Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

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.

VIC TAC 2010/2011 Annual Report - Profit $279,456,000

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Sir Ride Alot, Nov 8, 2011.

  1. The TAC made a profit of $279,456,000 for the 2010/2011 financial year. Page 36

    Check out the Motorcycle Road Safety Reserve on page 38. I’m not sure but I read it as a positive result for the year as compared to previous years. It looks like motorcycle claims were less than motorcycle revenue. If this is the case then the TAC has no argument for raising premiums as motorcyclists are no longer subsidised. Would appreciate more opinion on this one as it is significant. They even paid out a $100,000,000 dividend.

    Cash flow is up. Page 39

    It may be time for the TAC to start reducing premiums.


    EDIT: Dividend was $100,000,000 and not from the reserve
    • Like Like x 13
  2. well done brother good work ..
  3. thanks mainstage.

    More info

    Staff and related costs $82,835,000. Page 53

    Someone got paid over $600,000 in the previous year. Page 66

    I think the responsible persons listed on page 67 cost the Victorian community just under one million dollars. Page 65
  4. This is all I could find about the reserve. It accounts for the safety levy and has nothing to do with claims.

    (r) Motorcycle Road Safety Reserve - Page 46
    The TAC premiums for certain motorcycle classes include an additional levy collected annually to fund special projects to improve motorcycle road safety in Victoria. These monies are set aside in the Motorcycle Road Safety Reserve specifically set up for this program. The program expenditure is developed by the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council (made up of representatives from the State’s main road safety agencies, the RACV and motorcyclist interest groups) and administered by VicRoads which seeks reimbursement for expenditure from the TAC.


    The governance of the Motorcycle Safety Levy lies with the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) in Victoria. The TAC separately reflects a 'Motorcycle Road Safety Reserve' in its accounts. This is reported annually in the TAC fmancial statements which
    are audited by the Victorian Auditor General.

    Page 5 of the file
  5. Pity in a way. I was hoping we could get Janet Dore sacked.
    Thanks SRAL.
  6. Mee too. I can’t find any breakdowns in the report but with them making such a large profit I would love to see where we stand. $280 mill is a lot of money for one year and it had to come from somewhere.

    EDIT: Most of it came from investments. Net investment profit $726,655 696,416. Page 53
  7. One issue I have with the TAC annual reports is the way they account for claims. From memory I raised the same issue last year. There seems to be an anomaly when comparing incurred claims in the income statement to claims paid in the cash flow statement.

    Net claims incurred $1,330,620,000 page 36
    Claims paid $944,824,000 page 39

    I can’t work out if they will actually ever pay the incurred claims as the gap between the two seems very large.

    This got me thinking about page 29 in the TAC motorcycle safety inquiry submission.

    The total premium collected annually from motorcycle registrations is almost $53 million. This represents 3.5% of the total TAC premium revenue of $1.5 billion. In 2010 the TAC paid $152 million dollars in compensation to motorcyclists, representing 20% of total compensation paid in that year (includes no – fault and common law payments).


    What value of the claims paid in 2010 was incurred from previous years and what was the value of the claims actually incurred in 2010?

    They may have settled a heap of claims from the past in that year.
  8. VMAC hasn't been around since earlier in the year.

    For all the targeting of motorcycles - the word barely appears in the report.
  9. SRAL . This link you posted is that the correct link ????

    I ask because it deal with the FNP issue and letters to that strange character from the pedestrian council ..
  10. Mainstage it’s the correct link. When I did the google search it was one of the first ones that came up. I just flicked through to the paragraph about the reserve but reading it now I laughed when I saw the picture on the last page.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. It was my understanding that claims incurred allowed for payments to be made to claimants at a future time that had been accrued (or as they put it incurred) during a current financial period.

    That's separate and distinct from the reserve as the money would be allocated to particular claimants.

    Of course because those future liabilities (incurred again) can only be estimated at the current time the figures may never exactly equalize (but that's where the reserve would be used).

    At least that's the way I read it.
  12. From page 26

    Common Law
    If a person suffers a “serious injury” as defined by the Transport Accident Act 1986 and another person was to blame for the accident, they may lodge a common law claim.
    Common law damages are payable for economic loss up to a maximum of $1,063,160 and
    for pain and suffering up to a maximum of $472,500. Economic loss can be paid to the dependents of a person killed in a transport accident up to a maximum of $773,900. The TAC resolved 943 common law claims during 2010/11. More than half of the claims resolved at common law (55%) were achieved within twelve months from the date of application.
  13. With premium revenue at $1,326,064,000 and profit at $279,456,000 the TAC could easily reduce all premiums by 20%.