I’ve been moderating the Nikki accident post pretty heavily to avoid the ACC debate becoming personalised. However I think it is worth sharing the standard nat email response so people can see it. With a comment from P Jones:
Just as well Ms Kaye was riding a bicycle and not a motorcycle. The following is the standard National response to questions about the proposed motorcycle levy increase. I would like to hear Ms Kayes response about the cost to ACC of bicycle accidents – given that cyclist pay NOTHING toward the cost of their claims. (Incidentally every one of the purported “facts*” in the following can be shown, using ACCs own figures, to be false):
Thank you for your email regarding changes to ACC, specifically your concerns regarding how this will affect Motorcycle users. The National-led Government is determined to preserve and protect our 24/7, no-fault accident insurance programme.
ACC is facing some real challenges. Its liabilities have ballooned to almost $24 billion – $13 billion more than its assets. This is unsustainable and unaffordable.*
In 2008/09, ACC paid more than $62 million to motorcycle riders but collected only $12.3 million in levies.*
The incidence, severity and cost of motorcycle crash injuries are not reflected in current levies. The cost of injuries in motorcycle crashes is about four times higher than injuries in other motor vehicle crashes.*
To help make up this difference the ACC Board has proposed a reclassification and an increase to the motorcycle levies. Even with the proposed increase in levies other motor vehicle owners will continue to pay $77 each to cross-subsidise motorcyclists.*
We want to have an open and honest conversation with the public as to how they want us to fund the shortfall. If the shortfall is not funded through an increase to motorcycle levies, it will have to be funded from somewhere else.
The proposed increases are currently open to public consultation. We encourage motorcyclists and other motorists to have their say on this issue by making submissions to ACC by 5PM, 10 November.
Following public consultation, the Government will receive advice from the ACC Board and make a final decision.
I would like to encourage you to have your say on the proposals, via this link: http://www.acc.co.nz/consultation
Thank you once again for letting me know your views
ACC doesn’t have to be fully funded yet, so I don’t see how they can justify their blackmail of telling people they either take the motorbike hike or find some other nasty way to fund it.
My Mate has 3 large bikes
And reckons he can afford to be stopped 10 times in a year by the
police and cop the 200$ no registration fine each time and still be in front
Which is exactly what he plans to do
Notice the lie about making m’bike riders ‘reponsible’ for all their accidents.
When are they going to make doctors pay even one cent for their accidents. I reckon about $5000 pa per registered doctor. But they have friends in high places
Most motorbike accidents are caused by cars.
Just curious if a quad bike/farm bike unregistered has an accident on private property and an injury results. Does this qualify as a bike accident and the cost to be included within the $62m?
Trevor, why do you moderate comments? Is there a sensorship regime that you control?
There is a group of three of us Clare admin and me who moderate. Soon to be expanded to include at least Grant and Chippie.
We are trying to set a tone that differs from most blogs. We try and avoid personal abuse and the sort of threadjacks that seem to dominate Kiwiblog.
My rough test is whether I think I would be happy to see material on this blog used in an intermediate school project.
We are trying to make it a safe place to debate ideas.
H @ 5.20 No I think it would be in the work accounts.
Glad to know the policy, perhaps this should be displayed more prominently.
How about quad bikes used on the beach, as I am aware of an instanct whereby an accident occurred that resulted in a broken femur and major head injuries that resulted in 6 months on ACC. My point is that the bike was not registered. So if his claim was processed under “bikes” we have an instance of money going out in claims yet those poor buggers who have registered bikes are charged with meeting such like costs. As this may be news to you, there are some out there who manufacture statistics to suit their ends !!
Short story is that I don’t have confidence in all statistics – would be foolish to do so but the accident you describe above should not be recorded as either work or vehicle but would be in the fund covered by either employee or govt (taxpayer) contribution.
If every one of the ‘facts’ can be shown to be false, I would be interested in a summary – if not here, then on a website somewhere.
At least some of the increase in liabilities would have conme from a reduction in interest rates. With a growing consensus that rates will rise in future, can the ACC (or the minister) be asked how much liabilities would reduce for say an increase in assumed returns of say 1%?
I was amused by a claim from a caller to National Radio yesterday that the $77 a year ’subsidy” from each car owner to motorbikes would be enough to cover all bike claims since ACC started – every year! I suspect that is mixing a past payments with liability for future payments, but even so its a good illustration. From memory the $77 figure was referred to as coming from the ACC – are the ACC allowed to talk to the press, or are we only allowed to get the interpretation of the Minister?
I still hear statements such as “if ACC was a private company it would be bankrupt” Nonsense of course – any private company with an overall government guarantee cannot be bankrupt. Is the guarantee to ACC explicit? – if so why is the value of that guarantee not included in the accounts to make assets and liabilities balance?
I’ve had a bit of a scratch and played with some spreadsheets. Nothing super complex but I’m amazed (in a bad way) at the shocking analysis done by ACC in this regard. using engine size doesnt add up (inconsistent correlation between engine size increase and accidents/claims), the $77 cross-sub (mentioned by Ed) etc.
ACC is hiding behind the ‘actuarial’ research. Not sure where the got these actuaries from?
If is all about risk, why don’t they raise the levies on things such as car-colour.
At least my bikes headlight is hardwired to ‘on’