I agree, however I think it is good to remind some of these people [NZTA and ACC as they are the income beneficiaries of the licensing system] that they are 'public servants' and will remain so as long as they are paid by the government irrespective of the fancy names they may give themselves. As public servants they do need to consider both the rights of the public who are tax payers and their obligations to the tax payer. [Before anyone has a go at me about this concept, I am a public servant and have spent over 42 years as one in education.]
As for revenue: yes, continuous licensing is a guaranteed income, but what would the income be increased by by having the prepay system working? At present those with vehicles onhold are paying nothing unless they legitimately license the vehicle for a short period and put it back onhold. Reading through other threads it is quite possible that many don't do that and hope they are not caught - it seems that it is quite likely that the driver/rider of a unlicensed vehicle will get away with it. Perhaps, if ACC thought they might gain a little more revenue from a prepay system then it might be a serious consideration.
I am sure that this thread and others on this site are read by people from both above named government agencies and perhaps, but I'm not holding my breath, they might start to think a little outside the square,
If it was easy for you to put a bike onhold and license it for short time periods when you want to use it, would you be inclined to do so?
Bookmarks