i think its called "chatto creek' not shaddow creek.

Hey everyone,

I'm doing a research assignment for school on this topic. Thanks to your comments ;) They have really helped. Should post the report up sometime soon.

But Andrew could you explain this from your submission please:

16) Levy increases of this magnitude will have an inflationary impact on the economy.

Good luck in fighting these levies :D

hey guys thought you may want to see the reply I got from Jim Anderton,as follows,there is hope yet.... Dear Dave,

Thank you for your message regarding the proposal to increase the ACC levy payable by owners of motor bikes, in some cases by several hundred per cent.

I am opposed to this for two principal reasons:

The first is that it is not necessary. The ACC fund is not in a financial crisis as the current National led government claims. The scheme as originally constituted was a ‘pay as you go’ scheme i.e. the levies received in any one year meet the requirements for payments in that year. In fact the recent history of the scheme has been that the income more than meets the payment requirements. The same applies to, for example, national superannuation. In that case the identification of the effect of the ‘baby boom’ generation coming to retirement and creating a demand ‘bulge’ on the commitment to pay universal pensions at a reasonable level can be anticipated and planned for ( the so-called ‘Cullen’ fund). If the ACC funding was in crisis this could be handled in the same way, but it is not in crisis and no amount of insisting that it is on the part of the present Minister can make it so.

The problem arises because the current government insists that all of the future financial obligations of the fund must be funded in the present. That would make sense if the ACC was an insurance scheme – which it is not and was never intended to be. It makes even more sense if the government has a hidden agenda – which looks increasingly likely – to privatise the ACC or farm parts of it out to insurance companies. In those circumstances, a fully funded scheme in which the fund has been paid for by taxpayers would look a very attractive proposition to a private insurer, but it is one to which I am entirely opposed.

The second reason is that the ACC scheme was never intended to be a user pays scheme in which those who allegedly incur specific costs must, as a group, also meet those costs in full. The scheme is intended to draw upon the overall resources of the community to ensure that those who suffer an accident do not find themselves disadvantaged because they cannot afford treatment or rehabilitation, or meet the expenses associated with a lengthy court case. I note that Sir Owen Woodhouse, whose report led to the setting up of the scheme in 1973 has very recently said precisely that. Saying that motor cyclists must pay much more than presently because they are ‘responsible’ for their accidents not only breaches the principal behind the scheme, it also re-introduces the notion of fault into the scheme when it was set up in the first place to avoid it.

Please be assured that I will be opposing the proposed increased levy and that we in the Progressive Party are committed to restoring the scheme to its original basis when we return to government.

Warm regards,

Jim Anderton MP for Wigram Progressive Party Leader

N

Can not agree more with all of the above comments. As a rider of over 35 years constantly on the road ,NO ACC claims and over 28 years on 750cc machines I stand to be taxed out of existence by these bungling bureaucrats. Has anyone given thought to the amount of casualties that a single car driver can cause in one collision. We regularly see wreckage on the news with a number of casualties in one vehicle,do these drivers pay a multiple fee for the other injuries they cause. See how the ACC plays the blame game for motorcyclists,but says that their system does not blame anyone for accidents,yeah right! I would agree the some guys returning to bikes later in life have got bikes that overpower them,(a 20 year riding gap needs re-training guys),as do numerous ladies I have seen on huge cruisers,these people need to be more realistic if they are to survive and not put up our insurance levies. Maybe we need an opt-out to our own insurance scheme.I am sure with enough members we could do it at resonable cost, it would weed out the re-offenders too!(like motor-cross) Perhaps one way is for everyone to put their bike on the reconstruction list when it next needs re-registering.

Cars cause most of the accidents? A high percentage of motorcycle accidents are the rider losing control.

67 per cent of accidents involved another vehicle, and of those, 62 per cent were the other driver's fault.

Over the years i've enjoyed motorcycling in NZ i've seen a relentless if subtle campaign of persecution by various government agencies. Police excepted actually - Most of the cops i've run into have been great - and despite all our grumbles we need their efforts to help keep it all sane and i know i speak for many riders when i say that in NZ, we've got some of the best. The REAL police on the ground floor out there doing the real work seem to be the exception however. Their management and most other government agencies are too closely wired to the great bureaucracy that really makes no sense at all - They all cower before the great spectre of the "safety" business - If we restrict and charge bikers even more then it will somehow it will all be made safer - In part we as bikers have created this very problem - We have enjoyed being lazy when we grumbled but paid up and in doing so, effectively accepted the differential ACC levy that charged "more for bikers" when it was first applied - It was as corrupt then as it is now - in fact levying drivers for hospital charges is nonsense - with a public health system, the government should apply various FAIR taxations that should pay for such things. All sorts of sports have all sorts of risks. It is fundamentally ludicrous to levy people on the basis that they might be at more risk, because of some random demographic. It is also fundamentally wrong to charge one group and no others. Charging everyone on some risk index is no answer either, as that would simply promote a no risk / no reward modus operandi, which may be safe but is essentially pointless. This is changing our country and our status as motorcyclists and taking a turn that is unacceptable. Now is the time to act. If we motorcyclists tolerate this sustained passive aggression, then god only know what persecution we will inherit next. Its time to do whatever it takes to prevent this atrocity against motorcyclists. Bruce

The below is a draft of a submission that i intend to make to ACC, feel free to copy and use parts of this for your own submission - submission close in only 3 weeks

Levy Consultation ACC PO Box 242 Wellington 6140 Fax: 04 918 4395 Email: consultation@acc.co.nz

Re: SUBMISSION ON THE LEVY RATES FOR MOTORISTS 2010/11

To Whom It May Concern:

I am an avid motorcyclist of both road and off road varieties. I also own a motorcycle retail business that trades in motorcycles, scooters, parts, accessories and provides workshop servicing. The business employs 3.5 FTEs and has been operating from the same location since 1963.

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the ACC levy proposals for 2010/11 and I do not support dramatic increases in ACC levies for road registered motorcyclists. I do not support the reclassification proposed which is based on capacity rating. I do not support the increase of levies for moped rider to the same level as motorcycles up to 125cc.

Concerns: 1) This proposal punishes all road registered motorcyclists regardless of their ability, the reason for using a motorcycle (sport, commuting or recreation) and rider history 2) This proposal directs the cost of motorcycle accidents onto road registered motorcycle users when other vehicles are a contributing factor or cause of a high proportion of motorcycle related accidents 3) This proposal will in effect encourage riders to evade paying registration and the levy and potentially increasing the number of illegal bikes on the road. This may in turn increase the number of unwarranted bikes on the road as control over warranting is effectively removed if registration is not obtained. Reduced warrant of fitness checking rates may result in unsafe vehicles on the road 4) Discourages young people from becoming independent by effectively ruling out scooter transport as a cheap mode of transport because of the high registration/ACC levy costs 5) Increasing the registration costs would have no impact on high risk riders that currently choose to ride illegally 6) Increased numbers of riders choosing to go unregistered may result in higher numbers of motorcyclists running from police and a higher accident rate due to active avoidance of fines 7) The proposed increase in levies would in effect discourage the use of fuel-efficient and low emission mopeds and motorcycles in favour of car use 8) Decreased motorcycle use will result in increased car usage, which in turn would increase road congestion and risk of accidents due to congestion and increased car numbers 9) Decreased motorcycle use will result in increased car usage, which in turn would increase city parking requirements 10) Decreased motorcycle use will result in increased car usage, which in turn would increase road maintenance costs for the country and in turn increase the risk of accidents due to road conditions 11) Drastically increasing the ACC levy for bikes unfairly treats motorcycle riders that own and ride more than one vehicle. Many motorcyclists own more than one motorcycle and most motorcyclists own a car. These individuals are paying twice or more, when they can only operate one vehicle at any one time. 12) Many motorcyclists understand the need for ACC to recover a greater proportion of costs but do not believe it is fair or reasonable to recover costs for this particular activity when other high risk activities are not subject to any levy at all, including most sports. 13) Increasing ACC levies for motorcyclists will have the effect of fewer motorcyclists paying registration, whether through applying for exemptions, choosing not to register their motorcycle or by choosing not to own a road registered motorcycle. Overall levy take from motorcyclists will therefore reduce and the remaining riders that do register their vehicles will be forced to pay even more 14) I fundamentally object to anybody trying to remove or reduce the number of motorcyclists on New Zealand’s roads 15) I believe that ACC itself has systematic problems that need to be addressed to reduce costs before these costs are simply passed on to the public. Examples that I have personally witnessed include acceptance by ACC of claims that should clearly have been rejected; protracted debates and reviews of simple cases that simply required clear and decisive decision making; continuation of the payment of “entitlements” when these entitlements were clearly unreasonable; active encouragement of claimants to take up their rights when not necessarily needed or required; abuse of ACC’s own systems by claimants that know and seek advise on the best way to extort money from ACC. Until these types of issues are resolved I do not accept any increase in ACC levy. 16) Levy increases of this magnitude will have an inflationary impact on the economy

Attached to this letter are signatures of those members of the public encountered in the very short window of opportunity to make a submission that support my stance and support this submission. Each of the below signees is showing support of this submission in lieu of a their individual submission.

Yours truly,

Smiths – Motorcycle Mad Ltd

Email: andrew@motorcyclemad.co.nz

The below motorcycle riders/enthusiasts and customers of Smiths Motorcycles support the above submission and STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed increases to ACC levies for road registered motorcycles and moped.