Thursday, November 5, was the deadline for submissions to the ACC Board regarding proposed levy increases for motorcycling road users, so here are some points of discussion for motorcyclists regarding a decision that threatens to hit them hard in the wallet.
Many motorcyclists have raised pertinent questions about the Government's reasons for singling out motorcyclists for such a big financial penalty and raised cogent arguments about the situation's ethics.
Many have put thought into positive suggestions for improving safety and accident prevention.
Exactly the response you might expect from a minority feeling unfairly picked on.
And that really is the argument here: Fairness is a key New Zealand value accepted as fundamental to kiwis from all social strata and bands of the political spectrum.
New Zealanders like to pride themselves on living in an egalitarian society where people are equal under the law and can expect to get a fair go.
ACC was designed and established to give New Zealanders a fair go if they were injured.
It recognised that injured kiwi workers and returning soldiers had been given a raw deal and that the best possible rehabilitation of the injured provided the maximum benefit for society as a whole.
It makes social and financial sense to look after the injured and their families, and rehabilitate those incapacitated to the fullest degree.
Before ACC, getting compensation required injured people using the adversarial court system to prove another party was at fault.
The results of litigation always benefited lawyers, but seldom the injured.
Results took years and benefits to the injured were something of a lottery - with poor odds.
Injured people's families suffered from lost income and big legal costs.
It was unfair and inconsistent.
Losing the right to sue for damages in exchange for no-fault comprehensive accident coverage was the essential social contract of ACC.
Its triple goals, in order of importance, were the prevention of accidents, rehabilitation of victims and compensation for injury.
ACC was hailed as the best scheme in the world when introduced.
In December 1971, National Prime Minister the Hon Jack Marshall said on the ACC Bill's introduction: "This is a very advanced piece of legislation which I believe we will look back on as a landmark in our social welfare development.
''I think it is the most important piece of legislation since the introduction of social security, and I believe that will be the verdict of history.
''I am proud to have been associated with it and proud that the National Government has taken the lead in introducing legislation which leads the world in this field."
The ACC Act was passed in 1972 and it came into effect two years later.
The legislation, based on the efforts of Sir Owen Woodhouse and two other royal commissioners, was based on a community responsibility principle.
The Woodhouse report said: "The first principle is fundamental. It rests on a double argument.
Just as modern society benefits from the productive work of its citizens, so should society accept responsibility for those willing to work but prevented from doing so by physical incapacity.
''And, since we all persist in following community activities, which year by year exact a predictable and inevitable price in bodily injury, so should we all share in sustaining those who become the random but statistically necessary victims.
''The inherent cost of these community purposes should be borne on a basis of equity by the community."
ACC was based on fairness: community responsibility, a comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, and administrative efficiency.
The independent 2008 review of the ACC scheme confirmed the administrative efficiency of the State-rum scheme: "New Zealand has lower claims management expenses (8% of total expenditure), than all Australian schemes (9-32%) and lower administration expenses (24% of total expenditure) than the schemes providing comparable benefits . . . It is clear that ACC is paying a relatively high portion of total premiums directly to claimant benefits."
This makes a mockery of ACC MInister Nick Smith presenting ACC as a broken system that can only be fixed by privatisation.
The commissioners wanted ACC to have an exclusive mandate to to administer social insurance driven by a principled approach.
They thought it inappropriate for a comprehensive and compulsory scheme to be administered by private insurers, with their dual motivations of minimising liability and maximising profit.
Australian private insurance representatives in 1974 estimated private insurers' overall ratio of administrative costs to total funds was 18%.
One of the report's authors thought if the State took over workers' compensation, private insurers would stand to lose 25% of their income.
ACC covers all New Zealanders whether at work, on the road or at home, on the sports field, or for injuries suffered in the course of treatment.
Entitlements are provided to earners and non-earners alike.
I sent a list of 20 representative motorcyclists' questions to Dunedin National Party list MP Michael Woodhouse, ACC Minister Nick Smith and the Prime Minister John Key.
Mr Smith's office has been "working on a reply", but as yet I've received nothing back.
A shame, given submissions have closed.
Mr Woodhouse replied that "given the Minister has already begun his response to you it makes sense for that to continue. Happy to be a local contact on this issue and any other going forward, especially given my role on the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee that will consider the ACC Bill and any legislation that comes from the Safer Journeys Consultation document."
This is pertinent as he sits on the select committee that will consider the ACC Bill and is happy to be a contact for this issue, but helpfully noted that assimilating the submissions is ACC's job and they will then put final recommendations to Cabinet.
Michael's email is: Michael.Woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz
The Prime Minister's Office replied (automatically):
"On behalf of the Prime Minister, Hon John Key, thank you for your email. Please note that although email increases the speed of delivery, it may not be possible to provide you with the rapid response users of email may anticipate. The fact that you have taken the time to write is appreciated. You can be assured that your views have been noted.
Yours sincerely
The Office of the Prime Minister"
Here is my email to the Prime Minister, ACC Minister and local list MP:
I am a motoring writer for the Otago Daily Times newspaper and a motorcyclist.
I know many hundreds of motorcyclists from all walks of life.
Many have been asking me questions about the proposed ACC motorcycle levy changes.
As a result, I have 20 questions for you:
1) Is it true the Accident Compensation Corporation was set up as a no-fault accident insurance scheme to provide blanket coverage for New Zealanders injured in any way?
2) Is it the case the Accident Compensation Corporation delivered $1 billion in profit to the Government last year?
3) Minister Nick Smith recently said ACC changes were needed to make the scheme affordable, sustainable and fair. Is this what he meant?
4) A document circulated among Australian insurance companies before the election of this Government laid out expected profits from their taking over some NZ ACC business if a National government was elected. Did such companies provide funding to the National Party before the election and, if so, was that, or can that be transparently disclosed?
5) Would those projected profits to private insurance companies from privatising parts of ACC business to them lessen or boost the efficient delivery of accident benefits to accident victims, and, would they lessen or boost ACC levies?
6) What consultation have you done with motorcyclists about these changes?
7) Do you consider increasing levies on motorcyclists to be fair?
8) Are motorcyclists being targeted because they deserve to pay for the cost of their injuries, no matter who, if anyone, was at fault?
9) If a car driver ran a Give Way sign, striking and spinally injuring a motorcyclist, and was convicted of failing to give way, whose levy should increase, if anyone's?
10) If a car driver crossed the centre line on open road and wiped out a motorcyclist, making them a paraplegic, whose levy should increase, if anyone's?
11) ACC statistics cover all sports, including for example netball, mountain-biking and rugby. How are the costs of injuries from these activities being fairly levied?
12) With many injuries being caused by falls in New Zealanders' own homes, how are the costs of injuries from these activities being fairly levied?
13) Ladders and power tools are involved in a great many injury accidents and ACC claims, how are the costs of injuries from using these dangerous items being fairly levied?
14) How does the Government justify applying on one group of accident victims large levy increases, when there are so many other obvious groups of victims who pay no levies while engaging in activities which cause expensive injuries?
15) What about levies for people injured through drunken behaviour, including falling over, drink-driving and fighting?
16) Many typically National-voting farmers operate motorcycles which must be registered to travel over roads connecting parts of farms, or have recreational motorcycles. How do you think increased motorcycle ACC levies will affect their voting?
17) Many well-to-do typically National-voting business-people and other mid-income and high-income earners ride motorcycles recreationally. How do you think increased motorcycle ACC levies will affect their voting?
18) Motorcycles are fuel efficient and take very little parking space. Should not the Government encourage their use for obvious and compelling environmental and congestion-easing reasons. What effect do you think increased motorcycle ACC levies will have on how the Government is perceived over Blue-Green, urban transport and congestion issues?
19) The changes in levies relating to the engine size of motorcycles seem to fail to take into account varying types and power outputs of motorcycle engines of the same displacement - for instance, large engines can be in high or a low state of tune (some producing less than half the power of others) and small engines are often in an extremely high state of tune, although some are not. How can you justify, for instance, a lowly-tuned 650cc trail bike being levied the same as a huge 2300cc road bike, or a 1000cc road bike capable of 300kmh? Changes in levies relating to the engine size of motorcycles seem to fail to take into account benefits to cities in lack of congestion and to the whole country in reduced fuel use of, for instance, using 50cc scooters, which get a huge levy slug. In some cases this rise is more than their annual commuting fuel bill. How can this make sense, be fair or be justified in congested cities and with modern-day oil prices?
20) How can the responsibility for paying the costs of injuries be applied differently to New Zealanders, when they are injured in different ways, under a fair and no-fault scheme?
Email ends
Another question which some have brought up is: If the Government strays from the no-fault model and targets with levies some groups of injured and not others, it opens them to charges of unfiarly targeting minorities.
If a government chooses to be unfair and target with levies those they label as "at fault" (say mountainbikers, skiers or netballers who of their own volition engage in their chosen activities), then, to be consistent, it has to apply that same level of unfairness equally to everyone and so treat sportspeople and any New Zealander doing any activity as being "at-fault" for playing sport or continuing the risky business of living.
(Remember, most injuries are caused by falls around the home.)
It's only fair then, that all New Zealanders are treated equally unfairly, and if that happens, you're back to spreading the costs back across the community as a whole, for its activities as a whole.
Otherwise the Government leaves itself open to people advancing arguments such as making rugby players pay their way based on their actual injury costs, or looking at road accident statistics and making boy racers and under-25-year-old male drivers pay their appropriate share, possibly by keeping record on each driver, just like a private insurer does.
Or, why not then make the driver who ran a Give Way sign and injured a motorcyclist pay the costs of the motorcyclist's injuries? Either a policy should be evenly fair to all, or equally unfair to all.
But what's being proposed is not a fair go whichever way you look at it
Independent analysis shows it's a recipe for paying more to get less, with private insurers pocketing a higher proportion of NewZealanders' levy money, given in good faith to cover accident prevention, compensation and rehabilitation, while paying out less to victims.
The injury cost figures presented by Nick Smith have been misleading, projecting future costs and insisting they be covered from funds now.
ACC scheme architect Owen Woodhouse could spot that deception a mile off.
Poster campaigns have sought to make motorcyclists look "at-fault" when this does not reflect the injuries caused to motorcyclists by other motorists' negligence or stupidity.
It smacks of trying to apportion blame and resentment on to motorcyclists when ACC is a "no-fault" scheme.
The Government is not proposing to levy non-levy-paying groups who get injuries, and does not spend large advertising budgets attempting to demonise skiers, cyclists or people doing home maintenance.
There seems to be an effort to make car drivers resent motorcyclists because they're being "subsidised", but that misrepresents the social contract under which ACC was created.
The most significant submission you might make is perhaps:
''I and my many motorcycling friends will never vote National if you carry on with this unfair, inconsistent ill-conceived proposal. We've got long memories and lots of friends who vote too.''
• Having just read an ACC advertisement "explaining" ACC levy proposals in a recent Otago Daily Times newspaper, I am compelled to reply to the false arguments its "explanations" include.
It says motorcyclists are not being singled out.
This is false, as the heavy financial penalising of motorcyclists is not applied uniformly to all members of society who get injured, including obvious ones engaged in high-risk activities like rugby, netball mountain biking etc.
All the following arguments in the ad' are negated by the principle that the penalising of motorcyclists is not applied across other high risk groups. So talking about motorcyclists paying more and their being subsidised is an invalid distraction unless the same principles are applied to all citizens, which they are not.
Statistics about motorcyclists' road crash injuries and who might be at fault are irrelevant to a no-fault scheme.
The cost of injuries to New Zealand citizens should be borne by society as a whole, as the ACC scheme was intended to enable.
The other "explanations" in the ad' are just further distractions from the fact that an unfair financial burden is being applied to motorcyclists and not to other groups, or to society as a whole, as was ACC's original intention.
This ACC motorcycle levying should be abolished in total and the scheme should be set back up as intended by Owen Woodhouse and the other royal commissioners who got it right in the first place,
ACC documents outlining their costings and plans can be seen at their website:
www.acc.co.nz/consultation
SUBMISSIONS HAVE CLOSED
Michael Woodhouse can be emailed at: Michael.Woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz
Thanks to Hazel Armstrong for background about the ACC from her book Blood on the Coal
Bookmark/Search this post with:
