Chapter 5Proposed solutions to the affordability crisis
5.1Throughout this inquiry, the committee has heard that increasingly severe and frequent natural disasters in Australia driven by climate change are contributing to insurance becoming unaffordable, and, some cases, unavailable, particularly in the areas that need it most. This issue is compounded by specific challenges present in the insurance sector, detailed in previous chapters of this report.
5.2This chapter will set out the solutions proposed by submitters, including insurance companies, businesses, advocates, community groups, researchers, experts and members of the community struggling with these issues.
5.3The proposed solutions are set out in three sections, with the first aimed at reducing the price of premiums. The second is aimed at protecting the most vulnerable cohorts and communities impacted by climate disasters. The third set of proposed solutions are targeted at addressing the underlying issue of climate risk to reduce the cost of insurance in the longer term.
5.4The committee acknowledges that a multifaceted approach is needed, with submitters agreeing that ‘action by all levels of Governments, industry and regulators’ is required to address the challenges of climate risks and insurance in this country.
Proposed solutions to reduce insurance premiums
5.5The following solutions proposed to the committee are aimed at directly reducing the price of insurance premiums. They include requiring greater transparency in relation to premium pricing, more investment in mitigation and resilience measures and tax reform to abolish taxes on insurance to directly lower the cost for policyholders.
Data sharing and transparency
5.6Chapter 4 of this report detailed challenges flowing from the lack of transparency in relation to premium pricing and the information used by insurers to assess climate risks, such as the National Flood Information Database (NFID). To address this problem, submitters have urged that greater transparency be required in relation to these two matters.
Transparency in premium prices
5.7To enable greater transparency in relation to premium prices, a number of submitters made suggestions about how this could be achieved. For example, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) proposed that, although a detailed breakdown of costs is not required, a meaningful explanation of why certain prices have changed would enable policyholders to understand price changes. This information would also inform policyholders who seek to challenge the basis of price increases where relevant.
5.8Legal Aid Queensland proposed that governments require insurers to provide an adequate breakdown of premium prices. Mr Paul Holmes, Director of the organisation’s Disaster Relief team, explained that this would allow people to make better decisions about whether a premium is right for them, and potentially indicate which resilience measures a policy holder could implement to lower costs.
5.9The point was made to the committee that there is no centralised, comprehensive government monitoring mechanism in relation to insurance premiums in Australia. Furthermore, there is no agency responsible to oversight insurance premium prices in Australia across the wider insurance market. It became apparent to the committee that an oversight mechanism, responsible to report publicly on a regular basis, would be a first and important step towards greater transparency in relation to the insurance industry in Australia.
Transparency in climate risk information
5.10In addition to transparency about premium prices, the committee heard that there also needs to be transparency in relation to climate risks.
5.11The Law Council of Australia expressed that more information about how climate risk is priced into insurance products is needed. They suggested that ‘confidence in the equitable setting of premiums would be improved with information transparency, education and oversight of new and emerging approaches to use of data and pricing,’ noting that this is consistent with international best practice in the management of climate-related financial risks by corporations.
5.12The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) also supported greater transparency in relation to both state and federal information about climate hazard data, including flood, bushfire, cyclone and coastal erosion risks. They explained that the availability of comprehensive data on these risks will establish a ‘national public baseline’ that can better inform land use planning, building codes and standards as well as risk assessments.
5.13While there is currently no centralised dataset with nationally consistent definitions and terminology, the committee heard that much of the relevant but disparate information is already being collected by various agencies and bodies, including:
the Australian Climate Service, a partnership of the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia, CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which is delivering the National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, to help to help communities and businesses better understand the impacts of climate change.
the CSIRO, which is developing methods for national bushfire hazard mapping as part of the National Bushfire Intelligence Capability.
the National Flood Information Database (NFID), which is a national database of known flood risks.
NEMA, which is developing a mitigation measures knowledge database to develop a comprehensive public collection of evidence-based risk mitigation activities for flood, cyclone and bushfires.
research and mapping maintained by the Climate Council.
extensive localised data collected by local governments around the country.
More investment in disaster mitigation and resilience efforts
5.14Most submitters, including those from all levels of government, insurance companies, professional bodies, advocacy organisations, research organisations and individuals living in disaster prone areas, emphasised the importance of mitigation and resilience measures to reduce the impact of future disasters, and in turn, reduce the cost of insurance premiums.
5.15The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water advised that ‘improving insurance affordability will ultimately be driven by reducing exposure to hazards or reducing the consequences of that exposure, through improved preparation and increased resilience’.
5.16The National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) provided examples of existing government initiatives that focus on mitigation measures and resilience building including:
Hazards Insurance Partnership (HIP) – established in October 2022 as a partnership between the insurance industry and Australian Government to ensure an agreed agenda on what collective action can be taken to address insurance affordability and availability.
Disaster Ready Fund (DRF) – the Australian Government committed $1billion to the DRF over five years ($200m per year), from 1 July 2023 to 30June 2028 to invest in disaster mitigation infrastructure and systemic disaster risk reduction projects to address any, or multiple, natural hazards including extreme weather events and geological hazards.
North Queensland Strata Title Resilience Pilot Program (Strata Program) - $40 million which will fund up to 50 per cent of disaster mitigation works, with the remaining funding coming from the Queensland Government (25 per cent) and Strata Title holders (25 per cent) to increase the resilience of strata properties such as roof upgrades and window protection.
5.17The Productivity Commission told the committee that governments should increase investment in natural disaster mitigation works to not only reduce the price of insurance but also because it is more cost effective than disaster recovery. In a review, it had found that government arrangements for natural disaster funding have a ‘systematic bias toward relief and recovery activities at the expense of mitigation’, which means that ‘government spends too little in disaster mitigation works and subsequently ends up spending more on relief and recovery’.
5.18The ICA also recommended that all levels of government should increase funding to strengthen the resilience of Australian homes and businesses. Specifically, they suggested that the Australian Government should extend its Disaster Ready Fund to be a permanent 10-year rolling program and index disaster mitigation funding from 2023–24, so that there is no reduction in real terms.
5.19Professor Roslyn Prinsley from the ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions advised that ‘the best way to reduce recovery costs and close the insurance gap is to find effective methods to minimise disaster impacts in the first place, leaving much less damage to pay for’. She further explained that:
disasters are caused by three things: the extent of the hazard itself, our exposure to the hazard and our vulnerability to that hazard. To reduce disaster impacts and consequent insurance liabilities, we need to address all three.
5.20Insurers including Allianz and Insurance Australia Group (IAG) expressed the view that government and community led mitigation and resilience measures, including planned relocations, are essential. Allianz noted in this regard:
… the insurance industry has long called for comprehensive measures to mitigate against the risk of extreme weather – for example mitigation at the community level can help to protect the property against damage in the first place (for example, a flood levy that prevents inundation of a property by flood waters) and, at the property level, make the property more resilient to damage.
5.21The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby made the point that insurance companies, who often call for government and community led mitigation and resilience measures to address the rising cost of insurance, could also take a more proactive approach to mitigation. It suggested that the ICA could require its members to contribute a percentage of profits to contribute to mitigation measures.
5.22Mitigation and resilience measures will vary depending on the region and can include a wide range of actions such as:
building flood levees,
raising homes,
building with fire resistant materials, and
relocation of properties.
5.23The committee heard that local community groups are working to come up with innovative and affordable mitigation and resilience options.
5.24For example, Ms Madeleine Serle, President of the Maribyrnong Community Recovery Association (MCRA), spoke of the MCRA’s ‘Build Resilient Project.’ The aim of this project is to design and build a ‘gold-standard resilient’ property from scratch in Maribyrnong township, that is safe, liveable, and sustainable.
5.25In relation to the cost of resilient building materials, Ms Serle acknowledged that ‘at the moment, to build in a resilient way does cost more, but that's a function of those products not being widely used … I challenge the idea that short-term cost is too high a barrier to long-term resilience’.
Requiring insurers to recognise mitigation and resilience measures in pricing
5.26As detailed above, mitigation and resilience measures are considered a significant part of the solution to combating the rising cost of insurance. However, the committee heard there is no requirement for insures to recognise such initiatives and provide discounts on insurance premiums accordingly.
5.27To combat this issue, some submitters suggested that insurers be compelled to take mitigation and resilience measures into account in pricing, and to be transparent about the steps they take to the consumer.
5.28The AFCA considers that risk mitigation initiatives need to be supported by ‘clear referrable standards to guide consumers about the types of measures other customers confronting similar risks have undertaken’ and ‘clear disclosure about any premium reductions that may follow’.
5.29The committee understands that some insurers have formalised programs for recognising certain mitigation and resilience efforts. For example, Suncorp and NRMA recently committed to provide discounts to households with a certified Bushfire Resilience Rating of 3 and above.
5.30While these initiatives are a positive step, they are limited and isolated. They fail to recognise the extensive work being done around the country to mitigate properties and critical infrastructure from natural disasters.
Tax reform
5.31Some submitters, including the major insurance companies, the Productivity Commission and the Actuaries Institute, told the committee that they have long advocated for reducing or removing taxes on general insurance, including stamp duty, GST and the emergency services levy in NSW.
5.32In its evidence to the committee, RACQ called on governments to ‘remove the double taxing on insurance where people are paying 10 per cent GST as well as approximately nine per cent stamp duty’. RACQ further stated that ‘for a $3,000 home and contents policy, which is common in many parts of Queensland, means approximately $500 of the premium is tax’.
5.33Similarly, QBE made the point that the industry has consistently advocated for the removal of taxes from insurance as an immediate step that would address insurance affordability. QBE also drew the committee’s attention to evidence from the ICA which indicated that after natural peril risk, the second biggest component of the cost of insurance premiums is taxation. As such, they argued that removing state insurance taxes would provide ‘swift relief to households and should be an immediate priority for government’.
5.34The Actuaries Institute also supported the replacement of taxes on general insurance with more efficient and equitable sources of taxation.
5.35This view was echoed by Mr Tyrone Shandiman, Chair of Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby, who told the committee that one of his organisation’s top priorities is the abolition of stamp duty on insurance, stating that is it an ‘unfair tax, because, particularly in states like Queensland, where someone is paying 10 times the cost for insurance, they pay 10 times the stamp duty’.
5.36Mr Shandiman advised that if stamp duty cannot be abolished, the revenue it raises should, at least, be used on mitigation and resilience measures to help reduce the cost of insurance for consumers across Australia.
Proposed solutions to support vulnerable cohorts
5.37The following solutions proposed to the committee are aimed at assisting the most vulnerable cohorts in the community, including those who live in high‑risk regions, those on lower incomes, and renters who are at greater risk of homelessness following disaster.
5.38These solutions include direct subsidies to low-income households struggling with the cost of insurance, reforming land use and planning laws to ensure that new developments are not being progressed in high-risk areas, alternative insurance options, and expanding the government backed reinsurance pool.
Subsidising insurance premiums
5.39The Financial Rights Legal Centre and National Legal Aid suggested that a short-term solution to the increasing costs of insurance premiums could include the provision of government subsidies to homeowners, particularly those that fall within a vulnerable cohort, such as retirees and displaced tenants.
5.40This option was put forward as a short-term measure, to ‘target affordability issues in certain areas’ to ensure that people on low incomes are not bearing the brunt of the loss when a disaster comes through, while transitioning to a lower risk environment. The Financial Rights Legal Centre explained that:
It's not intended to be something that lasts forever; it is while the government is investing in buybacks and mitigation and reducing risk, and better land use planning.
5.41On a broader level, the Actuaries Institute warned that any government intervention that encourages property development in high-risk areas must be avoided, drawing the committee’s attention to an example from the United States where flood insurance was provided to properties on certain beaches, which created more development in those areas, exacerbating the issue.
5.42However, given the severity of the current affordability crisis in many parts of Australia, some submitters considered this could provide immediate relief to the most vulnerable, while other longer-term measures to tackle rising costs and accessibility to safe housing are considered.
Parametric insurance
5.43The committee also received evidence of ways to reform the insurance sector. One such example is that of parametric insurance. Parametric insurance is an index-based solution, whereby a premium is paid in return for a specific payout if a pre-defined event occurs. This means that unlike traditional insurance, which pays out based on actual losses, parametric insurance provides payouts based on predefined triggers, such as the occurrence of a specific natural event (for example, a certain level of rainfall or a certain flood height).
5.44This alternative insurance model was raised with the committee by several submitters as an alternative approach to replace or compliment traditional indemnity insurance products.
5.45Good Shepherd, in partnership with the consultancy group Think Human, proposed such a model. It suggested an insurance pool of this nature, administered by government. Good Shepherd explained that risk pooling combines the risks of all policyholders into one pool, so that premiums of lower risk policyholders subsidise higher risk policyholders, keeping insurance universally affordable.
5.46Good Shepherd explained that this model would create a basic insurance pool for all homeowners, including strata owners and caravan park residents. All homeowners would be required to pay into the pool, including landlords. To ensure equity, premiums could potentially be based on the ratable value of properties. The pool would be complimented by disaster mitigation measures, to reduce pooled risk and premiums over time.
5.47The pool would insure the first $100,000 of risk against hazards such as floods, storms and fires, and provide an additional resilience payment of $20,000 for building mitigation measures. Renters in affected properties would be provided with payments to help pay for temporary accommodation, a bond for a new rental home, and other re-establishment costs. However, beyond the $100,000 cap, private insurance coverage would be required. The new insurance pool would therefore provide a minimum levelof insurance coverage, including for those who cannot afford any level of coverage at present and into the future.
5.48Good Shepherd provided the committee with a feasibility study for this model and asked that the merits and feasibility of this type of scheme be considered to manage the growing household financial pressures arising from climate-driven disasters.
5.49Another submitter, CelsiusPro, advised that in Australia, they focus on agricultural parametric insurance, which covers catastrophic events such as cyclones, drought, floods, loss of yield caused by heat and cold, and quality caused by rain at harvests. They observed that the use of parametric insurance is a growing trend, globally and also within Australia, particularly where indemnity-style insurance is too expensive or does not exist.
5.50Submitters including the Financial Rights Legal Centre, agreed that parametric insurance could be a potential solution to complement indemnity insurance products. While it only protects against a singular risk, and requires the consumer to decide the trigger point, it would remove the current claims assessment process, meaning people will get paid out quickly.
5.51Mrs Julia Davis, Senior Policy and Communications Officer at the Financial Rights Legal Centre, gave an example of how parametric insurance could assist tenants. She advised that if a residence becomes unliveable, the tenant will immediately get a cash amount, to enable them to move or find other accommodation.
Reforming land use and planning laws
5.52Numerous submitters, including the ICA, the Actuaries Institute, Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, National Legal Aid, the South West Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils, the Climate Risk Group, and the major insurers highlighted the need to reform current land use and planning laws.
5.53Reforms that were suggested included banning new development on flood plains and other high-risk locations and the introduction of more robust building standards to ensure properties are more resilient to a range of natural disasters.
5.54The ICA advised that ‘the main factors driving up disaster losses are expanding development and urbanisation. The upward pressure on premiums from these factors, even before climate change impacts are fully felt, underscores the urgent need to reform land use planning, improve building standards, and implement programs such as property buybacks in vulnerable areas.’
5.55The Actuaries Institute emphasised the need to strengthen building codes and land use planning rules to consider the lifespan of building structures and uncertainty of climate change scenarios, while also increasing the supply of resilient and affordable homes. Further, ‘building codes should extend to re‑building, so that we are building back better’.
5.56Similarly, the Australian Small Business Ombudsman drew the committee’s attention to the Climate Council’s projection that approximately 520,940 properties will be categorised as high risk, and uninsurable by 2030, with 80 per cent of the high-risk properties being affected by riverine flooding. Considering these challenges, it recommended that the government take account for climate risks in land use planning.
5.57The Law Council of Australia recommended legislative changes to explicitly prohibit new development in high-risk areas such as floodplains and bushfire zones. Suncorp agreed with the suggestion that zoning authorities cease development in unsuitable locations and noted that building codes also require modifications and improvements to better reflect the impact of natural disasters.Suncorp also expressed the view that it is time for a ‘national conversation on relocation,’ as part of the consideration of other options.
Government backed reinsurance pools
5.58Many witnesses, from a cross-section of the community, recommended that the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool be expanded to address the insurance affordability crisis.
5.59The reinsurance pool commenced operating on 1 July 2022, under the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (a Commonwealth corporate entity and public financial corporation within the Treasury portfolio). The aim of the pool is to ultimately lower insurance premiums for homes and small businesses in northern Australia with a high risk of cyclone and cyclone-related flood damage by reducing the cost of reinsurance for insurers.
5.60The committee understands that participation in the pool is mandatory for general insurers with eligible policies, but all insurers can voluntarily join the pool. Fifteen insurance companies have joined the pool to date, including Allianz, Youii, RACQ, Sure Insurance, QBE Insurance and IAG Ltd.
5.61The pool is funded by insurers paying premiums each year, backed by an annually reinstated $10 billion government guarantee. Any shortfall in reserves will be paid for through the government guarantee. Additionally, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been tasked with monitoring insurance premiums that insurance companies charge consumers to ensure savings are passed through to policyholders.
5.62The committee heard that there is strong support for the expansion of the reinsurance pool to include other regions and types of disasters, including floods and fires. Submitters in other high-risk disaster effected regions, including the Northern Rivers, advised that they would like to see the reinsurance pool applying to flooding in their region.
5.63For example, Mrs Sharon Cadwallader, Mayor of Ballina Shire Council, advised that she has been advocating for a reinsurance pool for the Northern Rivers since the 2022 floods.
5.64The Law Council of Australia suggested that broadening the reinsurance pool to include additional cohorts and regions may assist in delivering insurance savings to policy holders.
5.65Allianz expressed support for the reinsurance pool, stating that in its experience, since entering the pool on 1 January 2023, the highest cyclone risk home building premiums were up to 70 per cent lower than before the pool was in place. Allianz further advised that the introduction of the pool has allowed it to expand into the northern Australia insurance market, noting that that is an areawhere they have historically had difficulty providing insurance.
5.66The Financial Rights Legal Centre also supported of the reinsurance pool, or even the creation of a separate pool for other disasters, including flooding.
5.67Others argued in favour of changes to the design of the pool before an expansion is implemented.For example, RACQ told the committee that it supports a ‘well‑designed cyclone reinsurance pool’, arguing that:
The policy parameter of budget neutrality that was imposed on the pool when it was designed should be challenged and opportunities for subsidisation of the pool should be explored. The pool should be expanded to at least provide cover for flood caused by cyclone and perhaps consider total flood cover. The existing 48-hour claims period should be replaced with seven days, by global reinsurance definitions. The pool should be expanded to cover motor insurance.
5.68Mr Tyrone Shandiman, Chair of the Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby indicated that while they believe a reinsurance pool is a good solution to leveling premiums, the current pool has been a source of frustration for the organisation. He explained:
… we feel it is not established properly or set up appropriately. We feel that there are problems with modelling and no integration of mitigation and resilience.
5.69To address these concerns, the Local Government Association of Queensland recommend that the government undertake a holistic evaluation and review of the reinsurance pool. Its Chief Executive Officer, Ms Alison Smith. explained:
… our members were delighted when the reinsurance pool was created because it was something that they had advocated strongly for. We think that it is very narrow in its criteria because ultimately it is set around cyclone-related flood in the first 48 hours once the cyclone is declared. In Queensland, it doesn't take long to have a look at what actually happens in a cyclone. We have regular events post-cyclones that can lead to flooding or further storm or rain depressions that lead to extensive flooding. We think all of those should be included within the remit of the reinsurance pool. We would also suggest that, for it to be truly effective, it needs to take into account other natural disasters such as tsunami and earthquake et cetera.
5.70In September 2024, the ACCC released its third insurance monitoring report about the efficacy of the reinsurance pool in lowering the price of premiums. In this report, the ACCC observed that the cyclone reinsurance pool is beginning to deliver premium relief for some consumers in some regions facing higher risk of cyclones.
5.71However, the ACCC also found that the cost savings generated by the pool have been offset, to varying extents, by other cost increases, and the availability of insurance does not appear to have markedly changed. The ACCC further noted that it may take several years before most consumers experience the reinsurance pool’s impact on their premiums.
5.72Speaking against the reinsurance pool, the Productivity Commission maintained its view that the pool should be phased out entirely, stating that it risks subsidising the ‘movement of individuals, households, and businesses into harm’s way’.
5.73Despite this, the committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders who support the expansion of an improved reinsurance pool to cover other regions and types of disasters, as another tool for tackling insurance affordability and availability in Australia.
Proposed solutions to address climate risk
5.74Many submitters to this inquiry recognised that ultimately, to address the issue of insurance affordability, the underlying climate risk must be reduced.
5.75The following solutions proposed to the committee are aimed at reducing the underlying issue of climate risk and a ‘polluter-pays’ model designed to invest in disaster mitigation efforts while ensuring that those responsible for polluting the environment pay for the damage caused.
Addressing climate change
5.76According to the ICA, the representative body for the general insurance sector of Australia, ‘targeting climate change is the single greatest solution to home insurance affordability for households most impacted by increasing natural peril risks.’
5.77The ICA further stated that the long-term solution to home insurance affordability is to ‘continue to tackle the underlying driver of worsening extreme weather, climate change, by maintaining a focus on achieving net zero emissions by 2050’.
5.78In support of this goal, the ICA informed the committee that the insurance industry is taking proactive steps. This includes the ICA’s launch of its Climate Change Roadmap in 2022 (later updated in 2023), which draws upon global and local best practices, and provides a framework for insurers to set net zero targets across their operations, investments, supply chains and underwriting, with a focus on substantially reducing emissions this decade.
5.79The ANU Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions (the Institute) emphasised that increased global temperatures are linked to increased frequency and severity of weather extremes. The Institute drew the committee’s attention to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) finding that human activities, primarily greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, have unequivocally caused global temperature increases, and stressed the importance of federal and state governments pursuing rapid and concerted efforts to reduce emissions in line with Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.
5.80Similarly, Bushfire Survivors for Climate Change argued that there is an urgent need to ‘speed up’ emissions reduction, including phasing out fossil fuels, as well as the clean energy transition, warning that the rising cost of home insurance is ‘merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the future costs of unnatural disasters caused by climate change’.
5.81The Actuaries Institute agreed, advising that ‘greenhouse gas emissions have an impact on climate change impacts, so it's important to try to keep those minimum temperature increases as globally agreed.'
5.82Australia is a signatory to the Paris Agreement and the government has committed to realising this commitment to keep global warming below 2degrees. Some submitters made clear that a more ambitious commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including speeding up the update of renewable energy, would be more advantageous.
Consideration of a ‘polluter pay’ model
5.83To subsidise and share the cost of rising insurance premiums, several submitters suggested that the government consider requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a levy or otherwise contribute to mitigation measures to compensate for the pollution caused by their industries.
5.84One example of this model is legislation passed in Vermont, United States earlier this year which aims to hold major fossil fuel companies in that state accountable by requiring them to pay the costs of damages associated with their emissions. The legislation was introduced partly in response to record flooding in Vermont in July 2023 and will allow Vermont to charge companies for their share of emissions over the past three decades, with the funds channelled into resilience and mitigation measures.
5.85350 Australia agreed that coal, oil and gas companies should pay for the cost of climate disasters through a levy on their production and import of fossil fuels. Its Chief Executive Officer, Ms Lucy Manne, explained:
Coal, oil and gas companies, we know, are responsible for more than 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In Australia they've been making record profits for the past few years, including more than $30 billion in 2022 alone.
5.86350 Australia indicated that the levy contributions could be used towards climate disaster recovery in Australia and for more adaptation measures, noting that this would take some of the burden off individuals and communities in the most high-risk areas of the country.
5.87The Australia Institute suggested a different model by way of a fossil fuel export levy. While also arguing in favour of ending fossil fuel subsidies and new fossil fuel projects, the Australia Institute proposed that a fossil fuel export levy of a dollar per tonne of embodied climate pollution be introduced. They explained that this would raise around $1.5 billion per year, with the funds used to address the insurance affordability crisis, while also reducing climate risk.
5.88The committee heard that some communities would be very supportive of measures to share to cost of climate risk with those contributing to it. For example, Chels Hood Withey, President of the Community Disaster Action Group in the Northern Rivers, recommended that:
Firstly, let's just tax them properly. They need to be taxed. They are paying no tax. It's quite embarrassing for our country that we've just sold off all of our stuff and are not reaping any of the benefits of the financial gain of our resources being stripped from the earth that are causing these disasters. Yes, absolutely they should pay. They should be paying for disasters.