The FSL debate: points of view
Insurance & Risk Professional, August 2008
Noel Pettersen, Chief Executive, NIBA
“We are starting to get greater traction on these issues. Politicians aren’t talking out against this, which means more constituents are raising the issue with them.”
John Lenders, Treasurer of Victoria:
“A (2003) report concluded that Victoria’s existing funding arrangements incorporating risk were superior to those based on property values, such as the systems found in Western Australia and Queensland. An insurance-based fire services funding model incorporates a risk factor in the sharing of the fire services costs, meaning high fire risk properties and assets contribute more to the funding of fire services than low fire risk properties and assets.”
Robert Samut, partner at Barry & Nilsson Lawyers:
“We have insured persons and businesses in Victoria, NSW and Tasmania paying the highest tax rates in the world for their insurance policies. To act in a way so as to discourage individuals from insuring their properties and businesses is bad policy. The issue ought to be run by opposition parties at the next state election.”
John Hanks, NIBA consultant:
“IPART’s proposal to cut the fire services levy and levels of insurance stamp duty is commendable and consistent with the view put forward by NIBA, although there is some concern that governments could simply shift the burden to other areas of insurance.”
Mark Brookes, partner at Carter Newell Lawyers:
“The FSL adds another layer on top of the cost of the average insurance policy. If you have a three-tier system of taxes, insurance becomes unaffordable, and when there are inadequate levels of insurance there is a knock-on effect for the economy.