Just attended the protest by the Ulysses Motorcycle Club and friends at Parliament (photos to follow). Biggest demonstration here for a while with at least 600 bikes and probably 1000 people. Bikers are prepared to pay their fair share in terms of ACC, but increases of $500 a year are simply not fair.
Annette King spoke on behalf of Labour MPs present (myself, Charles Chauvel and Chris Hipkins) and made the point that National’s approach is fundamentally undermining the ACC scheme. It was never designed as a user pays insurance scheme. If each category of person pays to meet the costs of accidents in their field then we can expect to see rugby players and clubs paying huge levies and the elderly and farmers as well.
It was great that the bikers I spoke to at the rally understand that they are only one of the groups under attack from National’s changes. I think National have badly miscalculated the strength of feeling here, and the fact that Kiwis understand that the only people who will win from a user pays, privatised ACC are lawyers and insurance companies. Watch out for a big protest from the biker community on November 17th. It will be big.
Interesting point Mr Robertson. The bikers do seem to be facing very heavy levy increases. They have a right to know why ACC is costing them so much. I hope you were able to clarify just where the rising costs in ACC have been and why.
Were you able to say that Labour would reverse the ACC levy increases on motorcyclists? Were you able to say who should subsidise ACC levies for motorcyclists, if they don’t pay the costs of their ACC treatment? And were you able to explain why, despite a blow out in ACC costs that Labour hid from the electorate at the last election, the ACC Minister went into the campaign promising lower ACC levies?
A a point about user pays, is the medical ‘misadventure’ liability has absolutely no means of putting the costs onto medical professionals.
Doctors dont pay a single cent, but this process was instituted under Labour, now National says they should be apportioned, but there will be fat chance of even nominal amounts being paid by doctors , hospitals etc.
I’m glad the bikers are out making their point, it’s a pity that they’re being treated this badly.
no-one wants to pay more for ACC, no-one wants benefits to reduce and yet the well is dry .. it’s easy to turn up at such rallies and say .. “yeah the Govt is ripping you off” BUT not too easy to say what you would do .. I would suggest that Tim, once again, maybe right (no pun intended).
I/we want to know how Labour will pay for all the changes that the Nats are doing including pay rises for Public Servants, ACC, keeping all schools open, the LTS/Carbon Credit issue, increasing benefits, increasing the minimum hourly rate, increasing University course access, go back to the full Kiwi Saver % etc??
New Zealand is having to pay a fortune for loans to keep us going now .. where is the money?
So who did you want to subsidise motorcyclists and why shouldn’t people that play dangerous sports pay more?
Just interested in any justifications.
Tim , when did Labour ‘hide’ the ACC increases before the last election ?
They actually said that motor vehicle levys were expected to rise but they would offset them by a lower registration charge.
Don’t forget it has never been and should never be an insurance scheme – unless the government is preparing to sell the lot.
The level of increase is driven by the speed of funding the tail. I think that it is useful to get it funded to help avoid our kids paying for our accidents – but why it has to be back filled over ten rather than fifteen years I’m not sure.
@Bob- you might have a point about dangerous sports, but I think most motorcyclists are sately conscious and don’t deserve to pay so much.
I hate this ACC gutting. Happy Halloween everybody
Though no costume could be as scary as NACT. shudder. I’m off to party number two
When you consider that the other ‘user pays’ areas like compulsory heath insurance , $5000 per family, School vouchers, $ 1500 + per child and no ‘donation’ veneer.
Its great to see the bikers getting into direct action as a foretend for the future.
I’m still waiting for a non Govt source to tell me, where will the money come from .. motor sport, league/union, soccer, hockey .. or social runners, cyclists whatever. Someone must pay .. please tell me who it should be .. simple question????
It’s obvious enough that employers want to contract out of some of their existing expsure for workplace injury costs. The “good” employers who invest in worker safety don’t want to be levied for the costs of “bad” employers who either don’t provide the means or do not enforce the needed safety standards.
I can see room for enhancing accountability, but how that can be done without more “bureaucracy” and “red tape” isn’t clear.
The scheme can either be simple and cheaper, or more complex….and ultimately more expensive for everyone.
Privatising it doesn’t halp as that just lets insurance companies cherry-pick the low-risk stuff and leave the high-risk, heavy lifting to the taxpayers or people who don’t have the size to operate separate schemes……which is almost everyone but the few who want change.
ACC’s apparent financial problems seem to have an element of smoke and mirrors about them. People playing with bad numbers from a big downturn to pretend the scheme isn’t viable anymore. That’s just dishonest. I expect better. I see Nick Smith not being in his portfolio much longer if he keeps making a hash of things.
Having said that, nothing will happen until people realise what this government is all about – shaking down the majority for the profit of a the few….and the polls turn.
People are starting to wake to it. Just as they did in the 90s. Those memories may speed the turn-around.
Personally I think motor vehicle ACC levies should be levied at the pump, rather than at rego time. That way, it’s fairer on those whose don’t use their cars much, and/or those who drive fuel-efficient vehicles. And it’s obvious that the more time spent on the road, the greater the likelihood of an accident.