MCIS Levies on CTP COSTS

[jordo]

I have given a copy of this lengthy corresponse for this forum to read
Reason for it is that the government said on implenting this legislation MCIS Levies that the average cost would not exceed $20 annually my cost is latest is $127
so if you get time have a read and ask yourself Why should we have to pay 6x the amount of the original legislation the insurance companies are saying it the government that puts this amount on not the insurance company.





From: Paul & Pam Jordan [mailto:paul-jordan@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 6 March 2008 11:54 AM
To: Enquiries
Subject: MCIS levies


Could you please give me reasons why there is a MCIS levy on my new ctp greenslip for the amount of $120. I have contacted Allianz for a reason and they stated that your department dictates the amount to be charged not the insurance company. So I am asking you why so much? compared to the $20 average stated by MR Chris Hartcher in parliment below.
That the Legislative Council's amendments be agreed to.

As I pay Private Medical & Ambulance and hold wage isurance what benifit is it to me as a solo motorcylist and what is the $268 ctp cost paying for without MCIS levy


Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [7.37 p.m.]: I thank the Hon. John Ryan, who is in the Speaker's gallery, who led for the Coalition in debate on this bill in the Legislative Council. I acknowledge the work he put into this legislation and the amendments he was successful in negotiating for and on behalf of the Coalition in collusion or agreement with the Greens. There were four main amendments to the Motor Accidents (Lifetime Care and Support) Bill. The first major amendment, which was sponsored by the Opposition, refers the PricewaterhouseCoopers costing study to the New South Wales Auditor-General for report to the Parliament. The Opposition sponsored this amendment because it is concerned that this scheme would impose a significant new potential liability on the public purse. This scheme has the potential to return billions of dollars in contingent liability to the State budget and to have an impact on our triple-A credit rating. The New South Wales Government has achieved a gold medal performance for its incompetence in financial management, and its promises about the cost of anything cannot be trusted.

The scheme will generate a revenue stream of about $250,000 a year which, over time, will involve billions of dollars. We should not embark on such a scheme without comment by the Auditor-General. Opposition members are determined to ensure that the Government is held accountable for its promise that the additional premium motorists will pay for compulsory third party green slips will be limited to an average of $20. We also point out that the Government's estimate has been formulated in 2005 dollars and not in 2007 dollars, which is when the scheme will be introduced. We are pleased that the Legislative Council passed this amendment and we look forward with great interest to the Auditor-General's report. When this matter was debated in the Legislative Assembly I spoke on behalf of the Coalition and I said that we would be moving an amendment in the Legislative Council. I acknowledge the support for that amendment by members of the Legislative Council. It is simple commonsense. Clearly, any scheme that has the potential to cost the taxpayers of this State millions of dollars should be properly assessed, and the Auditor-General is the appropriate person to make that assessment.

It is unfortunate that the Government had to have this amendment forced upon it. The Government was so determined to have its way that it was prepared to act recklessly regarding the liability that could be imposed upon the people of this State. This is not a reflection on the merits of the scheme but a recognition that Parliament—as the body responsible for the finances of the State of New South Wales and to which the Government is accountable in the final analysis—must ensure that the community can afford the schemes that Parliament puts into operation. We are conscious of the New Zealand example, where the accident compensation scheme accrued a bill of some $6 billion after several years of operation and simply became unaffordable. We cannot afford to take that risk in New South Wales so it is appropriate that the Auditor-General assess the scheme's potential costs.

Two other amendments sponsored by the Greens but supported by the Opposition were designed to ensure that the scheme provides for domestic assistance, and education and vocational training. This type of care was promised in the white paper but was not specifically included in the bill that the Government presented to Parliament. I acknowledge again the work of the Hon. John Ryan in examining the white paper, assessing the Government's promises in this area and then comparing those commitments with the bill introduced in Parliament. The Hon. John Ryan noticed the variations between the white paper and the legislation, and kept the Government honest by obliging it to keep the promises it made in the white paper.

Incredibly, the Government was set to refuse these amendments when the Hon. Lee Rhiannon first proposed them to the Legislative Council. The Hon. John Della Bosca said that they would make no difference to the bill and that cover for these types of claims was provided in other legislation. The combined Opposition forces shamed the Government into agreeing to the amendments during consideration of the bill in Committee, when the Hon. John Ryan pointed out that, if the amendments made no difference to the Government's intent, no harm could be done by including them in the bill. That simple, self-evident point had been lost on the Hon. John Della Bosca. Amending the bill made the Government's intent clearer and had the advantage of clarifying the rights of catastrophically injured people to these forms of claims.

The final amendment, which was also sponsored by the Opposition, ensured that a review panel operated by the Lifetime Care and Support Authority must take into account any written submissions prepared by, or on behalf of, a participant in the scheme. These panels, to be set up by the Lifetime Care and Support Authority, are the final forum of appeal in relation to medical disputes. The Coalition's amendment was designed to ensure that participants in the scheme have the right to make submissions and ensure that the review panel takes into consideration written submissions made by participants in the scheme; otherwise it is possible that a review panel could determine an appeal without considering the exact circumstances of a person with a disability.

Scheme participants who have a disability are entitled to know that an assessment panel fully understands their needs for treatment and care. The kinds of assessments made by these review panels are not exactly the same as the medical assessments made under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. These decisions are not limited to objective considerations about physical impairment but also include issues relating to social situations in which the participants may find themselves. The support needs of a parent with dependent children may well be different from the support needs of a single adult. These needs vary with age or with a participant's residential location. These considerations are very personal and people with a disability should be entitled to express their needs or to have them expressed to a panel through an advocate, at least in written form. We are pleased that the Legislative Council passed this amendment.

The passage of these amendments illustrates the important role that the Legislative Council plays as a House of review. In the Legislative Assembly the Government traditionally ignores and overrides sensible ideas proposed by the Opposition. It does not have that luxury in the Legislative Council, which functions appropriately as a House of review. I am glad that the honourable member for Bligh is here to lend me her support. The Coalition was successful in gaining support for the amendments, which improve the legislation and present better opportunities to people who have suffered catastrophic injuries. They ensure accountability and give panel representation to injured parties.

The amendments also make sure that the costs of the scheme are assessed properly so that Parliament and the people of New South Wales know the exact extent of the potential liability imposed by the operation of the scheme. These amendments are beneficial and are a sign that Parliament is functioning properly. Had they been suggested in the Legislative Assembly, the Government would have rejected and overridden them in its usual manner—probably without even bothering to respond or to consult its advisors. It simply refuses to accept amendments and uses its sheer weight of numbers to push legislation through.

Ms Clover Moore: And you wouldn't do that in government, would you?

Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: I assure the honourable member for Bligh that we would not do that in government. The honourable member for Bligh was in this place when the Coalition was in government. She knows what a co-operative and consultative government we were. The Coalition supports the Legislative Council's amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative Council amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported from Committee and report adopted.

Message sent to the Legislative Council advising it of the resolution.

Awaiting Your Response

Paul Jordan
paul-jordan@bigpond.com




From: Enquiries
To: Paul & Pam Jordan
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:34 PM
Subject: RE: MCIS levies


Paul and Pam
Thank you for your enquiry in regard to the MCIS Levy charged on your Green Slip.


By way of background, the MCIS Levy funds ambulance, hospital and other services for people injured in motor vehicle accidents and also provides for a new benefit which covers the cost of treatment, rehabilitation, care and support for people who are seriously injured and need life time assistance. The ambulance and hospital costs have always been part of your Green Slip premium but in the past have not been itemised as a separate levy. These costs have now been moved out of the premium section and are now included as part of the MCIS levy.

The 'small' increase that has been described relates to the increase in the total amount to be paid this year, when compared to last year's total. For most motorists, the cost of the new benefit is likely to be less than $20 unless their risk profile with the insurer has changed. Although I don't know your particular circumstances, it is important to compare last year's total to this year's total and if there is a large difference you may be able to shop around to get a better price for your Green Slip from another insurer.

As the levy is calculated as a percentage of the base premium, the amount you pay will depend on the underlying premium charged by the insurer (which of course means that if one insurer considers you to be a higher risk than another and sets a higher base premium, the amount of the levy for that insurer will be greater than an insurer that considers you a lesser risk).

It is important to shop around for your green slip to make sure that you are getting the lowest premium. The MAA's website has a Green Slip price calculator which allows you to get prices for each of the 7 licensed insurers in one place. I've attached a link to assist you in this regard http://www.maa.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx?MenuID=102.

Whilst you may have private health insurance and ambulance cover, your CTP policy does not cover you, it covers anyone you should injure as a result of a motor vehicle accident.



Yours sincerely
Corinne
From: Paul & Pam Jordan [mailto:paul-jordan@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 6 March 2008 2:17 PM
To: Enquiries
Subject: Re: MCIS levies



I have contact Alliance again they say that nothing has changed as to my risk factor and the amount of $127.95 has been calculated for me under the government guidelines.
Problem your email states the it should be less than $20 who am I to beleive.
Thanking You
Paul Jordan
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
From: Enquiries
To: Paul & Pam Jordan
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: MCIS levies


Paul and Pam

In NSW, motorcycles are rated according to their engine capacity for Green Slip purposes irrespective of the make, model or seating capacity.

As you may be aware, motorcycles are grouped into three categories according to the engine capacity for Green Slip pricing purposes. That is up to 100cc, from 101cc to 300cc and over 300cc. However, one insurer, QBE further splits the over 300cc motorcycles into three categories and price according to the engine size. The larger the engine size the more premium one pays.

Green Slip premiums are based primarily on claims experience, which reflects the number and average cost of ‘at-fault’ claims for each vehicle category. From time to time, the Motor Accidents Authority (MAA) reviews the claims experience of all vehicles relative to the standard Sydney metropolitan passenger vehicle. Following the recent 2006/2007 review, large motorcycles (300cc or more) showed deterioration in claims experience resulting in a relativity increase of 5%.

Whilst the frequency of claims against motorcycles at-fault is not high in general, the average cost of claims is significantly higher than claims against standard passenger vehicles particularly the large motorcycles. The higher cost in large motorcycle at-fault accidents is because the injuries sustained are often severe, particularly by pillion passengers and pedestrians. In other words, the main cost driver in CTP insurance for motorcycles is the severity of the injuries sustained by the claimants.

I've attached the link again for your convenience for a shop around on greenslip prices http://www.maa.nsw.gov.au/default.aspx?MenuID=102. Or please contact us on 1300 137 131 to assist with price comparisons.

Yours sincerely

Corinne



This has not really addressed my issue. as the insurance company Allianz say your department decides on how much I have to pay not the insurance company. I refer you back to the following piece taken from the transcript which is attached the government made assurances that Quote (Opposition members are determined to ensure that the Government is held accountable for its promise that the additional premium motorists will pay for compulsory third party green slips will be limited to an average of $20.) end quote.
I know motorcyclist are required to pay more for their 3rd party (which I feel is some what discriminatory as you yourself states that it is usually the fault of a car driver not motorcyclist.)

Now that we have established that motorcyclist pay significantly more for the 3rd party policy before your levy is applied could you tell me why we must pay more again for some else mistakes/fault.
Why is your levy above the amount Parliment implimented
Thanking you
Paul Jordan

I have been a licenced rider 34 yrs never made claim to any accident involing a Motorcycle
However in 1980 I was struck down by a car in Newcastle on a pedestrian xing reportedly carrying me 18mts up the road. Some of my injuries were as follows Fracture Skull, Two broken wrists, two fractures neck, two fractures in lower back, 3 broken ribs, total loss of smell, 32.8% loss of hearing and a broken leg. My compensation $19,000 not a lot when you add up all these polices and your levies. Maybe its the courts and there decissions on amouts paid out. They could add your levy into the payouts.


This added bit of information is to point out that if a perdestian gets hit by a car they will sustain a signifcant amount of injurys so under your logic as to motorcyclists paying more because according to your stats are more likely to cost the insurance/ governments more shouldn"t the pedestians be paying for the levy

[lifeofcrimeguy]

Mate I would say that the majority of people on this site would agree. Problem is, until we get a cyclist into parliment there isn't a thing we can do about it. You know the Shooter's Party have been doing wonderful things including an alliance with sport and rec groups including four wheel driving and fishing. Wonder if we can get an alliance with them? I think we got both members elected at last election didn't we? One can always hope.