CTP up $52

johnboy 16 July 2012 47

It turns out the ACT has a CTP regulator called Megan Smithies.

She has today announced that Compulsory Third Party Insurance from 1 September will be going up:

The ACT CTP regulator, Megan Smithies, tòday announced that compulsory third party (CTP) insurance premiums charged by NRi\/IA Insurance for most ACT motor vehicles will increase by 10 per cent with effect from 1 September 2012.

“The new premium for a family car will be $578.70, an increase of $52.10,” Ms Smithies said.

Approval of new premiums follows an extensive actuarial review process. Under the CTP legislation, licensed insurers are required to charge premiums that will fully fund their present and future liabilities under the legislation to people injured in road crashes but which are not excessive.

“Based on independent actuarial advice, i am satisfied that new premiums are soundly based and are not excessive,” Smithíes conciuded.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
47 Responses to CTP up $52
Filter
Order
davo101 davo101 9:17 am 19 Jul 12

Zeital said :

I was saying that I am sure my ‘comprehensive’ car insurance is covering everything the CTP meant to plus a bit more. I’m not raging i am making a point that as someone in there early 20’s who is trying to make a living of a traineeship wage it is hard for me to save that kind of money untill i get a perm job with good pay. i’m not expecting thing to stay the same price for the rest of my life I just don’t understand why i have to pay for something twice.

From the FAQ you couldn’t be bothered reading:

I have comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. Why do I need CTP insurance?

Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance only covers you for property damage. It does not cover you against personal injury caused to another person in a motor accident.

Zeital Zeital 8:54 am 19 Jul 12

NoImRight said :

Zeital said :

If it wasn’t hard enough to afford to pay for insurance that i get off another provider (which costs a shit ton because i am just under the 25yr slog) + the $830 rego i just payed for a year which by the sounds is now going to be aorund $880 ea yr?

I still don’t see why i have to pay CTP insurance when i can easily prove i am fully covered by someone else….. i understand for people who can be shitted to get insured but if i’m already paying for it why do i need to pay it again in my rego?

Maybe look at what each type of insurance actually covers first? Or just go straight to outrage that prices fro stuff we want isnt fixed for life. Your choice.

I was saying that I am sure my ‘comprehensive’ car insurance is covering everything the CTP meant to plus a bit more. I’m not raging i am making a point that as someone in there early 20’s who is trying to make a living of a traineeship wage it is hard for me to save that kind of money untill i get a perm job with good pay. i’m not expecting thing to stay the same price for the rest of my life I just don’t understand why i have to pay for something twice.

NoImRight NoImRight 1:04 pm 18 Jul 12

Zeital said :

If it wasn’t hard enough to afford to pay for insurance that i get off another provider (which costs a shit ton because i am just under the 25yr slog) + the $830 rego i just payed for a year which by the sounds is now going to be aorund $880 ea yr?

I still don’t see why i have to pay CTP insurance when i can easily prove i am fully covered by someone else….. i understand for people who can be shitted to get insured but if i’m already paying for it why do i need to pay it again in my rego?

Maybe look at what each type of insurance actually covers first? Or just go straight to outrage that prices fro stuff we want isnt fixed for life. Your choice.

FioBla FioBla 12:20 pm 18 Jul 12

Zeital said :

The FAQ may answer your question as it is meant to do.

Under

>I have comprehensive motor vehicle insurance. Why do I need CTP insurance?

http://www.treasury.act.gov.au/compulsorytpi/act_CTP_faqs.pdf

You can also LOL at the answer of:

>Is CTP insurance good value?

Zeital Zeital 12:14 pm 18 Jul 12

If it wasn’t hard enough to afford to pay for insurance that i get off another provider (which costs a shit ton because i am just under the 25yr slog) + the $830 rego i just payed for a year which by the sounds is now going to be aorund $880 ea yr?

I still don’t see why i have to pay CTP insurance when i can easily prove i am fully covered by someone else….. i understand for people who can be shitted to get insured but if i’m already paying for it why do i need to pay it again in my rego?

davo101 davo101 12:10 pm 17 Jul 12

HenryBG said :

Yes, because what we really need is *even more* scammers malingering from minor injuries than we already have.

Exactly, that’s why the ACT has the cheapest CTP in the country…….hang on.

newvista newvista 11:52 am 17 Jul 12

I drive a ute and the 3rd CTP cost over $700. I expect it will rise to $800. plus. I use it domestically only and drive about 3000 klms per year, mostly to Mugga Lane with green waste. I am an age pensioner and get free rego. and as I am over 75 so I get free transport on Action all of which I am extremely grateful. I am sure that if I could negotiate directly with NRMA I could get the premium down to that for a car. I was able to when I lived in NSW. I can not believe that it is legal for ACT government to not allow direct dealing with insurers. Consumer laws, section 92 of the constitution etc.

HenryBG HenryBG 11:18 am 17 Jul 12

davo101 said :

Sandman said :

Even if there’s no real “blame” that can be pinned, any passenger in a vehicle or anyone struck by a vehicle may claim for their injuries on that vehicles CTP. That’s what it’s for.

If I may quote from the FAQ:

Who pays if I’m injured and there is no ‘at-fault’ vehicle?

You will need to rely on sick leave, social security, Medicare and the public health system, unless you have other personal injury insurance and/or private health insurance.

Other jurisdictions have arrangements in their schemes for “blameless accidents”, in the ACT you’re on your own.

Yes, because what we really need is *even more* scammers malingering from minor injuries than we already have.

addicus addicus 10:50 am 17 Jul 12

””Approval of new premiums follows an extensive actuarial review process. Under the CTP legislation, licensed insurers are required to charge premiums that will fully fund their present and future liabilities under the legislation to people injured in road crashes but which are not excessive.””
– Wonder how they predict future Liabilities, and how they deem what is ‘not excessive’ I think an increase of 10 per cent is a bit excessive as a road user. I guess in this case they aren’t introducing and advertising something new that isn’t new, which supplements an income stream for something we are already paying for in another tax or charge. Just another created opportunity for more revenue justifying it with manipulated data. Tolls used to be to pay for new roads, now it’s actually just to have the privilege of using that road……..adding to what we already pay in registration. But the tolls are mostly privately managed, so they need a cut out of it too! Go privatisation!
Government – Is this in the best interest of the people or just for big corporations again? They would say being charged extra helps everyone, we have to trust that generic answer, but past instances show the Government will forget to mention it again and move on to something else, absorbing the income into something that will create more revenue. Adding more restrictions and penalties are easier and much cheaper to implement then creating positive solutions that benefit everyone as a society. Our Government hands over the operational keys to the corps to direct us where they like.

addicus addicus 9:32 am 17 Jul 12

The difference here is the Goverment is supposed to look after the people , not big corporations. Slowly the world is becoming completely privatised due to Governments controlled by corporations that have already bought or own entire industries or system backbones. Look at Telstra, now it was sold off, they tell us how it is. Insurance company in this instance, why is it only appealing to NRMA? What is the thing keeping others away…..why not look into that. The issue is companies are much more powerful in the financial market then entire countries and their Goverments. So the rules are in alot of cases predicted and minipulated by big corps, as they predict how the work gets done….not Governments. NRMA want more, so they will get it.

addicus addicus 9:20 am 17 Jul 12

I think it’s just another symptom of a bigger problem. The financial system is on a downward spiral due to public confidence, forums like this prove that. The value of money has over taken the value of life. It’s a total money grab from companies that can either get away with it or even not, the penalties are almost worth doing the crime. Having made this money from ripping people off, simply can get you out of a hole if your not in too deep. Being greedy isn’t a crime though, and there’s no penalty for that , and in some sad cases it creates admiration. So it’s our attitudes that is ripping us off, the system is just flawed, and only works well when people follow and beleive it’s just. Confidence in that is getting less each day as the people we used to admire get caught for reasons of greed.

davo101 davo101 9:19 am 17 Jul 12

Sandman said :

Even if there’s no real “blame” that can be pinned, any passenger in a vehicle or anyone struck by a vehicle may claim for their injuries on that vehicles CTP. That’s what it’s for.

If I may quote from the FAQ:

Who pays if I’m injured and there is no ‘at-fault’ vehicle?

You will need to rely on sick leave, social security, Medicare and the public health system, unless you have other personal injury insurance and/or private health insurance.

Other jurisdictions have arrangements in their schemes for “blameless accidents”, in the ACT you’re on your own.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back VYBerlinaV8_is_back 9:03 am 17 Jul 12

Innovation said :

Also CTP should be discounted for safer drivers or for low risk vehicles. For example, I don’t understand why CTP for underpowered motorcycles and cars are so high. Last time I looked I think Qld even had discounted CTP for motorbikes that couldn’t carry pillions.

I think this is the issue. The NRMA provides a single price for all Canberrans (driving standard private vehicles), whereas when I buy my insurance over in God’s Country (Queanbeyan), the insurer takes into account my age and driving history, as well as any other loyalty or multi-policy discounts, and prices accordingly.

There’s also the issue of large payouts in the ACT, which other states have managed somewhat.

Chop71 Chop71 8:53 am 17 Jul 12

johnboy said :

It’s not a mandated monopoly, there’s just no one else that wants to service this market.

correct

I called AAMI and they said they had not applied to service the Canberra market. I guess they just couldn’t be bothered.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 9:34 pm 16 Jul 12

Ridiculous nonsense promulgated by buffoons (thanks Megan) that results in pigs nuzzling their snouts deeper into the trough.

And for those who’ve commented on the increases in the cost of living versus the bogus official CPI data, what that all boils down to is that we’re getting poorer, year by year.

Innovation Innovation 9:25 pm 16 Jul 12

Is the high CTP cost in the ACT still because no other insurer wants to touch our uncapped payouts? If so….

m00nee said :

And NRMA will only charge me $411 ($383.96 if existing NRMA member) just for living on the other side of the border. Pity three of the other CTP providers are cheaper again. This years rego will cost me $206 less than ACT drivers will pay, which I find amazing since roughly 66% of the time I am driving in Canberra.

…. this is the bit that bugs me. I presume that interstate drivers still have uncapped CTP coverage when they drive in the ACT. So why are several insurers happy to cover our ACT neighbours even though their risk would be almost as high or even higher than some ACT drivers?

Also CTP should be discounted for safer drivers or for low risk vehicles. For example, I don’t understand why CTP for underpowered motorcycles and cars are so high. Last time I looked I think Qld even had discounted CTP for motorbikes that couldn’t carry pillions.

I don’t mind paying more to cover uncapped payouts (although I think lawyers’ fees could be reigned in) but I object to others who drive like idiots.

Sandman Sandman 7:37 pm 16 Jul 12

davo101 said :

The cute bit is that if no driver is at fault (ie: bird strikes windscreen, car careens out of control and cleans up another car) then CTP doesn’t cover anyone.

That statement is incredibly misleading. First of all, your example is completely wrong. You mention car careening out of control? That makes it the at fault vehicle. Even if there’s no real “blame” that can be pinned, any passenger in a vehicle or anyone struck by a vehicle may claim for their injuries on that vehicles CTP. That’s what it’s for.

As for cyclists claiming that they also own cars and pay CTP, well that does no good on the bike. CTP is not an insurance for the driver. It’s insurance for that particular vehicle. Sure, the number of serious third party injuries caused by a bicycle will be much lower, and as such so will the CTP premiums. No-Ones asking cyclists to pay the same as cars but there should be a nominal fee for those times when the cyclists actions cause an injury.

FioBla FioBla 6:46 pm 16 Jul 12

dungfungus said :

If a tandem bike was hit by a car while it was being ridden across a pedestrian crossing and the bike was the vehicle at fault then the “pillion” rider couldn’t sue the person steering the bike for negligence either because there is no CTP insurance.
Also, if a bike rider collides with another bike rider, the rider at fault cannot be sued under CTP insurance and if a pedestrian is run down by a bike rider the pedestrian has no CTP insurance cover against the rider at fault.
I thought it would make good sense for bike riders to have CTP insurance but while they have the attitude that it is never their fault I guess it will never happen.

Keep going, this is good stuff.

CTP rises: 2nd post *the bicyclez!!*. The bee in your bonnet is preventing logical thought.

dungfungus dungfungus 6:29 pm 16 Jul 12

helium said :

dungfungus said :

It is time to start spreading the cost by having all pushbikes registered and owners charged for CTP insurance as well.

Troll time already ?

Cyclists drive, and pay rego, and object to these rises by NRMA just as much as you.
At least 3,250 cyclist do have paid Third Party Insurance (as part of Pedal Power membership)

If ACT Gov can’t get competition then why not just self insure, pay the CTP to the ACT Gov and they can deal with the compensation payouts.
Also have CTP based on driving history, so like everything else a lower risk should = lower premium.

We are talking about “Compulsory” Third Party insurance that is for ALL road users.

davo101 davo101 6:25 pm 16 Jul 12

dungfungus said :

If a tandem bike was hit by a car while it was being ridden across a pedestrian crossing and the bike was the vehicle at fault then the “pillion” rider couldn’t sue the person steering the bike for negligence either because there is no CTP insurance.

Of course you can sue. The fact the rider has no insurance doesn’t mean you can’t sue.

dungfungus said :

Also, if a bike rider collides with another bike rider, the rider at fault cannot be sued under CTP insurance and if a pedestrian is run down by a bike rider the pedestrian has no CTP insurance cover against the rider at fault.

Sorry? You can still sue the cyclist. All it means is the cyclist is taking a large financial risk.

dungfungus said :

I thought it would make good sense for bike riders to have CTP insurance

It sure does which is why you should join Pedal Power so you’re covered by their insurance.

dungfungus said :

but while they have the attitude that it is never their fault I guess it will never happen.

It’s more likely never to happen because the two types of risk are many orders of magnitude different. You can obliterate a person’s life in a heartbeat with a car. On a pushbike the rider is going to be just as hurt or if not more so than anyone they hit (which does keep your mind on the task while riding).

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site