Third Party Insurance Revisited

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

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.

@Tom-tom

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: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/43532/20041016-0000/www.equalityparty.org/newsroom/2004.htm#150804

Johnboy used a similar term himself on this site in August 2005: http://the-riotact.com/?p=873

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: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/news-features/is-this-what-katy-does-next/794268.aspx

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.

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.

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

http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2008-1/default.asp

Yes? No? Bueller?

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.

JB,

Could you have a quiet word with this gentleman?

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?

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?

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

tom-tom said :

johnboy; just out of curiosity what sort of standards are you applying to ‘news’ posts like this?

i know you’re quiet keen on getting credit for any stories riotact breaks; and it has often being mentioned that this site is well read by local media. do you think that when riotact acts as a defacto news service like this that posts need to have a little more substance? 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)

It was borderline but it was an interesting opinion, ditto the EIS/HIS statement issue.

As usual I suggest you address me via email or in person on editorial policy if you want a detailed discussion.

The fact that a policy change mooted 14 months ago, with the objective of opening up the third party insurance market to competition, has not been implemented, raises questions about the seriousness of the intent.

The NRMA has a monopoly on ACT TPI. The ACT Gov has indicated a willingness to open up this monopoly to competition, but not carried through. The NRMA itself has expressed its desire to influence political action by indirect financial “donation”. This desire is to further their financial gain from the system.

My quick sums above show that any forestalling of competition has resulted in a considerable windfall to the NRMA.

The nominal defendant is a straw man. The NRMA have had to cope with that from the time they gained sole coverage of TPI, many, many years ago.

NSW have no dificulty in the combination of various TPI providers/ Gov registration.

I am convinced that competition from a number of TPI providers would save the ACT motorist a considerable amount. This is evidenced by a comparison of TPI quotes gained from providers using a local (cross border) postcode, and the ACT NRMA price – about $100.

I have no interest in ACT Gov advertising, but recognise the similar actions of a dying Fed Coalition Gov.

johnboy; just out of curiosity what sort of standards are you applying to ‘news’ posts like this?

i know you’re quiet keen on getting credit for any stories riotact breaks; and it has often being mentioned that this site is well read by local media. do you think that when riotact acts as a defacto news service like this that posts need to have a little more substance? 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)

Interesting debate guys, if you can stop impugning each others’ motives I won’t have to send anyone to the sin bin.

at no point have i in anyway advocated the nrma monopoly, all i’ve done is call you out for making offensive smears. the fact you are trying to attack me for this without addressing my call for evidence really says a lot about you.

your original post attempts to insinuate that there is some kind of corrupt deal between the nrma and the act govt. if you have evidence then post it, if you dont then shut up, doing anything else would be shameful and pathetic.

and imhotep; there’s no evidence thats my point. and theres smoke…. would that perhaps be because someones making smears on a local news and opinion website? hmmmm

oh and i’m not even going to waste my time on your last point; if you cant even stay on topic in your attempts to discredit me then i’m not going to bother responding

I’ve been lurking and looking. First, I think the question was whether the NRMA had sought to influence the ACT Government. Tom-Tom’s response makes some sense there – there is no evidence of it on the only place it would be required to be shown. If there ain’t no smoke, the odds are pretty good that there’s no fire. Anything will hve to be disclosed, and that’s a good thing.

Second, there may be policy arguments for a single third party insurer. I can think of one analogy – the public is not especially well served by health insurance, which is highly competitive, but rather more efficiently by Medicare, which is not at all competitive. There are costs as well as benefits in competition. If prices go down with competition, does that occur for all buyers, or is it because the market gets fragmented and becomes easier for some and harder for others? How would competition affect the nominal defendant scheme? Does this break the administratively helpful nexus between registering a vehicle and getting third party insurance? This is not to say that there may not be good arguments for an open field, but to say that there are some arguments against it.

Third, no idea what this thread had to do with ACT Government advertising. I object to it, for the same reasons that I objected to last year’s Federal ad blitz. It’s an abuse of taxpayer funds. It confuses the business of government with the interests of the governing party. There’s a difference between genuine information and feel good/political message stuff. I’m sure someone could set up a good thread on this (I’m not volunteering).

Imhotep,

Thank you. Head, brick wall, get my drift.

I think the whole point of the SMH article, and cranky’s comments, was that the NRMA has a policy of not ‘officially’ donating anything to a party, but to find other, more subtle ways, to express ‘support’. Thus, Tom, Tom, the whole point is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, only smoke…

BTW Tom, since you appear to be completely up to speed with all things Labor in the ACT, could you tell us who is funding the current advertising blitz by the ACT Government? (You know, the ones telling us how much they are about to improve health care etc.)
Can you give an assurance that taxpayers aren’t funding this blatantly political claptrap?

.

I have stated my case. That your motives result in the motorists of the ACT paying a huge, monopolist supplier, monetary benefit to the NRMA, requires an explanation.

I am puzzled that anyone can advocate a wholesale ripoff of the motoring public.

i’m not advocating it, i’m just saying that you have no evidence for the outrageous insinuations you make in your post.

you’ve suggested corruption without even a shred of evidence and you should be ashamed of yourself for that.

either post some evidence or shut up.

(btw, i like the attack on what my motives are; it really shows the strength of your position)

I’m puzzled that over 12 months after a policy was announced that would reduce the cost to ACT motorists, nothing has eventuated.

I believe the article from the SMH illustrates a policy by the NRMA to further the return to their shareholders.

Evans has not said that the NRMA has paid off the ACT Gov. I wouldn’t expect him to. $30 odd mill is a lot of hush money.

Your apparent advocacy of the single supplier model of TPI, with it’s demonstrated overcharging of all ACT motorists, has me wondering where you come from.

do you actually have any evidence that the nrma and the act govt engaged in a quid pro quo sort of arragement like the kind you are insinuating? didn’t think so. You should hang your head in shame.

cranky said :

“The ACT Gov should hang it’s head in shame.”

If we re-elect them, we should hang our heads in shame.

.

Tom Tom,

You do not appear to have read the article

“It is important to note that we do not ‘donate’ money to political parties. Instead, we purchase tables at political functions and events that are attended by members of parliament at both a state and federal level,” he told the meeting.

“Internally we have a set of rules that govern this process, namely that what we give to one side of politics we give to another in order to ensure fairness and that we only attend those events at which there are representatives from the areas of relevance to our members.

“Unfortunately, this is a reality of being involved in the political process today.”

Quote from Alan Evans, NRMA.

A few bucks into a “road safety campaign” in the ACT, has resulted in a massive payout.

The ACT Gov should hang it’s head in shame.

if you look on the act electoral commissions website you can see a list of who has donated to every party; the NRMA doesn’t figure. If you are going to hint at corruption that would have been a good place to check.

cranky do you have a source for these rumours? because without one it looks an awful lot like you are trying to smear people without any evidence.

A quick check on past posts show Sonic first announced that the scheme would be opened up in June, 2007.

Lets see. Say $100 saving per car, about 280,000 cars registered, a bit over a year – Wow, a cool $30 mill or so that the NRMA has pocketed with the lack of competition.

Nice work if you can get it.

Wasn’t there some ministerial announcement a few months ago, that the guvmint *was* going to open the CTPI market to other insurers?