The ACC Futures Coalition is calling for an immediate rethink of ACC’s newly approved motorcycle levy settings, arguing that the current approach is unfair, inconsistent, and represents a clear departure from the Woodhouse principles of Community Responsibility and Administrative Efficiency, which underpin New Zealand’s social insurance system.

ACC is drifting from social insurance toward private‑insurance behaviour

ACC’s levy‑setting increasingly resembles private insurance rather than the community‑focused social insurance model envisioned by Sir Owen Woodhouse.

Motorcyclists accept that riding carries risk — but they do not accept levy increases that feel punitive, unclear, and disconnected from ACC’s social purpose.

Flawed cost‑allocation inflates motorcycle injury costs

ACC has divided motorcyclists into levy classes based on engine size, but the way ACC allocates injury costs to the motorcycle class is fundamentally flawed. Injuries involving multiple parties, road design failures, or visibility issues are routinely charged entirely to the motorcycle account, even when the motorcyclist was not the primary cause.

This practice inflates motorcycle injury costs, entrenches unfair levy settings, and ignores the Woodhouse principle of Community Responsibility, which recognises that road trauma is a system failure, not an individual failure.

Explaining CC rating

ACC refers to its engine‑size‑based levy structure as “CC‑based levies.” Under this approach, motorcycles are grouped into levy classes based on cubic capacity (CC), with higher‑powered motorcycles charged higher levies. ACC does not claim CC rating is a safety intervention; it is used solely for cost‑recovery purposes.

Selective risk‑rating: Motorcyclists singled out

The Motor Vehicle (MV) Account covers all accidents involving motor vehicles on public roads. Costs are allocated to broad MV classes according to which vehicle’s occupant was injured, not who caused the crash. Vulnerability to injury is conflated with responsibility for generating injury costs.

Within the MV account:

• Drivers are not risk‑rated. Levies are based on motorcycle class ownership, not distance travelled or who is driving.
• Motorcyclists entitled to earning‑related compensation already pay Earners’ levies.
• Cyclists and e‑bike riders generate ACC costs but are not part of the MV account.
• Recreational risk‑takers pay the same Earners’ levy regardless of risk.

This selective approach contradicts Woodhouse’s principle of Community Responsibility.

CC‑based levies are arbitrary, ineffective, and ignore Woodhouse’s prevention principle

Engine size is a poor proxy for risk, and ACC has provided no evidence that CC‑based levies reduce injuries. ACC does not claim these levies are a safety intervention; they are justified solely on cost‑recovery grounds.

International evidence shows:

• no clear link between engine size and crash frequency
• no evidence that charging higher levies reduces injuries or changes rider behaviour
• no evidence that CC rating reliably predicts risk independent of rider capability

This reinforces the need for a system‑wide prevention strategy, not selective levy increases on a small group of road users.

Ride Forever: Useful, but not a prevention strategy

Ride Forever is a useful programme, but it is not a system‑wide prevention strategy. Participation is modest, investment has not kept pace with levy increases, and the programme does not address core causes of motorcycle injuries such as road design, visibility failures, enforcement, and technology.

Levy increases without a whole‑of‑system prevention plan are not defensible.

NZTA is the system owner for road‑harm prevention — so where is the joint strategy?

NZTA is the statutory system owner for road‑safety harm prevention, responsible for coordinating system‑wide action across infrastructure, regulation, enforcement, and capability development. This includes motorcyclists and other non‑MV registered transport such as e‑bikes.

Yet there is no joint ACC–NZTA motorcycle harm‑prevention strategy or work programme.

Instead of developing a coordinated plan that uses regulatory levers, enforcement, infrastructure, and capability‑based training to reduce motorcycle injuries, ACC has intensified selective risk‑rating through CC‑based levies. This is inconsistent with Woodhouse’s principles and with NZTA’s system‑owner responsibilities.

International practice shows a better way — and NZ could adapt it

Countries with strong social insurance traditions do not use CC‑based levies. Instead, they rely on capability‑based regulation, including:

• mandatory training before accessing higher‑powered motorcycles
• structured licensing pathways
• hazard‑perception testing
• periodic competency checks

New Zealand already has elements of this — such as the Learner Approved Motorcycle Scheme (LAMS), Graduated Driver Licensing, the Basic Handling Skills Test, and optional Competency‑Based Training and Assessment (CBTA) — but these settings are lighter than those used overseas.

Cross‑agency levy work did not progress — and must be completed

Recent public reporting shows that previously approved cross‑agency work on alternative levy pathways — including distance‑based ACC funding for all motor vehicles — did not progress. MBIE has confirmed that no motorcycle‑specific analysis was completed and that the anticipated Ministry of Transport–MBIE–ACC policy investigation never occurred.

It is difficult to justify progressing further CC‑based levy changes for motorcyclists when a system‑wide review of alternative levy pathways had already been approved but did not proceed.

Completing this work is essential to provide clarity on long‑term funding settings as New Zealand transitions to electric vehicles. This is the major levy reform New Zealand actually needs — not selective changes targeting a small group of road users.

Motorcyclists are a small group — levy changes deliver negligible revenue

New Zealand has only around 100,000 registered motorcycles — roughly 3–4% of the vehicle fleet. Levy increases on such a small group make minimal difference to ACC’s overall revenue yet impose disproportionate costs on motorcyclists.

It makes little sense to target a small group of road users when the real issue is the need for system‑wide levy reform that addresses declining fuel‑tax revenue and the shift to electric vehicles.

Call to action: An immediate rethink is needed

Motorcyclists are paying more but not receiving more. CC‑based levies are not evidence‑based. Selective risk‑rating is inconsistent and inequitable. An immediate rethink is needed to bring ACC back to Woodhouse’s principles and to adopt a prevention‑led strategy.

The ACC Futures Coalition stands ready to work constructively with all stakeholders to restore fairness, strengthen prevention, and ensure ACC remains a true social insurance scheme for the 21st century.

Evidence Index

Woodhouse Principles

• Royal Commission of Inquiry into Compensation for Personal Injury in New Zealand (1967)

ACC Levy Structure and Cost Allocation

• ACC Pricing Report 2026–2028: Motor Vehicles Account (20240630‑Pricing‑Report‑2026‑2028‑Motor‑Vehicles‑Account‑final.pdf)

International Evidence on Motorcycle Risk

• OECD / International Transport Forum (ITF) Road Safety Reports
• European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) Motorcycle Safety Review
• Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Motorcycle Crash Statistics
• UK Department for Transport Motorcycle Safety Evidence Base

Ride Forever Programme

• ACC Ride Forever Programme Evaluation Reports (2018–2024)

Cross‑Agency Levy Reform Work

• MBIE confirmation of non‑progression of distance‑based levy work (2025–2026)
• Public reporting on Minister‑approved levy pathway development: Scoop News – “ACC Levy Work Stalled Despite Ministerial Direction” (August 2026)

Motorcycle Fleet Statistics

• Waka Kotahi Motor Vehicle Register (2025–2026)