ACC costs and changes
October 14th, 2009 at 3:33 pm by David FarrarNick Smith has announced some changes to the ACC scheme, to make it more affordable and stop huge employee levy and vehicle levy increases:
- Reversing 2008 income compensation extensions covering casuals, part-timers, non-earners and abatements for holiday pay
- Reversing entitlements for wilfully self-inflicted injury and suicide
- Strengthening disentitlements for criminals
- Enabling safety incentives for employers and vehicles
- Extending full funding date from 2014 to 2019
- Requiring far more open reporting on ACC’s liabilities
The changes are hoped to reduce ACC liabilities by $2 billion.
ACC costs have risen by 57% in the last four years. So even with those changes, levies still have to increase. They are:
- a $32 increase in the motor vehicle levy taking the fee for a petrol car up from $136.44 to $168.46
- ACC petrol levy will rise from 9.34 cents per litre to 9.90 cents per litre
- Motorcycle levies to now vary by size going from $252.69 for all to $257.578 for under 125 cc, $511.43 for 125 – 600 cc and $745.77 for over 600cc
October 14th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Didn’t the National Party campaign during the last election on a no new taxes / no more taxes platform?
Not having the intestinal fortitude to undertake a radical ACC reform, the spineless Tories (represented by the incompetent Nick Smith and the malleable John Key) have resorted to the old Labour trick: to hike taxes.
The current government is becoming a huge disappointment, despite of the great amount of spin doctoring.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Last years ACC loss was larger, in per capita terms, than the Enron collapse. Ken Lay went to jail for Enron. Why hasn’t anyone from the Labour Government joined him?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
It’s true Manolo, we thought we voted for a sexy woman but it turned out to be Labour in drag. What a shame we have such a dearth of talent
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
So in other words, they’re offering a motley collection of relatively minor policy tweeks and levy increases.
Is this the best the Nats can do ? Fucken hopeless.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Reversing 2008 income compensation extensions covering casuals, part-timers, non-earners and abatements for holiday pay
Does this mean they pay the same levies as a % of income, but in turn don’t receive ANY income cover?!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Here is what really says something: motorists will pay more because too many people are hurting themselves at work.
How about this radical notion: premiums will be brought more into line with the drivers of those costs. That would mean shifting the burden towards those who are responsible for the injuries, and away from those least politically able to defend themselves (motorists). If that means charging more for skiing and rugby and less for sitting behind a desk then, to the extent that reflects the underlying cost reality, so be it.
A primary reason ACC is out of control is that charges are so completely divorced from costs that incentives for doing what is required on treatment and no more are weak.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
True to form the nats, led by their smiling effervescent leader John Key, are taking the cowards way out. In an effort to not annoy the majority of people out there, they have stung a smaller group disproportionately. How the hell can they justify increases of up to 500%.
Its time for a new leader. Unfortuntately the current crop of senior national mps is talentless, so at the next election I will vote labour in the hope that a labour win will cause a purge in the current leadership.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@ ben – ACC doesn’t work that way, it’s separated into accounts that aren’t allowed to cross-subsidise. Levies collected on car registrations and at the petrol pump go towards motor vehicle crash injuries. Levies collected from employers go towards injuries incurred at work, and levies collected from employees go towards non-work injuries. Injuries incurred by people who don’t earn are covered by a government appropriation (taxes, not levies).
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
A graduated levy for motorbikes based on engine size?
I don’t quite understand that. In my experience its learners and provisional riders who are more likely to injure themselves than a rider with years of experience on a large bike. But even so, if you come off its going to hurt, and it matters not what engine size was involved.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
CharlieBrown, thats a long shot. Be careful what you wish for, the result might be worse than your worst nightmare. Can you really envisage living with Shane Jones as PM and Darren Hughes as Deputy, Clayton Cosgrove as Min of Finance and God knows who you would put anywhere else.
I would rather have Nick Smith as Leader than that lot.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Why won’t any government come clean and label ACC as what it really is… a tax. Real insurance goes through underwriting, ACC doesn’t. Real insurance sets premiums based on risk, ACC doesn’t. Real insurance allows you to choose a level of cover, ACC doesn’t. ACC is a tax by stealth, you can mask it as insurance but its really a tax that is designed to help fund the health system.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Hahahaha Cahrlie Brown wants a new leader.
Snoopy perhaps?
Key is probably the most popular leader NZ has seen since Buck Shelford; can’t see them chnaging him.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Charliebrown
Have faith in the crusher mate, she is the next great leader of the Nat’s.
We just have to find a way to get rid of the current spineless little wimp.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
why do I get negative karma points merely for stating a fact about how ACC levies are collected and paid?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is a watershed issue for National. In 96 and 2008 they campaigned on partly privatizing ACC and actually began to do so 98 and 99. In neither situation did they cop negative public reaction. So why the pathetic ‘state management’ mentality of cost plus monopoly pricing rather than seizing the day.
Nats will become internally confounded on a permanent basis in their policy direction and settings for the country if they keep choking like this. Nick Smith’s world view is incompatible with a senior position in a centre-right gummint he should be let go. First ETS now this.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
david, its inevitable that national are going to lose power one day and labour will get elected as government. At the moment, labour are more centrist than they often are, and national is left of center. Won’t it be better in the long term for a “do nothing, achieve nothing” government to last one term and get replaced by a government that will make some stupid changes, but itself would get replaced by decent government two terms out?
IE, imagine the following:
2008-2011 – National do nothing government – NZ stays the same
2011-2014 – Labour, do stupid things government – NZ goes down hill a lil further
2014 onwards – a devent government that makes positive changes – NZ improves, fundamental changes happen
compared with the following:
2008-2017 – National do nothing government, NZ stays neutral at best, goes down toilet at worst
Plus, I actually get the feeling that labour despite their inherent flaws, wouldn’t put NZ’s books so far in the red as national are doing, ie, Labour were more fiscally prudent than key, and definitely were more honest about their motives.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Lets be fair to Nick Smith, I don’t expect that he would be the one making any of these decisions, it will all be driven by a smiling man at the top of the hierarchy.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Razork
And Jeff Crowe was probably one of the most popular NZ cricket captains of all time, fat lot of good it did him or the team.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
“Does this mean they pay the same levies as a % of income, but in turn don’t receive ANY income cover?!”
Vote:As far as I’m aware part-timers don’t pay levys, the sickness benefit is still out there for income cover.
October 14th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
“Reversing entitlements for wilfully self-inflicted injury and suicide”
So bringing in fault into a no-fault system? Seems contradictory to pay out for silliness in one area and not another. A dangerous step that will create many anomolies. The use of “wilfully” makes it even more vague.
For example many would consider someone being injured skiing a dangerous slope to be self-inflicted as the sport is so dangerous and the skiier has mis-judged their ability. It is akin in my view to jumping on a car and going car-surfing. One is covered the other isn’t now?
As for not covering suicide, clearly the message is if you commit suicide to make sure you at least succeed as it costs ACC less. Nick Smith states “Suicide was tragic but not an accident, he said”. There are plenty of things still covered by ACC that are not by any reasonable person’s definition “accidents” but are still covered as the Government still won’t apply fault to them.
But never fear, if you are a criminal you are still covered as long as your offence is not that serious, so falling from that house you are looting? No worries.
What a Mickey Mouse mixed message load of garbage in a usual Tory attempt to find the “middle” ground (and the silliness over predicting massive increases to make you all happy with smaller ones). And hello, as a non-New Zealand ACC levy payer I STILL seem to be covered by the system when I come back and roll my ankle after a long lunch on the steps of Prego. Fortunately I have private insurance but many backpackers and irresponsible non-ACC levy payer do not. Why cover them?
Clear message is bring back the right to sue and tell people to handle their own insurance, ACC is an expensive joke and continues to be a luxury New Zealanders cannot afford.
[DPF: The suicide cover set up very perverse incentives. Basically if you have a terminal disease and die from it, your family get nothing. But if you jump off a bridge before you die, then your family get hundreds of thousands in income compensation. Basically the Govt was paying people to kill themselves, to look after their families]
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Either Key has run out of ideas or he judges the voters to be a pack of morons (not an impossible assumption to make).
The hike in ACC levies is disgraceful at best, and treasonous at worst.
It shows the National Party leadership for the wimps and gutless politicians they are. Unable to stick to principle, they appear ready to abdicate responsibility, appease, compromise, and increase taxes on a great number of New Zealand citizens.
Shame on Key and his government.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I agree with Kate. Proving that an injury is self-inflicted is hard enough, how do you prove that it was wilful? Not everyone leaves suicide notes you know. Under this proposal, if you wanted to commit suicide and still have your family covered, all you’d need to do is take a corner at high speed and wrap your car round a power pole – pretty difficult to show that you meant to do that!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
A National Government that promised to reduce taxes, put money back in our pockets wouldn’t raise the tax-take would they? Take more tax off us, would they? Go back on their word, would they?
Seems they just did.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
“Plastic’ Key will appear on our screens to convince us that we were very lucky to have him at the helm, because he’s saved us from the 50% increase he warned us about only days ago! We’ll cheer, we’ll rub our furry backs against his legs and purr! He’s saved us!
(btw – lovely little piece of soft-spin in your post David. You’re getting better and better at it, as it’s needed more and more)
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
# Reversing entitlements for wilfully self-inflicted injury and suicide
# Strengthening disentitlements for criminals
So even more people on sickness and invalid benefits. Brilliant.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The tax review had better be good, John Boy. But I’m not holding my breath.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Interesting stuff this. When will cyclists have to pay registration costs, and carry license plates so they can be held accountable for their driving offences? It’s perfectly fine for a motor vehicle user who keeps up with traffic on public roads and occasionally strays over the limit on safe open stretches of road to be heavily fined and have their license taken away. Why no accountability for the people who cause most of the trouble on our urban roads?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Good point Jeremyn as if they are going to weight motorcycles as accident causers and “death traps” then you have to look at the crazy activity of cycling as well. Must be asking for at least an equal amount of trouble getting on a cycle on the open road?
DPF re the “suicide incentive” – that argument could go on forever couldn’t it? Depending on how we injure ourselves has always depended on whether it qualifies for ACC. Plum has the answer anyway – combine motor vehicle accident and make it look like an accident = family covered.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Well I was going to ask about all those dirt bikes, both motorized and pedal, on which people have accidents. Now as far as I know those with dirt bikes don’t register them but sure as hell hurt themselves. How are they going to be captured?
NO WORD ON HOW HARD THE SELF EMPLOYED ARE GOING TO GET SCREWED.
No differentiation between jobs. Office girls are going to be charged at the same rate as the guys doing the hard stuff. Never understood that.
No chance to opt out and buy my own insurance.
In fact just another Nick.John socialist scam continuing on, albeit at a higher rate than Helen and Micheal.
As well their mate Bill is planning that we will remain poor for the next 20 years.
Financial recovery will take 20 years, says English
2:30PM Wednesday Oct 14, 2009
Finance Minister Bill English
One of the worst yearly economic turnarounds in New Zealand’s history will take 20 years to recover from, Finance Minister Bill English said today.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10603194
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Perhaps we could do the opposite and knock off a bunch of the incompetent big noters that we entrusted to run the country and make it look like suicide.
Surely that would save the taxpayer a fortune?
I’ll even chip in for the purple shrouds and plastic bags.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I saw a Labour spokesman tonight on TV saying that when they left, we had zero debt – yeh right. What a load..
And we also have David Parker criticizing the new scheme – the same one who got into trouble for his personal taxes.
I shouldn’t be surprised by how hypocritical these Labour people are, but I still am.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Yeah Nats raise ACC levies again you dorks it will only make things worse. Take higher vehicle registration for example, there is no doubt that the higher the costs vehicle registration becomes the less vehicles registered every year. Of course more tickets for the cops and the councils to issue but it’s not as if paying road fines in NZ is given a high priority by the populace. High road costs will actually result in a lower tax take, the people have had enough.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Cactus Kate: Cycling is far worse. If you make a real contribution to society, ride a motorcycle, if you keep up with traffic, save urban parking spaces, and use less petrol than any economy car or overweight hybrid hatchback on the road, and then some absent minded minivan driver sideswipes you, then you’d be lucky to survive and not get charged with some stupid dangerous driving charge, let alone get any sort of reparations. In fact, motorcyclists have even been charged with ‘dangerous driving’ because of they lost control after dangerous vehicles leaked oil on our poorly maintained roads.
If you’re a cyclist, and you ride out in front of someone proceeding along their way normally in a car or motorbike, then the victim of your dangerous road use would have to get their friends to pretend to witness your incompetence to avoid a hefty fine. Cyclists have no incentive to behave in a civilized matter.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Why don’t they just jack up interest rates until the problem is solved. This is definitely a case where inflation is good.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I don’t bloody get why motor cycles are getting bloody hammered, they should pay more because some fucking dickhead hit them with a car ?
Christ I’m a tribal Labour type but like so many yanks who want a public option I want a private option to keep ACC honest if possible.
Remember people it was bought out as an ACCIDENT compensation, not to pay compensation to parents whose kid has decided to top himself.
Vote:Oh, and all you buggers who are employees yet take part in sports that bring a lot of injuries, you should be paying a lot more than what you are.
October 14th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
jeremyn, not only that, but cyclists actually think that they’re saving the planet.
I wonder if that’s where the self-righteous attitude comes from?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
$745!!!! to register a bike! FUCKING HELL!
thats outrageous. How dare the pricks.
So if you own a car and a motorcycle you now have to give the government the best part of $1000 a year for the privilege. Well thats going to ensure that everyone registers their vehicles isnt it.
I’m pretty disgusted by this, its just a tax hike. I blame Labour for the creep in ACC “entitlements” that mean every sprained ankle or imagined self esteem “injury” is now paid out. But I especially blame Smith for not having the balls to be a Minister and cut back the crap.
I am totally disgusted by this crap. Smith, you are a loser, get back on your meds and piss off out of public life, you are a disgrace to the national party, and sorry David, I don’t care if you give me demerits for this.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
malcolm (233) Vote: 1 0 Says:
October 14th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The tax review had better be good, John Boy. But I’m not holding my breath.
Heard English on the way home say he did not believe in a flat tax..
Is it time to take a deep breath and do some thing ??
Anything to get those ” Wallys ” to realise that they were voted in to change the system
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I’ve seen studies which show that when you take the mix of nutrients used in the process of cycling into account, it shows that using a fuel-economical motorbike, or even in some cases a car, results in less carbon emissions than using the motor vehicle. Any motorcyclist out there who has operated a bike on our roads for more than a year is a better ‘defensive driver’ than any car driver, because they are forced to by the careless way most people on our roads drive. And I say this as a man who has never ridden a motorcycle on the public roads in my life.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Bill’s more interested in a house tax; a tax on me to pay for his house.
Anway, flat tax rates are only necessary for former soviet states who’re really on their arse. Not applicable for a Top 10 OECD country like New Zealand…. Oh, wait.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I can only quote Lindsay Mitchell:
We had a hefty ACC rise last year under Labour.
Now we have an even heftier ACC rise under National.
I still haven’t figured out what improved with the change in government.
It’s nice Labour isn’t in power anymore. It will be equally nice when National won’t be.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
How can you on the one hand say ACC should be more like a private insurer and charge premiums more according to risk, and then complain when they do just that in regard to motorbikes? Whether it’s your fault or not, you’re far more likely to have a serious injury on a motorbike than in a car. You make the choice to ride, you accept that risk, you pay the higher premium. Simple as that.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I may be a little slow tonight but the bulb has finally flickered in to life.
Maybe they are trying to scare the fuck out of us all with these hikes in an effort to get the masses to squeal for privatisation? Squeal little piggy, squeal.
After 9 years under old hairy bollocks we finally have a real woman in charge and she’s using the reverse psychology thing.
Funny how women can reverse psychology but can’t reverse a car.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
As one who does ride a 999cc bike and has only ever had one accident, thanks to a 4 wheeled vehicle on the wrong side of the road (and no, I didn’t need ACC to help out, I have private medical insurance) I’d contemplate suing any driver who forces me into an accident for all past levies as well as actual damages as part of a private criminal prosecution against said driver.
Sorry plum its not as “simple as that”, motorcyclists are actually extremely defensive riders (sure the odd idiot excepted), but guess why, contact with the tarmac f#*king hurts.
Where is the 200% tax increase (sorry, levy increase) on teenaged capped idiots who religiously wrap their poorly navigated 200kw boxes of shite round trees every other Saturday night?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Plum; exactly!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
OK Razork and plum, answer this, what does the engine size of a bike have to do with the cost of ACC in the event of an accident?
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Razork and Plum, I have paid more to insure a $4000, non turbo, 1800cc, shit heap, 15 yr old wagon than I have to insure a brand new, $20000, 1000cc crotchrocket.
Not over 200% more.
I rest on your face.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Maybe they are trying to scare the fuck out of us all with these hikes in an effort to get the masses to squeal for privatisation?
Illumination! Like being caught in the high beam of a rapidly approaching Ducati!
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
VI, you would hear it well before you were in its high beam
In both both ways … National are not going down that path they are way too soft cock to do what should be done and I ride mine with earplugs (saving ACC again, ain’t I just a saint).
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
This is why I voted ACT.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I’ll tell you what happened to the last tax cut we received from National. It got swallowed up by an increase in ACC levies from 1.4% to 1.7% of gross income. In addition, the under $38,000 rebate simply dissapeared off the face of the earth. Those that did not qualify for the $10 per week single persons tax credit ended up with less net income.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Yeh, as Nefarious says, the issue is not the tactics but the strategy. What is ultimately behind this move? Creating public disquiet in order to bring in private insurers, of course. Duh.
If we follow Cactus Kate and…
“bring back the right to sue and tell people to handle their own insurance, ACC is an expensive joke and continues to be a luxury New Zealanders cannot afford.”
Then welcome to the US/Canada system, where my sister has to buy insurance in case she’s sued if a kid hurts themselves whilst hosted at her home, say at a birthday party.
I recall Bill Hodge in the 80′s in a lecture explain that his 1st year Oregon Law School Students thought NZ’s ACC scheme was brilliant but then when they became 3rd year students and realised that as lawyers they wouldn’t get the tort fees they thought it was anaethema. I suggest you consider that when evaluating Kate’s comment.
Vote:October 14th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns..
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:16 am
I hear everyones comments here. I have a lot to say about ACC and I have a lot of questions about ACC I want answered. It would appear from the surface that ACC is a gigantic mess. I will break this mess down into 2 broad areas, 1) How ACC is levied, 2) What ACC spends its funds on.
It seems there is a lot of confusion about how ACC is levied. I know that I pay ACC from my earnings. My understanding is that this covers medical costs, rehab and loss of income for non-work related injuries. The money is pooled and and all people injured in NZ while not at work have access to it. My assumption is that this constitutes the “non-earners account” However I may still be wrong. By its function it tries to be both an insurance (in that loss of earnings compensation is tied to income) and a tax (available to all). This is fortunate as consumers of ACC are often too young, incapable or stupid to earn an income.
Employers pay a levy as well per employee which is broadly calculated according to risk of employment and track record of employer. My understanding is that this will cover work related injuries. As it functions purely as an insurance this segment is most suited for privatisation. Furthermore if an employer is able to minimise accidents they should get a premium reduction.
There also appears to be levies on motor vehicle registration and fuel, my understanding is to cover costs associated with motor vehicle accidents. Please alert me to how else ACC gets its income. People here are concerned about motorbike registration levies. It appears the government wants to target risk. I am not sure that motorcyclists are at that much more risk than cars. However, no one has produced any statistics here so all the complaints here are just hearsay.
If the government are going to target risk then they seriously need to look at targeting alcohol. Alcohol is the route cause of many accidents, fights, impulsive behaviour, recidivist drunk driving and sexual assaults. The cost of alcohol to society is well accounted for. If the government was going to reform ACC, they would slap huge levies on every bottle of booze you buy. I am disappointed they have not.
What the government chooses to fund through ACC is another matter. I am an Emergency Department doctor and have filled out many ACC forms for patients. I have first hand knowledge of what people can claim for. On the injuries alone, most are genuine accidents that ACC has been set up for. Admittedly I do feel that motorcross riders need to be more accountable for their injuries. However there is one area that I think is a total rort. That being the area of willful self harm. Yes there are people out there who are genuinely suicidal and make valid attempts to kill themselves. However, it should not be ACC to have to pick up the tab for rehab and funeral expenses. You will find that most presentations for willful self harm are people who have no intention to kill themselves. It is usually nothing more than impulsive behavior or an attention seeking gesture. It is usually a product of people with maladaptive abilities to cope with social stresses or people who have poor problem solving abilities. You can swallow a few tablets of panadol and get free ambulance ride to hospital and free medical care on ACC. For every person that successfully suicides, there are 100 people that deliberately present to hospital following self harm. Some are repeat presenters, who rather than getting ACC funding should be fined and face criminal charges for wasting emergency services time.
Another area of concern are people who present intoxicated either from alcohol or the side effects of a recreational drug. I have seen people brought to hospital in a helicopter for simply being drunk. You guessed it, ACC paid for it. Spiked drinks aside, if people want to take mind altering substances, thats fine, but do not expect ACC to rescue you should it harm you. When ACC was set up, I am sure the creators did not envisage it being used to assist in blatant acts of stupidity.
In spite of what I have said, To a large extent I actually like the concept of ACC. However, I just feel that risky and stupid behaviours get away with too much and need to be better accounted for. I feel that it tries to do too much and that some of its services are the domain of the welfare system. I will not go into it here, but some injuries are a direct result of underlying medical conditions and with a sicker and older population the ACC costs of these are ballooning.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:21 am
[DPF: The suicide cover set up very perverse incentives. Basically if you have a terminal disease and die from it, your family get nothing. But if you jump off a bridge before you die, then your family get hundreds of thousands in income compensation. Basically the Govt was paying people to kill themselves, to look after their families]
I do not understand why ACC should pay for funeral expenses fullstop. If you die by natural causes you get nothing. Why should it be different for accidents?
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I don’t know much about bikes, but I think the higher the cc, the more powerful it is, the faster it goes, the more likely an accident? When I was studying last year, one of my fellow students rode in on a bike everyday, and he said something about age related restrictions and CC – you have to be above a certain age before you can have a bike over a certain cc (if you get my meaning). The younger the rider, the less powerful bike you’re allowed to ride, if I am correct.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Fletch that analysis is far too simplistic and completely false. But it appears its exactly the idea theyve used to set up this completely flawed plan.
For example my 854cc Triumph makes 70hp and weighs 210kg without fuel, oil or a rider. Compare that to something like an Aprilia RS250 which makes 72.5hp from its 250cc and only weighs 149kg. The Triumph will generally be riden by mature adults with years of riding experience who are unlikely to be pushing very hard so have a very low chance of crashing and even if they do theyll have a better chance of surviving (compared to other bikes) as theyll likely have enough money for all the proper safety gear and will have been travelling slower. The Aprilia will have been bought by someone who had passed their learners licence by riding at walking pace around a car park and scratched a few road code questions, itll be riding well beyond the riders ability as he trys to prove hes the best rider in the world.
I dont have too many problems with a general increase and wouldnt complain too much about paying my $315 a year plus abit more for a bike and a higher than average income but Im going to be stung over $1,500 extra per year just to subsidise other people.
Keep your eyes out for the largest motorbike protest run this country will ever see.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:31 am
I don’t ride, but I agree it is a lot of money.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Where is the announcement of an ACC charge for the biggest recreational user group – bloody cyclists?
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Its time to start turning ACC back into an accident insurance business. It is particularly discriminating against those of us who own multiple vehicles. My household holds at various times 3 cars and up to 5 motorcycles. There are 2 people. I can drive/ride only one at a time. So why should I have to pay an ACCIDENT levy on the other 7. They are not going to be involved in an accident.
I would be more than happy to pay an actual INSURANCE premium. For ME, based on my level of actual risk (No ACC claims for the last 20 years of riding). I am even happy to pay a bit over the odds, but insure the punter, not the vehicle, its really dumb and just a tax grab.
Bring on the private opt out clause!
ANd as for those who think that a bigger bike means a bigger accident. Sorry, wrong. Its the 18-25 yr olds on 250cc bikes capable of 200kmh that you should be watching for. SUre there are some midlife crisis wrinklies buying Harleys they cant control, but hey thats just Darwinism in action.
The unanticipated consequence of this is that there are already far too many unregistered vehicles in NZ. THere will be LOTS more. In case you hadnt noticed Smith, NZ is a poor, and increasingly impoverished country. Tax increases will lead to greater non-compliance, not greater revenue.
Privatise the ACC, and do it now.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 7:16 am
and I don’t care if this is a super cunning stalking horse for policy change. Its been proposed by Nick Smith, the stupidest Minister in Cabinet (although McCully seems to be running him close over the RWC at the moment) so its hard to believe he would be capable of coming up with a “cunning plan” all by himself.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Good listening to the ACC boss (I think) on the radio this morning.
When asked about labours claims that ACC ain’t broke, he likened that attitude to selling your house, spending the cash, and leaving the mortgage in the will.
In other words, you can’t ignore the future costs of todays accidents – which is exactly what labour have done. But , given labour think money grows on trees this is not surprising.
And David parker in question time criticizing national for the state of the countries accounts is shameful on labour. They don’t even admit fault for massive financial incompetence during their watch.
Of course, when times are good, noone notices financial incompetence cos there is always room to fix mistakes later. Not now though. the worm has turned.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Vote ACT, whinging Nats.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Better yet, change parties properly and get involved with ACT so it has stronger candidates and policies and then vote for it too.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Cycling on city streets is very dangerous.
Will people who ride cycles to work have to pay a higher ACC levy?
Vote:If not, why not?
October 15th, 2009 at 9:30 am
National has a hard job to sort out the mess with ACC. I’ll cut them slack for now.
Much like a lot of the commentators here I struggle with why self inflicted injuries are covered. I’m also struggleing why overseas visitors are also covered.
I would recommend to anybody, to read the original Woodhouse report that lead to ACC. (I’ve found it on the net when arguing with someone about ACC wasn’t designed to cover mental injuries). It may be about 40 years old, but it explains why ACC is a good idea. Now when you read it, you’ll find that what we have now is not what was envisaged back then.
In my opinion we need to pare ACC back to closer to what it was envisaged by the Woodhouse report originally.
Vote:There wouldn’t be a need to privatise ACC then.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Cactus Kate wants the right to sue returned.
So..when you rolled your ankle on the steps of Prego, I presume it wasn’t your fault, maybe the steps were slippery and in dangerous condition? Sue the restaurant owners. Oh they have no cover? sue the Building owner for not setting out a notifiable hazard.
You had too much to drink? sue the person serving you alcohol.
Perhaps your shoes were of dangerous construction leading to the accident. Hmm, sue the retailer..or the wholesaler. Hell why not bring a suit against Kumfs International (I’m assuming since you post on here you wear Librarians shoes).
Perhaps you could go after the people who made the building, they should’ve put grip tread down.
Oh..hang on I just worked it out, your not a Librarian your a Lawyer looking to the future!
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 9:51 am
On top of the family car – I have 3 bikes. All over 1000cc. My wife spat the dummy when she read how much it was going to cost next year.
The graduated levies on them is very poorly thought out.
To have a 1000cc bike you have to be a more experienced rider and on a full licence having been thru the graduated licensing system.
So with insurance companies (who study this in-depth to ensure they charge a premium based on good data regarding exposure to risk) you pay more when you are a new rider and more likely to have an accident.
But with ACC you pay more once you are experienced and have ‘time on the road’.
What most also miss is that the majority of 1000cc bikes are slower than the 600 cc range. Nothing to do with power to weight / torque etc – the fact is that the majority of them are cruisers or touring bikes. Both are generally ridden at a far more leisurely pace than the sport bikes.
Finally – I have had one accident on my bike. The officer wrote it down as a bike accident.
What happened – I was stationary at a give way (both feet on the ground) and a car driver who wasn’t looking drove right into the back of me.
10 – 1 that gets added to the stats of how dangerous bikes are.
grrrrrr!!!!
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 10:14 am
It’s been nice knowing you motorcycle industry of NZ. Talk about targetting , ouch.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 10:30 am
LOL at jeremyn:
“If you’re a cyclist, and you ride out in front of someone proceeding along their way normally in a car or motorbike, then the victim of your dangerous road use would have to get their friends to pretend to witness your incompetence to avoid a hefty fine. Cyclists have no incentive to behave in a civilized matter.”
That takes the cake, is he saying people have no incentive to avoid getting injured!!? I seem to recollect that getting injured involves things called pain, suffering, anguish, loss of function/mobility/ability/time, money etc etc.
Vote:Works for me as an incentive every time.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
>>It seems there is a lot of confusion about how ACC is levied. I know that I pay ACC from my earnings. My understanding is that this covers medical costs, rehab and loss of income for non-work related injuries. The money is pooled and and all people injured in NZ while not at work have access to it. My assumption is that this constitutes the “non-earners account”
@ Grizz: The ‘non-earners account’ pays for injuries that non-earners get – children, retired people etc. This is paid for via a Vote ACC government appropriation i.e. out of taxes. The ‘earner’s account’ is where the money goes that you pay out of your earnings, and this covers sports injuries, injuries in the home etc that earners incur. You’re right in what you say about the employers’ account. ACC gets the rest of its income from investments, where it manages very well, outstripping most other fund managers, even through the recession.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 11:36 am
This leftie thinks it is time to exclude motorcyclists from ACC (or offer an opt-out) and let them arrange their own medical insurance, rather than tax them exorbitantly e.g $745 a year.
LOL at Jeremyn and his “motorcyclists are contributing members of society, cyclists are tree-hugging bludgers, and road safety laws are ridiculous, and it’s anyone else’s fault but my (magnificent) own if I have an accident on our wuff woads.”
With litigious little fucks like that around who think everyone else is to blame for anything bad that happens, I imagine all the money saved from ACC by shifting to a “sue the ass off them” scheme would b equickly spent on legal aid, and then some. But hey, luckily our courts are sitting around idly twiddling their thumbs. They need the work
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Re motorcycle costs for ACC:
A friend of mine is a surgical theatre nurse. They call them “donorcycles”. THAT’S why the ACC levy has gone up so much. It has NOTHING to do with who causes the accident (the police investigate that), but about what their health care will cost. And motorcyclists have demonstrably more accidents.
And smokers pay a lot more for their cigarettes because of the health effects.
And …
As for cyclists, most of the ones I know are careful, responsible riders, yet have accidents regularly as drivers ignore them and open car doors right in front of them, etc. So yes, cyclists should be charged more for their ACC too, NOT because of any issues in responsibility or care, but because any injuries from accidents will likely be worse than if they were in a car, for example. It’s simply a matter of the stats.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Plum:
Firstly, do you work for ACC? I see you have posted before about the inner workings of ACC.
Secondly, If the non-earners account is funded solely from taxes and not levies I then have a couple of questions to ask about it: 1) How much tax money goes towards it each year and how does this compare to the earners account?
2) Why should tourists and non-residents gain access to it should they have an accident. Would it not be better to have them take out travel insurance as I would have to if I went to their country (gets a little blurred in the few countries with reciprocal arrangements)
3) Many elderly, and not so elderly, get injured as a result of underlying medical problems (ie fell over because of a heart condition). Their medical, nursing and rehabilitation costs are much greater than for a similar injury in a younger person. Surely it would be better to have their care provided for and resourced through DHB funding (funding of course would be diverted). I would much rather care come under one entity. Now we have DHBs trying to squeeze as much money out of ACC as possible with both sides employing people at cost trying to define their liabilities. Also ACC does not work afterhours and on weekends, meaning some stay in hospital unnecessarily until additional home care is organised by ACC, this creates bedblock and delays to hospital services for all. If DHBs were funded for injury related home support, they would get people home sooner.
If the earners account was solely for workers, then there is some merit in privatising this as well. I could pay levies according to my lifestyle risk and I could choose the amount of cover I want and income compensation. I would know that the better I behave, the less premiums I would pay. Right now, with a set levy and a set amount of cover, there is no incentive to lead a less risky lifestyle.
For motorcyclists out there, I have some sympathy for you. It is the driver that needs insurance, not the bike. However, it is your choice to put yourself in harms way of drivers. The intensity of your injuries tend to be greater, hence costlier, should you be involved in an accident so I have no problem that you are being asked to contribute more, I just take issue with the way you are being asked to do it. I also feel that we are overlooking a prime opportunity to target other risks. Fines for traffic infringements should go to ACC. Alcohol purchases should also have large ACC levies attached to them.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
“I don’t know much about bikes, but I think the higher the cc, the more powerful it is, the faster it goes”
No Fletch, we have a thing called a speed limit. But notwithstanding that, tell me how its cheaper to patch up a person who comes off a 125cc bike at 80km/h than a person who comes off a 999cc bike at 80km/h?
Now, don’t get me wrong, I totally understand the reason for a differential between a car levy and a bike levy, but pray tell, what the fuck does a bike’s engine size have to do with it that requires me to stump up $745 whereas a 15yo kid on a learner’s licence on a 125cc bike pays $254? Both can do the speed limit and both carry the same risk.
And, why does the fuckwitted arsehole in an Impreza who will wrap it round a tree next weekend pay even less that the kid on a 125cc bike? Moreover, that prick in said Impreza is more likely injure his minger in the passenger seat and his spotty mates in the back seat as well. This is not risk based insurance rating. Its a grab at cash.
ACC is a tax. It is not insurance.
Vote:October 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
RRM: “This leftie thinks it is time to exclude motorcyclists from ACC (or offer an opt-out) and let them arrange their own medical insurance, rather than tax them exorbitantly e.g $745 a year.”
That is exactly what I do (albeit without a tax credit for ACC levies!!), but moreover, that’s exactly what National allowed me to do as an employer 11 years ago. I was able to pass on the many thousands in savings as bonus payments to my employees because the windfall wasn’t in the budget and in order to keep that happeneing my employees took safety serriously.
When ACC was re-nationalised, and the bonuses were not avialable and therefore the incentive lost, they said “well fuck it, why bother” and I have to say, I agreed.
Vote:October 16th, 2009 at 12:04 am
RP: The argument against privatisation is that private insurers cost more and pay out less. The argument is flawed. As you quite rightly put it, if you are responsible for your risk, then you make damn sure that you minimise your risk so that you pay less in the long run. Furthermore if a private insurer gave you poor service, you would go to another one, even if it meant paying a little more. Where it stands now, if ACC is crap, there is little incentive for it to lift its game. There is no opportunity to find a better service.
Vote:October 16th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Grizz, couldn’t agree more. When one is force to pay a tax for a private benefit, what incentive is there to manage the risk? None whatsoever. It even gets more perverse, under the competitive model, like we did have, if my business was in trouble I might be uninsurable for all sorts of underwriting reasons. But under the ACC tax model, instead I’d simply advise all of my employees to have “accidents” so they are taken care of. I might even have an “accident” of my own. No fault, accident = $$$.
Vote:October 18th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
OK it’s simple really – Fine for not being registered = $400. Registration $745 QED. (Save $80 / Year on WOFs too. This allows you two get out of jail free cards a year!)
In any case the way the bleeding heart lobby is going (or maybe it’s ACC related as well?). Vehicle Pursuits Policy will end up being changed and the “abandon pursuit” limit will be down to about 65 km hr so no worries eh?
Vote:October 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
P.S. If it is the victims and those more exposed to potential injury rather than the perpetrators that should pay, then perhaps Cyclists and Pedestrians should have to pay larger levies than Motorcyclists. More than that, Truckers should be getting a rebate! The logic is sound I think.
Vote: