This would change the game wrt ACC levies

[GrayWolf]

Present diesel price for marine use, Fishing boats and runabouts, is US980,50 per tonne.(1177ltrs) but maintenance costs for fishing boats is much higher than for road vehicles so no road user charges. But; try to find a place that'll supply the local fisho with cheap fuel, most of the petrol pumps closed down long ago and diesel is usually restricted to commercial users or their very close friends.

The UK 'used' to have a sytem for 'industrial/agricultural' fuel... it had a dye added to it, so spot checks on the roadside could instantly identify any 'misuse'... that would easily cover 'commercial' fishing vessels for exemption from an ACC levy on fuel, and catch miscreants who fill up the ute/4wd/car with deisel/petrol from the jetty.
So I cant see a problem with placing the levy directly from the 'pump' at service stations, after all the majority of the cost per litre is already tax/levy set by TPTB.

[george formby]

I'd be willing to bet that's going to make our current ACC levy look cheap

I dunno. When I go back to the UK I use an online company & pay my fully comp insurance monthly. Last time it was less than $40 per month & that is a full replacement for a new equivalent to my bike, full road side assistance & repatriation from anywhere in Europe, medical costs, accomodation, mercy flights etc. That price is at the thick end too. Rego was $140 ish per year.

[Winston001]

It was shit loads cheaper a number of years ago when they brought it in that we could get our own private insurance. Unfortunatly short lived when ACC and the Govt realised they wernt getting enough revenue to pay the current recipiants of ACC and they reversed it after only twelve months

Nope.

The private insurance alternative to ACC was introduced by the National government in 1999 and - for low accident jobs (office work etc) the initial cost was cheaper. However that first year was driven by competition for new business between the insurance companies with artificially low premiums.

The new Labour government reversed the law in 2001 bringing us back to ACC (which had continued in the meantime). It was a political decision.

My private insurer, an aussie company, went bellyup a couple of years later. So much for lifelong cover!! The unlucky people on claim were left with nothing...so ACC picked it up.

[Winston001]

Sounds like a reasonable plan and its certainly been proposed here often enough. I'm surprised that the cost would be as much as 20c/litre. If the rationale is that all vehicle accidents on/off road, in the air, or at sea are covered by ACC then a blanket tax on all fuel makes sense.

Against that, part of registration goes into road safety etc which offroaders shouldn't pay for.

I do like the current system where the WOF + Registration acts as a check against vehicle ownership and validity - we don't want to lose that.

[Meanie]

Nope.

The private insurance alternative to ACC was introduced by the National government in 1999 and - for low accident jobs (office work etc) the initial cost was cheaper. However that first year was driven by competition for new business between the insurance companies with artificially low premiums.

The new Labour government reversed the law in 2001 bringing us back to ACC (which had continued in the meantime). It was a political decision.

My private insurer, an aussie company, went bellyup a couple of years later. So much for lifelong cover!! The unlucky people on claim were left with nothing...so ACC picked it up.

Yea i remeber it was quite a bit cheaper but then we still had to pay residual levies to ACC, you cant win so you just gotta roll with it. I can still bitch about how much we have to pay though.

[sootie]

I think Gareth Morgans ideas are worth a read.
Maybe a basic bike rego fee, but the ACC levy for bikers would be triggered because they had one or more bikes regoed to them, but when paid would be shown as a sticker on their driving licence.
The really fair part here would be that a biker could own a number of bikes & only pay one levy.
If you were shown as owning a bike it would be hard to avoid paying the levy.
The present system is totally unacceptable!

cheers ... sootie

[swbarnett]

The really fair part here would be that a biker could own a number of bikes & only pay one levy.

While I agree it's a step in the right direction, there's still nothing fair about it. ACC is supposed to be"no fault and yet we'd still be "at fault" (i.e. charged more) for being a motorcyclist.


And while I'm thinking of it, taking the levy from petrol is hardly fair either. Yes, the more you drive/ride, the more you're exposed. But, it is also true for most that the more you drive/ride, the better (and therefore safer) you become.

The present system is totally unacceptable!

I think this is probably the only thing about ACC that most of us (if not all) can agree on.

[sootie]

ACC is supposed to be"no fault and yet we'd still be "at fault" (i.e. charged more) for being a motorcyclist.

I have no argument with this part of your statement, and was really just pointing out some of the justice in Gareth Morgan's ideas.

Actually, I would also state that accident statistics MUST be biased against motorcyclists anyway. How can a lone, badly injured motorcyclist who can not even survey the scene properly, possibly defend himself (her) against a motorist who very likely has his own witness in the form of a passenger with him?

[Winston001]

. ACC is supposed to be"no fault and yet we'd still be "at fault" (i.e. charged more) for being a motorcyclist.

This is a common misperception. ACC levies differ widely across industries and are completely different depending upon your risk. A forestry worker pays high ACC, an insurance clerk pays the lowest amount.

And while I'm thinking of it, taking the levy from petrol is hardly fair either. Yes, the more you drive/ride, the more you're exposed. But, it is also true for most that the more you drive/ride, the better (and therefore safer) you become.

Mmmm...really? My grandad drove for 70 years...and I wouldn't want to be on the road with him. 50yr olds have eyesight and heart problems. The average person reaches a level of competence at which stage they think they are excellent at driving - being all of 25 years old. They then become complacent and blame everyone else.

[swbarnett]

This is a common misperception. ACC levies differ widely across industries and are completely different depending upon your risk. A forestry worker pays high ACC, an insurance clerk pays the lowest amount.

I said it was supposed to be "no fault". I know it isn't. Just trying to say that any levy differential goes against the fundamental pri

Mmmm...really? My grandad drove for 70 years...and I wouldn't want to be on the road with him. 50yr olds have eyesight and heart problems. The average person reaches a level of competence at which stage they think they are excellent at driving - being all of 25 years old. They then become complacent and blame everyone else.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to say that those that cover a greater distance in a given time period on a regular basis will, on average, be better drivers simply because they get more practice in less time.

[Winston001]

I said it was supposed to be "no fault". I know it isn't. Just trying to say that any levy differential goes against the fundamental pri

Fair enough. So you'd be happy to heaps pay more to cover watersiders, scaffolders, mountain climbers, shearers, chainsaw wielders etc etc? You wouldn't consider they should pay more?

FYI your insurance company insists you pay more if your house is vulnerable to earthquake or fire or is difficult to rebuild. For example mine has timber paneling 50 yrs old and will cost a fortune to replace - as the insurance company pointed out.

[ckai]

Mmmm...really? My grandad drove for 70 years...and I wouldn't want to be on the road with him. 50yr olds have eyesight and heart problems. The average person reaches a level of competence at which stage they think they are excellent at driving - being all of 25 years old. They then become complacent and blame everyone else.

Couldn't agree more. Driving skill, it seems, is like a bell curve. Less face it, the older everyone gets, the worse everyone seems to drive. As you pointed out, complacency is the kicker.

[swbarnett]

Fair enough. So you'd be happy to heaps pay more to cover watersiders, scaffolders, mountain climbers, shearers, chainsaw wielders etc etc? You wouldn't consider they should pay more?

Yes, I'd be happy to pay my fair share pro rata based on my income. That's why it should all be funded straight out of income tax.

FYI your insurance company insists you pay more if your house is vulnerable to earthquake or fire or is difficult to rebuild. For example mine has timber paneling 50 yrs old and will cost a fortune to replace - as the insurance company pointed out.

Of course you'd pay more to insure a house that's more expensive to rebuild. But ACC is not insurance (or at least shouldn't be).

[swbarnett]

Couldn't agree more. Driving skill, it seems, is like a bell curve. Less face it, the older everyone gets, the worse everyone seems to drive. As you pointed out, complacency is the kicker.

While very true, age had nothing to do with my original point. Someone that only does a couple of miles a day is not going to pick up the same skills as someone that travels the length of the country on a weekly basis.

[Winston001]

But ACC is not insurance (or at least shouldn't be).

??? ACC is a compensation system which pays for medical bills and rehabilitation. But most importantly it pays 80% of your wages while you are injured. The central idea of ACC is no-fault compensation.

So if you earn $14/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

If you earn $40/hr you'll get paid on that scale.

Not paid equally (compared with the dole) but entirely differently.

If ACC isn't insurance - what is it?