New ACC Levies

[Richard Kuysten]

#12983

Have you got that right Dave? looks more like when you were leaving  😉

[Alan]

#12984

In case you have missed the coverage of the protest ride in Nelson on Saturday, you can watch it here (in HD if you like):TV One:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4ECtb-KS7ETV3:        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOElTsomJ70 Matthias

[Anonymous]

#12985

What was the big ride that went through Wellsford about midday yesterday? Was it for the same thing? There seemed to be a big gathering at Wellsford joining a large contingent which was coming in from the North. I was going the other way, coming in from Kaukapakapakapa… in a single bike protest ride…Cheers Loins

[Dave Ross]

#12986

Yes, there were a lot of bikes around. We saw them as well in Wellsford. Even a bunch of Hells Angels guys were sitting around, or maybe it was just the Harley section of the Ulysses Club.

[Anonymous]

#12987

We came across a large group as well yesterday at 11am. There was about 30-40 nanny riders on 16 heading to Wellsford. There average speed was 60kph and most had there bikes right beside the centre line. They would not move over, we even had some pull out in front of us as we passed.There was to many bikes in one group it looked dangerous observing some of there riding skills.  The bikes were too big for some.Before you say it I never went above 110kph the whole day. 

[Anonymous]

#12988

Someone named Xeno Captain competed in and finished the Auckland Marathon this morning. I wonder if they are related to the originator of this thread…… or is it The Xeno Commander in disguise getting ready to sell his bike given he said he would give up riding as as a result of the ACC increases….and now he is training up to run everywhere!

[Anonymous]

#12989

If it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done around hereThank goodness for that minute. Submission sent, local MP, ACC, Ministers of ACC and Transport, all party spokespeople for transport and ACC.I really need to get me a new round tuit.

[Anonymous]

#12990

Well, the Green Party is on our side.Dear Bruce  I have been asked to respond on behalf of all Green Party MPs MetiriaTurei, Russel Norman, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Kedgley, Keith Locke,Kevin Hague, Catherine Delahunty, Kennedy Graham and David Clendon toyour email below.  The Green Party opposes the proposed levy increase for motorcycles. Weconsider this levy increase to be contrary to the original principlesset out by Sir Owen Woodhouse under which ACC was established. One ofthose principles was that of "community responsibility". Sir Owenhimself, at the age of 93, has spoken out against the approach theGovernment is taking to ACC, stating that proposals to double and treblelevies on heavy motorbikes and mopeds, and to push accident victims backto work on much lower incomes than they earned before their accidents,breach the principles of the scheme he authored as head of the 1967Royal Commission that recommended the ACC scheme.  The community responsibility principle recognises that the variousactivities that we undertake in society are all inter-related, and thatbenefit and harm flow on to others, rather than rest solely with thepeople undertaking those activities.   In the particular example of motorcycle use, the communityresponsibility principle recognises that even though adisproportionately high number of motor vehicle injuries involvemotorcyclists, a significant proportion of those injuries are actuallycaused by someone other than the motorcyclist. It also recognises thatincreased use of motorcycles where practicable has environmentalbenefits if single occupant car usage is consequently reduced, since thegreenhouse gas emissions generated by a motorcycles are significantlyless than from cars and the fuel used per kilometre of travel issignificantly less for a motorcycle than a car. From that perspective,the Green Party would want to encourage motorcycle use as opposed to caruse - however, the Government's proposed levy increase for motorcyclesdoes the opposite.  It is Green Party policy to restore the social contract envisioned inSir Owen Woodhouse's report from which the original ACC scheme wasderived, including the community responsibility principle, and wetherefore oppose pinch-paring measures such as the Government'sproposals that attempt to assess the injury risk of every specificactivity undertaken in society and set levies based solely on that risk.  Kind regardsIvan SowryIssues Assistant to Green Party MPs

---

Original Message

---

From: Bruce Crowther [mailto:blunderbruce@ihug.co.nz]Sent: Sunday, 8 November 2009 10:06 p.m.To: Sue KedgleySubject: Submission to ACC re Levies For Motorcycles, for your info.Submission from:Bruce Crowther,32 Puriri RoadManurewaMANUKAU 2102Phone: 09 268 1321Email: blunderbruce@ihug.co.nzMy submission:The proposed levy increases for motorcyclists cannot be challenged onactuarial grounds, but the method of collection and the pool of peopletargeted by the collection of the levy should be further considered.The method of collection proposed is to levy against all motorcycles ona scale derived from their engine capacity. This formula is completelyunjust, as anybody with a very basic understanding of the internalcombustion engine knows not all cubic centimetres are equal. Forinstance my 1100cc German sports bike will put (just) 100 brake horsepower on my back wheel at a kerb weight of 220 kgs, if I wring its neck.A Japanese 600cc sports bike will produce 160 bhp at a curb weight ofunder 200kgs. The Japanese machine will outperform my BMW onacceleration, top speed but NOT braking. The Japanese pocket rocketswill be cheaper than my BMW, consequently there will be more of them onthe road. Yet your proposed levies mean I will pay much more than theperson on the more powerful, but smaller engined bike.My German bike is lumped in with all the heavyweight cruisers andfull-dressed touring machines, purely because of its engine capacity.This range of engine capacity also includes nearly all of the fulldressed touring bikes and cruisers in the country. These two types ofbikes do not have the precise handling and braking capability of asports or sports touring motorcycle, and they are largely ridden bynouveau riche middle-aged or older DINKIES (Double Income No KidCouples) with brand new  bike licenses and little big bike experience,or (worse still) born again bikers who used to ride in their BK (BeforeKids) era, who are returning to motorcycling with a full licence theyhaven't used in years, and no common sense, who want to start off BIG.I submit that some consideration should be given to basing the levy onthe power to weight output of the motorcycle's engine, along with theconfiguration of the machine. All motorcycles of a given engine capacityare certainly not equal in performance.I quote from your pamphlet, 1994 ACC Levy Claims_28x5_V4 sj.indd 1:"Why do motorcyclists pay multiple levies if they own more than one        bike? They can only ride one bike at a time.        Because anyone with a licence could get on those other bikes andride them, whether        or not they had paid an ACC levy themselves. In fact, ACC needsto collect the same        amount of money to cover motorcycle injuries, irrespective ofwhether that amount is        collected per bike or per rider."        This is absolutely correct, which means that all of uspassionate and responsible motorcyclists are paying multiple times over,if we own multiple bikes, to cover the costs of the occasional riderswho throw a leg over a bike and let their enthusiasm and stupidity outweigh their common sense. You have yourself, in the above quote,identified reason why the proposed levies should be reconsidered.  Thelevy should be imposed across all licence holders, not all bikes.I submit that ACC should, together with the NZ Transport Agency, devisea method of licensing motorcycle riders according to the power to weightratio of the machine covered under the licence, and levy licenceholders, not motorcycles.There is a problem in this country, and always has been a problem, ofpeople operating vehicles without a Warrant of Fitness, Vehicle Licence,ACC Levy, or Third Party Insurance. These people represent aconsiderable risk group on the road, but they could be taken out of thesystem by intelligent use of modern technology. You cannot use aninternal combustion engined vehicle without fuel.I submit that the ACC and NZTA should investigate the implementation ofcompulsory third party motor vehicle insurance, and applying a RadioFrequency ID transponder to all vehicles, with receivers on all fuelpumps, so that fuel could not be delivered to vehicles without WOF,Third Party, and Current Vehicle Licence and commonly operated byirresponsible ratbags.Yours faithfully,Bruce Crowther.       

[Anonymous]

#12991

If you read the accident statistics on the land transport web site you will find that in the last twenty years the per capita accident rate for “older” motorcyclists has dropped (halved) where as that for “younger” ones has doubled. The number of older motorcyclist which is quoted in the commonly used fact sheet has increased - thats because there are more of us. Convenient use of statistics to engineer an outcome.And wahat about a sensible mechanism like levy related to risk ---- a 100kW modified R6 yamaha incurs a smaller levy than an R65 BMW at 35 kW ???????

[Anonymous]

#12992

I've decided I'm changing the way I ride and the type of bike I have. I'm going back riding enduro. No ACC costs 😀 the saved money will pay for all my maintenance for the year.

[Dave Morris]

#12993

We came across a large group as well yesterday at 11am. There was about 30-40 nanny riders on 16 heading to Wellsford. There average speed was 60kph and most had there bikes right beside the centre line. They would not move over, we even had some pull out in front of us as we passed.There was to many bikes in one group it looked dangerous observing some of there riding skills.  The bikes were too big for some.

dean u organised a ride

[Anonymous]

#12994

dean u organised a ride

It looks like it was my last two up ride

[Anonymous]

#12995

These been over 900 hits on the ACC levies topic .This is the most we have ever had on the forum in such a short time. 😎

[Dave Ross]

#12996

Looks like they's had a good turn out in Wellington. I am pretty sure though that whatever we'll end up paying will be too much and closer to what the government wanted all along.

[Murray]

#12997

6000 or thereabouts turned out, not a bad effort really. Still there's lots to do yet.The Register made a submission on the proposed levy increases on behalf of its members. If you're reading this I hope you were one of the many individuals, myself included, that took the time to make an individual submission to ACC and, at the very least, copied your local MP.Your next task, if you are really concerned about what's happening with ACC, is to make a submission on the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill that was introduced to the House on 22 October. It is significant enough that it got its first reading the following week and was subsequently referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. You have until 26 November to make a submission on this bill.In a nutshell, Nick Smith is proposing amendments to the legislation that he imagines will improve flexibility in the ACC scheme, including the extension of the date for fully funding residual claims liabilities. One of the ten amendments in this bill gives the Government greater flexibility in using the petrol levy for residual claims in the motor vehicle account.The fundamental problem with this bill is that it is based on a false premise. The National Government has deliberately manufactured a crisis. All through 2009, and with accelerating intent, Nick Smith has been creating the notion that the accident compensation scheme has an impossibly huge deficit, that its liabilities have blown out, and that the only things that will save us all from impossibly huge levy rises are measures like those contained in this bill and the readying of the accident compensation scheme for partial or full privatisation. The major reason for the so-called liability blowout is not costs, although there is no question that costs are continuing to rise, but rather it is the change in the assumptions underlying the accounting and forecasting practices of ACC.The big mistake that Labour made during its term was to push for the full funding of potential liabilities by 2014. While National is proposing to push out the date for fully funding the residual claims liability to 2019, full funding ahead traps the scheme and the Government in a private insurance accounting model. On top of that, the ACC board had changed some of its other accounting methodologies. For example, $1.3 billion has been added through claims experience and modelling changes, $1.3 billion for revised economic assumptions, $500 million for adding more safety to the risk margin, and $1.3 billion for the cost of “future Cabinet and regulated rate increases”, whatever that means.At the same time as the ACC board and the Government continue to push the line that the scheme is impossibly in the red, in fact this year its revenues were $4.5 billion, which is $1.5 billion more than it spent on claims. ACC is a mature organisation with enough reserves to pay for around 3½ years of claims. That is the highest level of reserves the scheme has ever held. Sir Owen Woodhouse, famous for the principles on which our current accident compensation scheme is founded, has stated clearly that he did not intend it to be pre-funded, and that the latest Government moves are beginning to undermine its very heart.The report of the Woodhouse commission recommended a 24-hour-a-day, no-fault compensation scheme that covered people whether they were injured at work, at home, at play, or on the roads. The underpinning Woodhouse principles are community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation paid at 80 percent of previous earnings for as long as a person is incapacitated, and administrative efficiency. An injury prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation scheme that at least strives to live up to those principles is what is at stake here today. The bill in front of the select committte hacks into those fundamentals in a variety of ways.Do not miss your chance to be heard on this. You can even make a submission on line, just click on the "get involved" tab at http://www.parliamant.govt.nzThe select committee report is due back in the house on 12 February 2010. 

[Author]

Posts