Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 12 Feb 2013, 12:05 AM Agree 0
As the clean-up from recent natural disasters continues around the country there are calls from brokers for a frank discussion about disaster planning and disaster recovery funding.
  • The Southportian | 12 Feb 2013, 02:58 PM Agree 0

    And whilst at it include bushfire. Yes, there must be huge amounts of funds in the Terrorism which would provide a great starting point for such a fund. (Assuming the incumbent Government has stolen the money for other uses.
    BUT the fund must be administered independently. Appont a panel that determines when the Disaster card is played, dont allow a government of any persuasion to make that call.
  • Damian Scantlebury | 12 Feb 2013, 03:01 PM Agree 0
    Like to know what Bill Shorten actually means and is alluding to, regarding market distortions. Sounds like a side step to me. A National Disaster Fund would be more appropriate than the Terrorism Fund and get more use as is evident. Think how NZ would have coped without an Earthquake fund. Theirs was a brilliant idea for an age old problem with the Shakey Isles. I would highly support a National Disaster Fund with a cash input from the Terrorism Fund as it would be more appropriate. The National Disaster Fund should cover Terrorism as well. With disasters forthcoming such as floods, the money would be well spent on infrastructure such as levies and the like to assist in diverting future disasters, rather than on those people who either dont insure at all or take the punt on cheaper premium policies which have restricted covers. You need a strategy for the long term, rather than a short term expensive repetitive fix.
  • Robert Cooper | 12 Feb 2013, 06:02 PM Agree 0
    A great idea to change the Terrorism Levy fund into a National Disaster Fund. It should definitely be contributed to additionally though by Governments but I have a problem with levies on premiums. The trouble is levies that are too high put people off from buying insurance as it becomes more unaffordable, the very argument we have with FSL and stamp duties.
    There are many disasters that you would hope could be minimised or avoided by Government (local and state) regarding where they allow people to build, the size of drains,how often the are maintained (removing rubbish clogging them etc), building and properly maintaining dams to capture run off and failing to bring in flood mitigation such as levees.
    Then we have buildings up on hills that can slide down hills in heavy rain due to mudslides or landslides.
    We have the potential of Storm Surges affecting buildings on the coast.
    Then Governments can bring in much stronger building codes to help in coping with storms and hail. They can provide better resources to monitor the weather with better warning systems to prevent loss of life. All this can be done by Governments now but they choose to do it half-heartedly or not at all, all for the sake of achieving surpluses to help them win the next elections. It all falls on the insurance industry to pay for risks that technically are not as insurable as they could be due to the moral hazard influence. So Governments should be directing funding to managing and adapting to these risks rather than just simply compensating people out of levies imposed on people's premiums.
  • Scott Robertson | 13 Feb 2013, 02:33 PM Agree 0
    After the Brisbane flood of '74 the councils and governments went to great (and expensive) lengths to mitigate further natural disasters around Brisbane ... after the 2011 and 2013 floods none of the governments I've seen have done a thing about trying to prevent another disaster!

    Insurance means you don't have to spend money on infastructure, right?
  • David | 14 Feb 2013, 03:30 PM Agree 0
    would be interesting to know if there is any money in the Terrorism Fund?? You never hear it mentioned in any media forums or political discussions.
Post a reply