Third Party Insurance Revisited

cranky 10 August 2008 37

The SMH is reporting that the NRMA has slipped $225,000 into NSW Labor coffers over the past year or so, unfortunately without notifying the relevant interested parties.

    “In 2006 Mr Evans told the annual general meeting that the group believed that “we have an obligation to be involved in the political process in order to advance the interests of our members”.”

Would similar occurences, of which I had heard a rumour, have occured locally? (The rumours related to funds put into local ‘road safety programs’ by the NRMA).

Would this be why there appears to be no progress on widening the TPI scheme to other insurers locally?

Motorists continue to be milked by this cosy arrangement. It’s time to open the system up.

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to Third Party Insurance Revisited
Jonathon Reynolds Jonathon Reynolds 12:51 pm 11 Aug 08

As JB has indicated I’m more than happy to take you on and debate the issues in the appropriate threads.

johnboy johnboy 11:41 am 11 Aug 08

Can we discuss JR’s opinions on JR’s thread?

It’s a pretty simple concept, one I’d hope your superior minds can grasp.

tom-tom tom-tom 11:26 am 11 Aug 08

sept I mean one report was superseeded by another so realeasing the first report before the second could lead to claims that the reports were not independent, ie the second report writers feel pressured to either agree with or substantially differ from the first report. My point really had little to do with that topic ( hence I made it here and not in that thread) but was instead meant to show that there are always different view points to an issue, but in the case of that thread the original post didn’t allow for a Reading of the facts which differed to jr’s opinion.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 11:09 am 11 Aug 08

johnboy said :

Wow, the arbiter of media credibility is here?
I feels so specials.

MediaWatch are far too busy for the likes of you, Jb…

sepi sepi 10:42 am 11 Aug 08

On Katy – how do you mean hold back one report so as not to affect the next report?
Why do the first report? I don’t really understand what you mean?

S4anta S4anta 10:39 am 11 Aug 08

speling! frick

S4anta S4anta 10:38 am 11 Aug 08

As for the NRMA’s input into road safety, they have been running a thing called Community Road Safety Grants Scheme for quite a few years thats where their funds originate for saftey announcements etc. Must be an NGO, not a govt. entity to apply however there are ways around this.

As for ads on telly etc, they are a massive company so if they feel the need to purchase space for ‘annoucments to benfits members’ thats their call.

johnboy johnboy 10:23 am 11 Aug 08

Wow, the arbiter of media credibility is here?

I feels so specials.

tom-tom tom-tom 10:00 am 11 Aug 08

JR; yes i am a strong labor supporter and i dont think that anyone who has read my posts for years would be at all suprised to hear that, it’s because of this i choose not to post stories as i think my personal biases would outweigh the benefits of any stories i do post. you clearly have a problem with act labor but dont feel your biases outweigh any value your posts have, i disagree but you’re entitled to your opinion.

my point to john boy was simple; if riotact wants to be recognised and credited as a news source than there needs to be a higher standard set for what constitutes a news article and the way in which that article is presented; take 2 recent posts from you for example;

the current katy gallagher post could be read entirely differently; ie katy holds back one report so as not to affect the integrity of another report; instead you have put your own spin on it, particularly in respect to your interpretation to katy’s actual own words in a way which has precluded any debate which doesn’t agree with your point of view.

or for instance take the community cabinet story you posted; act govt organises and extensively publishes a community meeting yet you choose to spin it as an example of a lack of consultation because you didn’t get a personal invitation.

this is my opinion, its not going to change and i’m going to continue to call smears when i see them. I have no interest in discussing this any further with you.

oh and cranky; read jimbocools post (28) and primals post (23) then, as always post some evidence of a corrupt agreement or shut up.

jimbocool jimbocool 9:22 am 11 Aug 08

OMG the comments on this thread are so hopelessly and completely wrong that it sets a new record for RiotAct stupidity.
1. NRMA Insurance and NRMA Motoring and Services are different companies that share a brand name. IAG is actually the company providing CTPI services in the ACT – Alan Evans and NRMA Motoring and Services have absolutely nothing, nil, nix, nada to do with it.
2. There is no goivernment barrier to another CTPI insurr entering the market – rather it is the fact that the market will not support two insurers. AAMI and QBE have both investgiated getting into ACT CTPI and not proceeded.

johnboy johnboy 8:49 am 11 Aug 08

I’d be surprised if something like this could be done in much less than two years unless it was extremely urgent.

cranky cranky 7:51 am 11 Aug 08

The question of whether the NRMA has contributed to ‘road safety programs’ (and that is the rumour I mentioned in my original post) is now receiving comments practically verging on hysteria.

Can a more PR savvy person establish if these donations have been made? I simply do not know where to look. I believe it is probable, and in keeping with NRMA’s stated method of involving itself in politics – ‘to advance the interests of our members’.

The fact remains that a 14 month delay (to date) has occured from announcement that has reaped the sole CPI provider a windfall.

Jonathon Reynolds Jonathon Reynolds 3:15 am 11 Aug 08


tom-tom said :

at the moment it just seems as if its far too easy to put a smear up without any backing (take this; or the headline in the katy gallagher post active atm for example)

What exactly is your problem? It would appear that you are Labor supporter and simply don’t like what is being currently said as it doesn’t show your favoured party (and its actions) in the best of light.

Actually, I’d really like to be able to claim credit for the original concept of this minister becoming tagged “the Minister never/not responsible” after my media release of August 2004:

Johnboy used a similar term himself on this site in August 2005:

And the term has been acknowledged as a “term of endearment” in mainstream media with this recent Canberra Times “puff piece” article by Megan Doherty:

And to ensure that this comment is kept completely on topic:

If any organisation wanted to do so, I can assure you that it is actually quite simple to legally “launder” donations so they don’t appear directly reported under the ACT Electoral Act’s Election Funding and Disclosure (FAD) scheme.

johnboy johnboy 11:29 pm 10 Aug 08

VicePope said :

If there is evidence of corruption, it should be reported to the police and/or the Auditor-General.

Because no royal commission was ever necessary…

Not saying it is here, just saying that independent inquiry often seems to turn up new things.

Primal Primal 11:27 pm 10 Aug 08

As I understand it, the legislation to deregulate CTP in the ACT comes into effect on 26 August 2008.

Yes? No? Bueller?

VicePope VicePope 10:54 pm 10 Aug 08

Cranky – not really my fight, but it looks like you’ve been called to put up or make your own arrangements. It’s all getting a bit away from where it started, which was (or seems to have been) an attempt to draw a parallel between something reported in the SMH about the NSW Government, and what looks increasingly like a non-existent similarity with the ACT. The analogy doesn’t hold up, at least on what’s been said about the ACT Electoral Office site.

If there is evidence of corruption, it should be reported to the police and/or the Auditor-General.

cranky cranky 10:21 pm 10 Aug 08


Could you have a quiet word with this gentleman?

tom-tom tom-tom 10:17 pm 10 Aug 08

so you have a few coincidental connections but no real evidence then? there might be smoke as imhotep puts it but i’d put the reason for that down to you leaping to conclusions with out all the facts rather then there being a fire.

out of curiosity what did hargreaves (is he the relevant minister?) office say when you rang to ask what the story was? you did of course do that before posting your smear right?

again; do you have any evidence of a corrupt agreement between the act govt and the nrma?

cranky cranky 10:05 pm 10 Aug 08

May I throw in my 2c worth?

This thread was started by an item in the SMH. I would consider that fairly mainstream ‘news’. The NRMA admitted to persuing their members interests by ‘contributing’ to Gov coffers, but not by direct donation.

I raised the probability that the ACT Gov was not actively changing the TPI system to include other players, to the (considerable) financial advantage of the NRMA. I raised the probability that a nexus existed, given the NRMA’s policies.

Why has’nt the TPI scheme been thrown open to other players, as promised last June?

tom-tom tom-tom 9:57 pm 10 Aug 08

and the evidence of a corrupt agreement between the act govt and nrma designed to rip off act drivers is?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site