I am sure its a well thought out line, there was a statement made motorcycles were 16 percent more likely to be involved in a crash recently

I think that would be 1600%

16% more likely is probably correct - but for a while the figure morphed into 16 TIMES more likely, which is completely wrong. Didn't stop Smith from saying it though. Lying bastard.

[Bald Eagle]

Just watched the Close Up segment on-line . Great work Les