Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by waedwe, May 8, 2013.
They should be able to get rid of it entirely with the NDIS being a no fault, non-discriminating scheme....
or, at the very least, get rid of the MCIS levy.
But don't hold your breath.
Tonight The Motorcycle Alliance and members of the MCC met with representatives from the Law Society. I have bad news.
While we (The NSW Motorcycle Alliance and the MCC of NSW) have been meeting regularly lately with the Motor Accidents Authority and the office of the Finance Minister regarding "consultation" over the new CTP Greenslip system, the government has been writing the legislation. The Minister's Office told us they were not writing legislation, and they wouldn't be ready to do so until later in the year, hence the "consultations".
I'm sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that they were lying to us. And every other road user group, crash victim group, legal body and any other stakeholder group you can think of.
The legislation was "debated" by the coalition party room for a total of 10 minutes. So don't expect your local member to have a clue what they are voting on.
The bill was put into parliament this week and has already had it's first reading speech. It is scheduled for second reading in the upper house this week. They are trying to ram it through quickly, before anyone works out what's in it. Today was the first chance we've had to look at it, and there's obviously a lot to get through (100 pages) but it's safe to say that none of the recommendations in the invited submissions from any road user group, crash victims group, the law society, us, or anyone else was taken into account.
What does it mean?
Smaller payouts for crash victims
Potentially massive premium prices. We're expecting some motorcycle greenslips to be in excess of $2,200.
If you thought the previous Greenslip fight a couple of years ago was difficult, hold onto your hats. This time we're facing a government that is full of ego, who refuses to listen to anyone, and a cross-bench that is not inclined to go against them.
This one will get ugly.
All the stuff Andrew Stoner told you at the last rally (you were there, weren't you?) was obviously a lie. I bet you're shocked.
Here's a link to the hansard of the first reading of the bill, including the view of the opposition, in case you're interested;
By the way, guys and girls, Dave from the Alliance and Guy from the MCC will be in Parliament House on Thursday trying to convince the cross-benchers to grind this thing to a halt while everyone gets a good look at it over the winter recess, so all is not lost. But it is a slim chance.
Hold your rage until we've had a chance to do that on Thursday. If that fails, then we need to unleash some heavy artillery.
I've been involved in a massive fight with the NSW government over the last few years about the closure of the Cronulla Fisheries Research Centre.
In summary this government will not change anything no matter how ridiculously idiotic it is.
As you say, they have no interest in listening to anyone.
Hefty majority does that to 'em.
Yep. That's why we won't be bothering to talk to them. They have done nothing but lie to us anyway.
We will be talking to other people...
Exactly. Despite what most Aussies believe, minority governments are great for democracy.
Every government that has won a massive majority has been a disaster in some way.
Thanks for posting this and good luck .sounds fcuking disgraceful government working against the people .can only wish you well
It was my concern when this was first proposed that CTP costs for Bikes might increase.
Interesting that in the Hansart you linked to their is a statement current cost blowout is not as much to do with legal costs, as has been previously mentioned as responsible, but instead to Insurance Company profits.
What can we do to help?
We will let you know once things become a little clearer later this week.
Genuinely sorry to hear that trying to work co-operatively with government only got you shafted. Never trust the dogs.
What is the basis for MCA expecting massive increase in CTP premiums?
Intuitively, if CTP payouts are reduced one would expect CTP premiums to go down. I would expect Income Protection Insurance premiums to rise, because this bill shifts the cost of ongoing care away from the CTP scheme to Income Protection insurance.
Just wondering what the reasoning is for CTP premiums to go up.
The current system does not cover drivers or riders involved in single vehicle accidents, nor does it cover at-fault parties in multi-vehicle accidents. Given most motorcycle crashes are single vehicle, that means most motorcyclists injured don't get to claim on CTP. The only exception to this is the $5k that was introduced recently as a claimable amount by at-fault parties, but that is a negligible amount.
The new scheme removes fault as a basis for claiming, which means every single-vehicle accident (which is most bike crashes) and those at fault in multi-vehicle crashes can now claim.
So you are increasing the number of claimants by a massive number.
How can you increase the number of people who can claim and still reduce premiums?
By cutting payouts... and they have done that too.
There is also the small matter of the relativities used to set motorcycle premiums, which under the current system is grossly unfair to motorcyclists. If those relativities continue under the new scheme, then yes, some motorcyclists will see greenslip premiums north of $2,000.
The MAA and the Finance Ministers office have refused to rule it out... which only means one thing.
There's kind of two things going on at the moment with the Government.
We have been working very well with the Minister For Roads, Duncan Gay on road safety issues. He has been a thorough gentleman and has had a very good impact on the attitudes within Transport For NSW from a motorcyclists viewpoint. He is very supportive of motorcyclists, partly because he is one himself.
On the other hand, trying to work with the Finance Minister and the MAA is the exact opposite.
Unfortunately the Roads Minister will be of little help here, as he is outranked by those wishing to push this through.
Won't stop us from asking for his help, but he won't be able to do much.
My concern with the possibility of CTP going up for bikes with a not at fault system was that bikes may move from, in some cases, the "involved in an accident with other part at fault" category to "involved in an accident with another vehicle. Due to SMIDSY the latter category would be a much higher % and risk of insurance higher.
No. SMIDSY crashes have an at-fault party. Nothing changes there.
Besides, we already pay higher premiums becuase of crashes caused by car drivers. Why do you think we already pay more than them?
The system has been unfair for some time.
Won't this also result in lower comprehensive insurance, if the greenslip is increasing it's scope?
I would doubt it.
So, with the new system the at fault party's insurance always pays the claim?
Assuming the at fault party is identified of course.
The risk in the new system as I read it is that they will pay some of the claim, but not enough to compensate for losses (well even more than now).
No. What you have described is what happens now under the current scheme. In future it won't matter who is at fault, at least not in the first instance. If you are hurt in a crash, you will claim against your own greenslip and be paid out, and then the insurance companies will argue later over who should foot the bill depending on whose client was at fault.
The basics of that sound great, but the devil is in the detail. A no-fault system means everyone can claim, even those riders and drivers who are hurt in a single vehicle crash that is their own fault. Previously they could not claim. So we will be dragging a massive number of new claimants into the scheme, yet the government believes premiums will come down? That happens because they have also massively reduced what you are entitled to claim for. For example, if you are rendered unable to ever work again, you will be able to claim for loss of earnings, just like before. But now the payout will stop after 5 years. Then you're screwed. Ther eare lots of other examples of payout caps and cuts as well.
But here's the rub for motorcyclists. Normally when we fall off by ourselves we are alone, therefore there is no claim against our greenslip. If we have a passenger they can claim, but this is actually reasonably rare. When we have crashes with cars, more often than not the crash is the fault of the car driver, meaning up until now we have been claiming against the car's greenslip. So when you look at the total number of bike policies, there are fewer claims against them than you would imagine.
So why do we pay so much? Usually more than car greenslips?
Relativities. That is the magic word here.
Because even though our claims aren't against our own greenslips, we make plenty against cars, and the MAA knows it's motorcyclists getting the payouts, so they allow the relativities to be adjusted to make us pay "our fair share". This "relativities" issue is what we've been complaining about for years, but we have trouble proving it because the MAA keeps it's numbers close to its chest.
The new system will isolate us totally and make it very easy to see what we cost in terms of claims, because we will be claiming against our own Greenslips, even when another driver is at fault. So it will be very easy to attribute a higher payout total to us, and charge us more accordingly. Combine that with all the Single vehicle crashes that currently aren't claimed that now will be, and the growth in payouts on bike Greenslips could be huge.
And if they continue to use the same relativities, we are totally screwed.
So far, the MAA and the Government have been unable explain what they are doing with relativities.
That's part of the problem, yes.
The biggest issues are listed in the copy of Hansard.
Adding a "No Fault" (The ones that caused the prang) portion means an additional 50% minimum of more claimants. So they are paying out more often.
How will they pay for this? By reducing your payments if you get injured.
Add to that the comment from Matt last night that they have pulled out the "No Blame" claims. So if you are waltzing along the footpath having a lovely day and a driver has a seizure and cleans you up then no claim as no blame.
Essentially this is going backwards big time.
I have documents available for anyone interested in reading the why's and wherefores in this debacle.
The blameless accidents are still in there mate, they've just removed the next section which applies to kids under 16. It's unclear whether they've been removed totally, or whether they fall under a new general definition of "claimant".
The fact that it is unclear might be enough to get it held up. Fingers crossed.