Page 3358 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have also had many emails complaining about the high price and questioning why we have to pay more for insurance than other jurisdictions. The reality is that this will never be an apples and apples comparison. Aside from the risk rating issue, the fact is that Canberrans have higher average incomes; that will always mean that we suffer a greater loss when we are injured and will therefore always pay those higher premiums. Added to this is the fact that we have more accidents and that, on average, they tend to be at higher speeds and therefore more serious; that also drives up those premiums.
I certainly understand the desire for premiums to be lower; rego is a significant cost to a household budget. But as I said, I am not convinced that those who are advocating for a lower premium would maintain their position if they were the ones in an accident who were then given the ability to go back in time and pay just that little bit more.
I also have to make the point that the potential gains for these changes are very speculative and depend upon another insurer entering the market and being able to offer a CTP product at a lower price. Given that there will be significantly fewer claims and less risk, I believe that at the very least the premium probably would not grow any faster, and it may well become slightly cheaper. What is certain, though, is what is being given up for that uncertain gain.
During the detail stage, we will be debating a range of ideas to make different changes to the scheme. One general point that I would like to make is that whatever we do to improve the scheme should not be adding to the cost of the scheme. I would also like to echo Mr Smyth’s point that it is not a monopoly market here: other insurance companies can come in and open up their doors; they are just choosing not to.
I have met with a range of stakeholders on a number of occasions. All those meetings have been very productive, and all sides have indicated that there are other ways forward and a range of things that can be done to improve the scheme. I would like to thank all of those who have had meetings with me and my office. Even though I cannot agree with all they have advocated, I would like to thank them for the information they provided. It was thoroughly considered and very helpful for us in formulating our position on this bill.
I would also like to thank the minister’s office and the Treasury Directorate for responding to our request for information and negotiating in good faith. Even though we have to agree to disagree, the negotiation to attempt to find common ground was always cordial.
Whatever the outcome of this debate and the extent of the amendments that are made to the bill, this is certainly not the end of the road on CTP reform. The Greens’ view is that there should be consistent incremental improvements to the scheme. There are all manner of ways we can change things—everything from imposing different caps for different parts of the scheme to moving to a completely no-fault compensation scheme or combinations such as providing no-fault medical care to all people injured in motor vehicle accidents so that at-fault drivers are also covered for their medical expenses. Something like that might be a reasonable compromise for the types of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video