Levy for the New Lifetime Care & Support Scheme: ACT Vehicle Registration Increase of $34pa from 1/7/14

Got mine today, and did some digging.

The Lifetime Care and Support Scheme Levy is set independently from Government by the ACT Lifetime Care and Support Commissioner.

Yeah right. The “independent” Lifetime Care and Support Commissioner is Ms Karen Doran (public servant), Executive Director of the Economic and Financial Group, Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2014-203/current/pdf/2014-203.pdf

She’s independent like the Auditor-General’s independent – not at all.

Looks like a tax, sounds like a tax…

wildturkeycanoe said :

To briefly outline some examples of what magiccar9 wants to know are “catastrophic injuries”, things like permanent brain damage, paraplegia, over 40% major burns and amputations – pretty much things that will scar a person for life and require expensive medical support. I got this from the NSW scheme, which interestingly enough only covers drivers in N.S.W.
It’s a great idea, but I also wonder why it isn’t part of CTP insurance already? It’s like having a levy in our rates to cover flood damage even though we already have home insurance, just double dipping to protect those who are too cheap to get their own insurance.
Pork Hunt – I fully agree, the GST was supposed to get rid of all these extra taxes, but we just keep getting slogged with more and more. It’s ridiculous.

Thanks wildturkeycanoe. My point was more around the fact that the Government are specifying the rules here to suit themselves. Lets say I have a crash, and I hurt my knee. Sure I may seem fine, but if I have ongoing knee problems and say, a reconstruction in a few years, is that deemed to qualify? To me it could be ‘catastrophic’ because it will cause me pain for the rest of my life. Just because it isn’t an obvious burn, or paralysis, who says it doesn’t count? The Government boffins who write the book?

I agree with the rest of your comment though, spot on.

To briefly outline some examples of what magiccar9 wants to know are “catastrophic injuries”, things like permanent brain damage, paraplegia, over 40% major burns and amputations – pretty much things that will scar a person for life and require expensive medical support. I got this from the NSW scheme, which interestingly enough only covers drivers in N.S.W.
It’s a great idea, but I also wonder why it isn’t part of CTP insurance already? It’s like having a levy in our rates to cover flood damage even though we already have home insurance, just double dipping to protect those who are too cheap to get their own insurance.
Pork Hunt – I fully agree, the GST was supposed to get rid of all these extra taxes, but we just keep getting slogged with more and more. It’s ridiculous.

Pork Hunt said :

Has anyone done a count of all the levies and taxes that have been imposed since the introduction of the never ever GST.

That would require a new computer system, programming and a government department. Better introduce a levy to pay for it.

$34 seems like a hefty jump. Are they expecting the payouts to rise by this much, or are the insurance companies just covering their own butts (and increasing profits).

How does this differs to CTP?

No fault being people who seriously mame themselves in the accident?
What if they are at fault, are millionaires covered for injury if they write of their supercar?

Has anyone done a count of all the levies and taxes that have been imposed since the introduction of the never ever GST.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

“The scheme will cover pedestrians, cyclists, motor bikes and motor vehicles so long as at least one vehicle involved in the motor accident had CTP cover, regardless of where fault is attributable for the accident.”

So if a pedestrian is hit by an unregistered vehicle..nada?

The pedestrian would be covered for CTP under a default public liability arrangement which underwrites the award for damages and sues the liable person later. The de-facto CTP cover should flow on.
It’s ironic that the group most likely to be recipients of this scheme are cyclists and pedestrians who will not directly pay any premiums for the cover.
It’s past time that all bicycles in the ACT were registered and the owners forced to pay the levy for this scheme.

Oh come on, you must know that most adult people who are cycling or walking also would own a car, so they would have paid the levy. Besides, how much damage can a bike or a human body do to a car compared to what a car is capable of doing? It sounds like you want a person who walks or cycles to pay two levies, even though when they are walking or cycling they are less likely to cause the damage that would require a payout from this insurance.
But why not, let’s charge every baby in a stroller, ban every child from leaving their own yard and walking anywhere, every adult who doesn’t also own a car (most people who cycle or walk do, so it would mostly be the aged), unless they have paid for this insurance through car ownership. Thank you for pointing out this flaw.

“cyclists and pedestrians who will not directly pay any premiums for the cover”.

Read it again please because I deliberately said “not directly” to cover comments such as you have made.

Okay, so just the babies in a stroller, children and the adult without a car. In that case to be fair at all, the car registration should only cover one person. All others in the household, along with those who don’t own a car, should pay the insurance. Why should a family of five for instance (or even a couple), pay one fifth of the insurance (half in the couple’s case) that a single non car owner would have to pay?
This would get complicated very fast.

It would be an administrative nightmare to collect the levy from evryone. Motorists are already there to soak by adding it on to their rego fees. It’s all about revenue really.

dungfungus said :

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

“The scheme will cover pedestrians, cyclists, motor bikes and motor vehicles so long as at least one vehicle involved in the motor accident had CTP cover, regardless of where fault is attributable for the accident.”

So if a pedestrian is hit by an unregistered vehicle..nada?

The pedestrian would be covered for CTP under a default public liability arrangement which underwrites the award for damages and sues the liable person later. The de-facto CTP cover should flow on.
It’s ironic that the group most likely to be recipients of this scheme are cyclists and pedestrians who will not directly pay any premiums for the cover.
It’s past time that all bicycles in the ACT were registered and the owners forced to pay the levy for this scheme.

Oh come on, you must know that most adult people who are cycling or walking also would own a car, so they would have paid the levy. Besides, how much damage can a bike or a human body do to a car compared to what a car is capable of doing? It sounds like you want a person who walks or cycles to pay two levies, even though when they are walking or cycling they are less likely to cause the damage that would require a payout from this insurance.
But why not, let’s charge every baby in a stroller, ban every child from leaving their own yard and walking anywhere, every adult who doesn’t also own a car (most people who cycle or walk do, so it would mostly be the aged), unless they have paid for this insurance through car ownership. Thank you for pointing out this flaw.

“cyclists and pedestrians who will not directly pay any premiums for the cover”.

Read it again please because I deliberately said “not directly” to cover comments such as you have made.

Okay, so just the babies in a stroller, children and the adult without a car. In that case to be fair at all, the car registration should only cover one person. All others in the household, along with those who don’t own a car, should pay the insurance. Why should a family of five for instance (or even a couple), pay one fifth of the insurance (half in the couple’s case) that a single non car owner would have to pay?
This would get complicated very fast.

Maya123 said :

dungfungus said :

Postalgeek said :

“The scheme will cover pedestrians, cyclists, motor bikes and motor vehicles so long as at least one vehicle involved in the motor accident had CTP cover, regardless of where fault is attributable for the accident.”

So if a pedestrian is hit by an unregistered vehicle..nada?

The pedestrian would be covered for CTP under a default public liability arrangement which underwrites the award for damages and sues the liable person later. The de-facto CTP cover should flow on.
It’s ironic that the group most likely to be recipients of this scheme are cyclists and pedestrians who will not directly pay any premiums for the cover.
It’s past time that all bicycles in the ACT were registered and the owners forced to pay the levy for this scheme.

Oh come on, you must know that most adult people who are cycling or walking also would own a car, so they would have paid the levy. Besides, how much damage can a bike or a human body do to a car compared to what a car is capable of doing? It sounds like you want a person who walks or cycles to pay two levies, even though when they are walking or cycling they are less likely to cause the damage that would require a payout from this insurance.
But why not, let’s charge every baby in a stroller, ban every child from leaving their own yard and walking anywhere, every adult who doesn’t also own a car (most people who cycle or walk do, so it would mostly be the aged), unless they have paid for this insurance through car ownership. Thank you for pointing out this flaw.

“cyclists and pedestrians who will not directly pay any premiums for the cover”.

Read it again please because I deliberately said “not directly” to cover comments such as you have made.

magiccar9 said :

Why doesn’t the Government just call it what it is, another road user tax. We all know it, so why try and hide it under the guise of something ‘positive’.

You want truth from politicians?

When I dream, I dream of owning a Aston Martin