The implementation of the increases, in the end, are not in our hands. We can (and do) protest and provide the ones who are prepared to listen, opposing views to ACC's. Regarding how they have wrongly justified and calculated the proposed new levies, the lack of logic they have used and the un-just way they are planning to increase the ACC levy on bikes.
But I have also, on KB, and other places, had a read and realised that ACC has clearly made a few blunders when going down this track. Some of them could even be considered major blunders.
It made me think, that perhaps they have made enough mistakes and left them selves open for a successful legal challenge? (I am not someone with a legal education, and so what I am here pointing out might not have a leg to stand on. But just perhaps...)
Please feel free to prove me wrong, but also add to what I have here come up with.
What I have picked up sofar is:
- The "Advertising Campaign" in major newspapers justifying the increases for bikes. As this was done before the last date for submissions, it was clearly done to support their view. This is clear propaganda. And as the money used was from the ACC levies, surely this is not right?
- Charging GST on ACC levies. Yes, we are taxed from many different angles, and there is not much we can do re it. But surely charging us a tax on a tax is against the tax law?
- Charging the same person the same tax more than once for the same thing. When we own more than one motorvehicle we pay ACC levy on all of them. It could be argued that we therefore are paying the same levy fee again and again. If we are injured while driving/riding we can only get hurt once at a time. Therefore we should not have to pay the same fee more than once. My legal angle is that nobody is allowed to charge the same fee more than once for one service? The ACC levy does not cover the vehicle but the person, so for one person to pay more than one ACC levy is surely against the law?
And I borrowed this one from Wobblyas (hope you don't mind, but I think you have a very valid point there!):
- ACC R.I.S. doesn't comply
Regulatory Impact Statement: All policy proposals submitted to Cabinet that result in government bills, statutory regulations, or that propose that the government support or adopt a Members' bill must be accompanied by a regulatory impact statement (RIS)unless an exemption applies. (ref http://cabguide.cabinetoffice.govt.n...s-requirements) “The Treasury Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) Team has reviewed the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and considers that it does not meet the RIS requirements. The RIS does not contain the required information and the analysis in incomplete in a number of key areas. For example, some of the proposals to remove ACC entitlements will shift costs onto other government agencies or on to individuals but the RIS does not quantify these costs. The proposal to introduce experience rating and risk sharing in the Work Account will increase administrative and compliance costs for business and for the ACC Scheme but these costs have not yet been investigated. In addition, the RIS consultation requirements have not been met.” (ref http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/...-bill-2009.asp)
There, a start...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by davereid
Haven't even got my Duc anymore to not chrome....
Bookmarks