Mr BAYLEY – Unfortunately, I would like to stick TasInsure because it’s a really important issue, and we’ve noticed in the rhetoric to justify TasInsure you’ve pointed to natural disasters on the mainland and pose the question: why should Tasmanians pay insurance premiums that are effectively jacked up by the cost of insuring interstate and the natural disasters interstate?
The National Climate Risk Assessment has identified that Tasmania is not immune, in fact that we one of some of the highest risk to natural disasters, but thanks to climate change, bushfires and floods are an almost annual event. Why is it that you point at those natural disasters interstate and use them as an argument to justify TasInsure here, and theoretically cheaper premiums here, when we have the very same challenges and the very same risks ahead of us in a climate‑changing scenario?
Mr ABETZ – We have risks here in Tasmania. The view is that they are not of the same extent as on the mainland.
Mr BAYLEY – Whose view is that?
Mr ABETZ – As a small example, there’s a local rowing club that in its insurance policy has protection against the event of a tsunami, and it was pointed out, is that a realistic risk for them to insure against in Tasmania, especially when you’re a fair way up the estuary? That is the elements – these are the sort of things that are helpful to explore and consider and then determine whether it’s an appropriate risk to put onto the Tasmanian insurance policy.
Mr BAYLEY – It comes back to the modelling, and the advice issued that Mr Winter is asking. You say that the view is that the risks are not as great as the mainland; whose view is that? Who’s given you that advice that the risks are lower here in Tasmania and therefore we, if we establish a state‑owned insurance company, will be able to offer lower premiums because the risks are not as great as the mainland. That was your words. Who’s given you that view?
Mr ABETZ – That is, I suppose, my view from observations of that which has occurred on the mainland and the huge consequences of some of the natural disasters that have occurred.
Mr BAYLEY – We didn’t have them with the ’67 bushfires or the 2016 or 2019 floods or the other bushfire emergencies since?
Mr ABETZ – Look, the 1967 bush fire is an example, since then I would like to think –
Mr BAYLEY – The Dunalley bush fire for example.
Mr ABETZ – That’s a smaller‑scale example, but still nevertheless a good example. All that will be considered in a scoping study which will further advise the government.
Mr BAYLEY – Is it purely your view that the risk isn’t as great as the mainland, or do you have advice from someone that backs up the business case for TasInsure?
Mr ABETZ – The huge hike in insurance premiums in Tasmania don’t seem to bear relevance to the occurrence of events in Tasmania, and that is the thing that brought this opportunity to mind. A lot of businesses have mentioned that, and might I add, tourism businesses, et cetera. We see this potentially as a cost‑of‑living issue, but also as an economic enabler to provide the sort of insurance cover that will give comfort to enterprises. This is all, if I might say, highly speculative and we should wait for the scoping study.
Mr BAYLEY – Have you had conversations with those insurers who are charging those premiums to understand why that’s the case, ahead of developing this legislation, as Mr Winter says, in your name?
Mr ABETZ – I personally haven’t, but I have had numerous discussions with the RACT.
