by frog
The fightback against the Government’s proposed ACC cuts is building.
Green Party ACC spokesperson Kevin Hague has developed a submission guide to assist people who want to make submissions against the cuts. Submissions close 26 November 2009, so get in quick if you want to have your say.
There’s also a big protest planned at Parliament next week. The protest is organised by the motorcycle lobby, but they have made it clear that anyone affected or potentially affected by the cuts to ACC is welcome.
The ACC Futures Coalition, representing a large number of unions, ACC claimant groups, and professional organisations of treatment providers are supporting the protest.
So even if you can’t go on the protest motorcycle ride, if you live in or near Wellington you can join the protest at Parliament next Tuesday 17 November, at 12 noon. There is also a petition you can download here in opposition to the motorcycle levy increase and in support of a return to the Woodhouse principles of ACC.
Meanwhile someone sent me this really cool video yesterday exposing some of the Government’s lies and distortions about the proposed motorcycle levies.
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Thu, November 12th, 2009
Tags: ACC cuts, bikeoi, Kevin Hague, motorcycle levy, protest, Woodhouse principles
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Hey, let’s back Kevin’s call for submissions on this pernicious Bill.
This is the thin end of the wedge for privatisation – set it up so both levy payers and claimants think they have a grievance, and then shaft them all.
That is NACT’S agenda – create the circumstances to eventually move ACC to being nothing more than an investment opportunity for the insurance industry.
And who will lose from that? Well, everyone but the insurance industry, actually.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The maths in that video is seriously flawed as it assumes that ACC is still a pay/go scheme. Since that isn’t the case they need to include the future cost of the new claims made each year.
This easily worked out, assuming that none of the permanently disabled motorcyclists die or move on nat super.
Subtract the number new claims in 5 years ago from the number of new claims last year, then subtract the number of active claims 5 years ago from the number active claims last year. Subtracting the first number from the second number gives the number of long-term compensation claims each year. Calculate that as a pecrentage of all active claims then apply that percentage to the $62 million paid out and you arrive at an annual cost of $1 million dollars per year for new lifetime compensation claims. Assuming an average remaining working life of 35 years that means motorcyclists should be funding current costs of $62m plus $35m future costs for this years crashes plus $30m-$45m of previously unfunded future costs of permanent disabilities that occurred in crashes up to 35 years ago. In fact, at the very least, half of the $62m paid out last year was for compensation paid to victims of crashes that occurred more than 20 years ago. Much the same is true for the remaining $280m paid out from the motorvehicle account. But the fact that future liabilities are being funded from a fuel levy means that motorcyclists contributions from this source will never be sufficient, even when half those future costs are properly allocated to car owners, who are responsible for half the motorcycle injury toll.
As at least half the longterm payouts are for motorcyclists injured prior to 1990 when we 150,000 registered motorcycles it is unfair to burden the current 75,000 motorcyclists with those historic obligations, but that is precisely what ACC is attempting to do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn – the Greens are arguing that ACC should revert to PAYG, or at least be only partially, rather than fully, pre-funded.
On that basis, I think the video has a valid and accurate message, which is why I presume frog posted it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)