sign uplog in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

ACC's proposing a 12.1% hike in the average motor vehicle levy for road users, including a 1.9c per litre increase for petrol

ACC's proposing a 12.1% hike in the average motor vehicle levy for road users, including a 1.9c per litre increase for petrol

The ACC is proposing to hike the average motor vehicle levy for road users by some 12.1%, including a proposed increase of 1.9c per litre for petrol.

The planned increase was released on Thursday as part of the biannual levy setting process for the 2019-21 period.

ACC board chair Paula Rebstock said since the last levy adjustment in 2016 the number of claims for injuries had grown by 6.4% with more people than ever before needing ACC support.

“Experience tells us that during times of economic growth such as we have experienced over the last few years, people tend to lead more active lives, exposing themselves to greater risk. New Zealand’s population is also growing and ageing," she said.

“Pressures on costs includes increasing medical costs; increased costs for care and support workers resulting from the pay equity settlement agreed by Government; the introduction of free doctor visits for under 14s,  and increases in weekly compensation claims.

 “In addition, the impact of lower interest rates on our investments, and higher inflation forecasts, will have a significant influence on future costs. These factors need to be reflected in the levy rates now to ensure that we can support our clients’ needs throughout their lifetime."

The proposed changes for the 2019-2021 levy period include:

  • Decreasing the average work account levy for employers from $0.72 to $0.67 (a 6.9 per cent decrease) for every $100 of liable earnings.
  • Increasing the earners’ levy for workers from $1.21 to $1.24 (a 2.5 per cent increase) for every $100 of liable earnings.
  • Increasing the average motor vehicle levy for road users from $113.94 to $127.68 (a 12.1 per cent increase), which includes a proposed increase of 1.9 cents per litre for petrol.

Members of the public are invited to provide feedback to the ACC Board on the proposed changes before the Board makes its final recommendations to the ACC Minister for a decision.

    “Despite the cost pressures, our investment in injury prevention and ongoing changes to the way we work are having a positive impact. Over the past two years we have also achieved higher investment returns than forecast.

     “This is helping us to manage increasing costs, and, with the exception of the motor vehicle account which is slightly higher than anticipated, we have kept levies from increasing as much as we had thought in 2016,” Rebstock said.

    ACC is taking the consultation process around New Zealand with a roadshow featuring a “Ask the Nation Station” that will visit nine towns and cities during the next four weeks. Members of the public will be able to use the station to find out more about the proposed changes to levies, and to make a submission.

    People can find out more details, and provide their feedback, on the consultation website Consultation runs from 27 September to 25 October.

    We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

    Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.



    More taxes. Keep them coming.

    This is the first comment on here to make me lol

    Excellent news...more cars left in the garage. Get those bikes out, start walking.

    Let make legs great again.

    No, just more time poor people becoming (more) money poor.

    Who covers the cost of bike injuries, out of interest? I assume the lycra lads are all sending in voluntary donations to cover their end of the deal.

    No, but they cost less in obesity and heart disease related spending.

    And probably more in the respiratory health issues. all that heavy breathing while sucking down diesel fumes.

    A fine argument for more cycling. And of course, it's not just cyclists who are dying from air pollution.

    "In 2012, air pollution from human-made PM10 was associated with an estimated 1000 premature deaths"

    256 of these were attributed to vehicle emissions. Not far off the road toll.

    I wish you luck in your mission to populate the world with MAMILs.. I can't see it taking off in Auckland, probably wiser to stick to trying to improve public transport.

    Why thank you. Luckily I'm fighting the battle in Christchurch, where you can bike from virtually any suburb to city centre in half an hour, it's 99% dead flat, and the weather is great.

    99% eh? I take it you don't live in Cashmere, Mount Pleasant, Clifton or the aptly named Richmond Hill...

    Overall it's still better to ride;

    Here's the crucial part if you can't be bothered with the whole thing;

    On average, the benefits of cycling were about 9 times larger than the risks of cycling, compared with car driving for the individuals making the shift. The estimated number of life years gained still exceeded the losses when the lowest estimate for physical activity was compared with the highest estimate for air pollution and traffic accidents (benefits/risks ratio of 2).

    More likely more heart attacks & deaths which are so common in bike competitions, not to mention the growing fashion of serious concussions & brain injuries in the anti helmet brigade, (saw 5 today with one using a rental bike, can't let brain health & cognitive function get in the way of those hairstyles).

    Bike helmets are an interesting one. A friend of mine did his PhD in modelling brain damage from shaken baby syndrome and tells me that bike helmets are only designed to reduce harm from translational force, rather than rotational. This might reduce bruising or prevent a skull fracture, but won't do anything to protect you from the actual life threatening rotational injuries like brain haemorrhage.

    While helmets don't make you much safer, one thing they almost certainly do is discourage people from biking due to the inconvenience and from the feeling that biking must be dangerous if PPE is required. The lower number of cyclists puts existing cyclists at greater risk as there is a correlation between number of cyclists vs. safety of an individual cyclist.

    Overall, there's a strong argument to be made that mandating bike helmets makes cyclists less safe.

    Bike related injuries.. come from the ACC non-work injury account, so are paid for out of the $1.21/$100 earned levy we all pay. same as rugby injuries, skydiving injuries, stamp collecting injuries.

    Never worn lycra and no intention. Would never use a racing style bike either...nuts with your head down in traffic...old upright for me.

    ..umm heard of ACC? And of course the driver of the car is at fault, so perhaps pursue him/her?

    Interestingly a friend got bowled some months back, Police shrugged and walked away. I got bowled last month and they tried the same. Until I insisted and we know have a driver up on careless use.

    Like pragmatist, and the petrol addicted motorist, the Police too need educating.

    Happy cycling.

    Hello, anyone in that head casing? All the trades, logistics, agriculture, food supply, medical professionals & emergency services, they do not come free. You can walk all you like but that does not stop the cost of living rising with petrol. Also note that people are far more likely to not be able to travel at all, (with at least 20% with a disability not to mention the ageing population) than to be able to walk 15km in an hour to work. Then lets consider you think anyone who does not walk or cycle to work must be obese, (are you so unfamiliar with fitness you have never heard of a gym, a pool, the thousands of other ways to exercise). You have to be really lazy to not be aware of the thousands of healthier and safer options to fitness.

    Why would you pay to go to a gym or pool when biking or walking to work actually saves you money and mostly uses time you'd be travelling anyway?

    Noone is arguing that 100% of people should bike 100% of the time, I have no problem with the disabled or those carrying heavy gear using a vehicle.

    "walk 15km in an hour to work"?
    The average person would take around 2 to 3 (closer to 3) hours to walk 15km.. just saying :-)

    You're not wrong. The average person wouldn't be able to ride a bicycle 15km, given an hour.

    So design your life so that the things you do most often like go to work can be walked or biked. People seem to think that it is compulsory so subject themselves to a lengthy and expensive commute every day. It isn't.

    The rising number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads is yet another legacy of the previous administration, the costs of which are now coming home to roost.


    Everyone wants to add some additional cents of tax to petrol. We dont have enough money to open an embassy in Bhutan. No worries lets request some additional fuel taxes.

    A reduction in levy for employers and an increase for employees and vehicle users.
    It looks like Labour has taken a page out of National's book on "romancing businesses for dummies". It's a tiny attempt from the government to rebalance confidence in the economy; take some from the consumer excess and pass it on the business deficit.

    Genuine question - how independent is ACC from political influence? Is it reasonable to assume Labour could have had some input into this or is it an apolitical decision?

    ACC is a statutory crown agency (not independent) and we have a Cabinet minister responsible for ACC (currently one of Iain Lees-Galloway's portfolio).
    In theory, agency policies can be influenced by ministers through their participation in setting its strategic direction.

    I thought ACC ran four different accounts internally, and the funding was kept separate. Or did this change?

    1 for work related accidents, which is funded from employer levies.
    1 for public road accidents which is funded from rego and fuel levies.
    1 for recreational / non-work accidents which is funded from the employee levy (50c/$100 income IIRC)
    and 1 for sensitive claims and medical misadventure type stuff, funded from ???

    What's happening with Labour's zero road toll thing? I haven't seen any more police or even camera vans on the road since the election. And here in Taranaki a bit of noise about the awful stretch of highway north of the city, but not much else. Oh well, more ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. Lets just tax the masses to pay for the rise in injury treatments.

    Well Auckland council is dropping the speed limit in parts of Auckland city to 30kph to stop stupid pedestrians from dying when they step infront of traffic while texting or wearing headphones. Should generate even more revenue with all the extra gridlock it'll cause.

    The idiot Mayor did the same in central Christchurch. Soon we will be back to the horse and cart.

    I don't mind the 30 km/hr in Chch city centre. The lights are synched to the reduced speed, so I can't imagine that it adds more than a minute or so to a traverse of the city centre - not the end of the world. Slower vehicles definitely makes the city centre more pleasant for pedestrians, and safer for cyclists too.

    That would nicely match the council's thought speed / intelligence quotient.

    Or, much to the distress of hospo and other business, just avoid the whole area entirely...

    Yeah it's a real shame that there are 26% less deaths and serious injuries in central christchurch. They should go back to 50km/h limits and fix that.

    Where in central Auckland is it reasonable to travel at 50km/h?

    The roads being for vehicles only is a relatively recent invention. It really does make sense of city centres to be pedestrianised.

    Quay Street, Hobson, Nelson, Upper Queen street, Mayoral Drive.. just a few off the top of my head.

    If you want them pedestrainised then block them off entirely. They are either for vehicles, or make them a pedestrain mall and put bollards up to prevent vehicle access. Personally wouldn't complain if they just bollarded the whole area off except for delivery vehicles (10kph limit) Not sure the retail businesses would like that much tho, and the corporate offices. And Wilson parking would have to pack it in too - Bonus!

    We'd certainly be better off blocking off Queen St from Aotea Square down, or even from Mayoral. There are roads up and down on either side that are better options for traffic.

    Yep, but those roads are going to be 30kph roads Everything from K road down to the harbour . Beach road across to Vic Park. Basically everything inside the motorways..

    These people a mental. Cyclists will be regularly breaking that limit on downhill stretches. Traffic at intersections will clog up if lead cars at each light change are only accelerating to a maximum of 30 kph. The number of vehicles that will make it through on every phase change will drop dramatically. Does anyone at AT actually drive a car to work?

    When have cyclists ever observed road rules, though?

    Great make Queen street & the public festivals entirely inaccessible for disabled people as well. Too right they should never have access to be a part of Auckland community culture. Better to keep them shut in, besides with ATs "let them pay for taxis" debate in preventing access to public transport the disabled will not be able to afford to get to the CBD much anymore either.

    Oh bollocks, you can get a wheelchair or walking frame between bollards that will stop a car.

    Great add bollards and make the area entirely inaccessible for disabled people altogether. Why not just put up a sign saying we want no oldies or cripples in the CBD, or here is an idea: soylent green.

    Pragmatist assumes lower speed increases gridlock. Perhaps not............

    "Additionally, results show that lower speed limits increase the speed differences across lanes for moderate demands. This, in turn, also increases the lane changing rate"


    Optimal speeds for maximum urban traffic flow have been mathematically modelled and 20mph is more efficient than 30mph.

    Drivers cut their spacing as braking distances contract. Shorter gaps mean more vehicles can use the available road space, reducing standing traffic.
    Filtering at junctions becomes easier too. It is far easier for motorists to pull into traffic travelling at 20mph than at 30mph. So junctions work more efficiently and queues reduce.
    Motor traffic volumes decrease since slower speeds encourage active, sustainable and shared travel. Walking and cycling levels rose by up to 12% after Bristol’s 20mph limit[i].
    Buses operate more efficiently. The reduced length of queues means that bus journey times decrease, and become more reliable. Buses become a more attractive alternative to the car.

    Optimal speeds for maximum urban traffic flow have been mathematically modelled and 20mph is more efficient than 30mph.

    I remember one of the interesting maths problems that we had in partial diff eq, taught by an applied maths prof from CalTech... we ended up modeling traffic flow with some simplifying assumptions to capture the driver reactions and vehicle responses to external stimuli. It was cute in how it aligned with RL, but there were those annoying underlying simplifying assumptions... there are issues in regards to how one defines "optimal" for the speeds. Is it fuel efficiency? Is it minimum transit time? Is it minimizing interference with pedestrians that are heads-down texting or reading social media? I guess I'll have to dig up the analysis and read for myself.

    AT Traffic planners would struggle with a snap together model aeroplane. Traffic modeling is a bit beyond them.
    and then there is reality


    The first link is rather amusing...

    The second link espouses an entirely different conclusion than the one you have drawn. That link has your quote, which intimates that lower speed limits will cause higher accidents due to increased speed differences between lanes as well as increase lane changing rate with lower speed limits. There is also the data that shows that reducing speed limits reduces the number of vehicles transported per hour. At some point, the number of vehicles transported will drop below the number of vehicles wanting to transport... then gridlock ensues. The higher the speed limit, the higher the number of vehicles per hour, which results in lower gridlock. At least, that is the conclusion from your second link. Your first link kinda pre-supposes the answer in the URL... the data may not align with this supposition.

    would love to know where my PAYE goes cause its not on the right things if we have to continue to increase levies for fuel.

    $2 billion a year to susidising landlords via accommodation supplements.
    about the same again in WFF.
    $12 billion on superannuation.

    Don't forget those emission credits - over 1 B $

    Hi Sam,

    I've made this little working for families calculator

    If you slap in $15k of benefits to start with and then pump out four kids you are now on $700+ a week net. I haven't even added the $60 best start policy.

    And unemployed drop kicks don't even need to worry about commuting costs, living in expensive locations for job prospects or job stability.

    A good portion of what's left of it will no doubt be wasted on greedy boomers' super, landlord subsidies and gubmint drones at departmenta like MBIE.

    I wouldn't fancy raising 4 kids on $7-800 a week.


    And like most sensible people you wouldn't have kids while unemployed, I imagine

    @saving4ahouse oh so true , its little wonder we have inequality when people on welfare have 4 or more children .

    Giving them handouts is perpetuating the cycle of poverty from one generation to the next.

    That said I dont know what the solution is

    Sterilisation as a pre-condition to receive state support to raise your children may be an option.

    What's this, every hundred years nationalism and sterilisation have to become popular again? ;-)

    What's your proposed solution to New Zealands human poverty factories?

    Simply cutting off their aid would cause untold suffering.

    Oh, I wasn't particularly getting stuck into proposing solutions, more just making an observation that we live in interesting times that resemble in some few ways other interesting times.

    I myself would probably investigate ideas such as making more assistance less fungible, i.e. less in cash. We have to look to break the cycle through the children.

    For example, even my most right-leaning friends - serial National/ACT-voting folk suffering premature talkback listening - believe school lunches would be a worthwhile investment. Doesn't cost much, will actually be cheaper for their kids' lunches (and save them time) and may provide another good attraction to school for kids from poor backgrounds (the best meal of the day).

    You're right, we can't just cut all assistance, but we can be less punitive - e.g. was John Key's mother facing constant threat of having her benefit cut off or being removed from housing, or did they have stability?

    We also need to cut distortionary redistribution that is WFF and the Accommodation Supplement, but need to address social housing so we're not ending up just paying millions and millions to motel owners as National ended up doing through bad planning.

    I really don't see what's unreasonable about getting your tubes tied if you need the state to pay for you to take care of your own children. It would stop 'repeat offenders'.

    So does the contraceptive implant, without being permanent and irreversible.

    We could grandfather welfare to zombie towns - No new benefits post 2018.

    You have to go somewhere where there is the possibility of work.

    This is a start to a long term fix - there is no short term solutions !

    The great thing about being a social democrat is that the policies you enact literally create a stream of future voters.

    ..well, due to inability to meet our carbon commitments our liability will be an estimated $7.5 bill, possibly as much as $15 bill to meet the Paris agreement. yes that's BILLION.

    Mr Key knew this but kicked the can..and the can is still being kicked..

    Petrol will never be cheaper.

    Give them a two fingers salute and buy a Mitsi Outlander electric..

    Not sure if others are like me but now that vehicle registration is cheap I tend to register all my cars. If they start putting up the price I put the rego on hold. How many people still drive without reg & Wof in this country ?

    Driving without reg & WOF. Insurance companies will be after you if you are involved in an accident. Getting fines from the Police is only minor issue financially.

    Incorrect. Unless there is a fault with the car that would have contributed to the accident the WOF and reg status are pretty irrelevant from an insurance point of view.

    ACC - Think Profit.

    Spike Miligan , in his will, said he wanted on his headstone to read :-

    "I told you I was not feeling well "

    Well....... I told you ..........before the last election that Labour was going to make us unwell , and has NO policy other than TAX AND SPEND other peoples money

    You do realise this is ACC, doing exactly what they have always done? Adjusting the ACC rates to match the expected costs of claims as happens every couple of years.. even when National are in power.

    $14/year more on car rego. A whole dollar a month. The end is nigh!!
    1.9c/litre on gas. Probably just adjusting for the increased fuel efficiency of newer cars really. Not a fan, would prefer it was done on a distance driven basis, but this is easier to administer.

    Less costs to employers due to reduced workplace accident rates/cost. Isn't that a good thing.. both for the workers that weren't injured, and for companies that will be paying less?

    And an increased ACC levy on my salary.. its going up by 0.03%. Big deal.

    Life isn't a big lefty conspiracy out to get poor widdle old Boatman.

    Never ceases to amaze me the outrage at things like this. Imagine if people had the same outrage for a generation being locked out of home ownership as they did for a $1 per month increase in their vehicle rego.

    Well "tax and spend" is the definition of what governments do, unless you'd prefer the National stance of sell national utilities to the wealthy and borrow tens of billions to fund tax cuts for those in the top income bracket?

    Biggest issue is why do we pre-fund ACC vs Pay as we go ?

    It requires hordes of investment guru’s at significant costs.

    Yet we don’t pre fund Education, Health Care, Aged Care and only partially Super.

    All of these are certain costs and can be actuarially forecast with reasonable accuracy.

    I struggle with ACC pre-funding and the huge transactional costs vs Pay as we go !

    We either pre-fund them all or none - It seems quite irrational to just pre-fund one.

    Huge transactional costs of funding ACC? Details please.

    Staff involved in portfolio management !

    well, at the moment they are returning a pretty good rate.. so they seem to be pretty cost effective.

    In an ideal world they should all be pre-funded really, except education. The parents brought them into the world, the parents should pay for their education and healthcare until they are able to make their own way in the world.

    It avoids the situation we are in now, boomers not wanting to pay more taxes to cover the money thats going to be spent on them, and expecting a far smaller population to pay for their ever increasing healthcare and superannuation cost. Much easier to vote to spend other peoples money, than it was to plan prudently apparently.

    Potential losses on portfolio - the list goes on.

    They only just reduced the motor vehicle levy last year from (an average of) $130 to $113....

    Now they are going back up from $113 to $127? Or am I reading that wrong?

    Seems daft.