logo
Chalmers accuses Coalition of ‘horrendous contradiction' as Taylor appears to backflip on insurance crackdown

Chalmers accuses Coalition of ‘horrendous contradiction' as Taylor appears to backflip on insurance crackdown

The Guardian05-03-2025

Angus Taylor has appeared to backflip on the Coalition's commitment to crack down on insurance companies if they do not bring down premiums.
In February, the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, told Sky News the Coalition was prepared to 'intervene' in the insurance market.
'As we've done with the supermarkets, where we have threatened divestment, if consumers are being ripped off, similarly in the insurance market, we will intervene,' Dutton said.
But on Wednesday, the shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor, told the Australian Financial Review Business Summit that would not be happening.
'If competition is being thwarted by the behaviour of some in the industry, then that's completely unacceptable,' he said
'We've said we'll keep it confined to supermarkets and hardware.'
When asked by host Phil Coorey if would apply to insurers, Taylor replied: 'No. We've been clear on that.'
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
Speaking on Sky later on Tuesday, the treasurer, Jim Chalmers was critical of what he called 'a horrendous contradiction'.
'This is real slapstick stuff, isn't it. They're making it up as they go along – one says one thing, another says something completely the opposite,' he said.
'You'd think after three years they could come up with something better than this.'
In the December quarter, insurance inflation grew at its weakest rate since 2022, at 1.1%, but according to the Australian bureau of statistics, it still grew 11% across the year.
In the year to the March 2024 quarter, insurance increases had peaked, with the ABS recording a rise of 16.4%.
In cyclone-prone parts of northern Australia, the government has tried to decrease premiums under the cyclone reinsurance pool, which allows insurance companies to transfer their risk for cyclone damage to the federal government.
But in 2023, the latest ACCC insurance monitoring report found insurance premiums had increased at their steepest rate in northern WA and the NT.
At the time of Dutton's announcement on Sky, his cabinet said it wasn't official policy, and hadn't been approved by the partyroom.
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, told RN Breakfast a day later: 'It would be unfair to say that was a policy announced by Peter Dutton.'
In an interview with 2CC, Littleproud's language was weaker than his leader's, saying the insurance companies were 'on notice'.
'Well we've proved before that if we believe that Australian consumers are being done over and that there is market forces that aren't pure, then we are prepared to step in, as we are with the supermarkets as we did with the energy sector,' he said.
'What Peter has said and what the Coalition is saying to the insurance companies, you're on notice, and we've got form of standing up to big corporates.'
The Coalition's divestiture policy for supermarkets was introduced in July, to address price-gouging, and would be used as 'a last resort'.
If enacted, the competition regulator could seek court orders that would compel Coles or Woolworths to sell parts of their business, if there was a significant breach of the law.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

French police watch as migrants board dinghies bound for the UK
French police watch as migrants board dinghies bound for the UK

Times

time2 hours ago

  • Times

French police watch as migrants board dinghies bound for the UK

French police shrugged and claimed that 'it's difficult' as they watched migrants boarding small boats to cross the Channel. In the early hours of Wednesday morning, reporters witnessed dozens of migrants, including children, wading out and boarding a dinghy already loaded with people after coming from an inland waterway. Also watching from the beach in Gravelines, near Calais, were ten French police wearing riot helmets and shields, who were filmed standing by and not intervening. When asked by Sky News why they did nothing, one officer said: 'It's for their safety. There are children there. We're not going to throw grenades at them. It's inhumane. But it's sad.' Another shrugged and told The Sun: 'It's difficult.' It is not the first time British media have captured French police standing by while small boats head for the UK, as the government continues to push for a change to French rules. Once a boat is afloat in the water, it is not within the powers of the gendarmerie to intercept it and bring it back to shore, even if it is safe to do so. In February Bruno Retailleau, the French interior minister, said that he wanted to give the gendarmerie new powers that would allow them to intercept boats within 300m of the coast. Retailleau also said that he hoped to restore the offence of an 'illegal stay' in France, which would allow police to arrest migrants and smugglers before they attempt a crossing. At present, migrants are only considered to have committed an offence when they launch the boat. The Home Office said earlier this month that it was still 'urging the French to make the necessary changes to their operational policy so their maritime forces can intervene in shallow waters as soon as possible'. The French have instead begun a review into 'new operational tactics', although it is unclear what the outcome will be. French police policy is only to intervene if there are enough officers present to safely control the situation.

Sky finally launches a new way to watch TV and the price will surprise you
Sky finally launches a new way to watch TV and the price will surprise you

Daily Mirror

time6 hours ago

  • Daily Mirror

Sky finally launches a new way to watch TV and the price will surprise you

Sky has finally launched its Glass Air TV, which is available now for a very affordable price. Sky still rules the roost when it comes to watching TV, but tuning into this premium service has never been cheap. Luckily, that's all changed this week with the firm finally releasing its all-new Glass Air telly. This internet-connected screen was first announced all the way back in February and now, after months of waiting, it's available to order via Sky's website. So, how much will Sky Glass Air cost, and what's included? It's been confirmed that this television starts from just £6 per month with a £20 upfront fee. For that price, you get a 4K display, Dolby Audio and full voice controls via the neat remote. SEE THE DEAL HERE You can also pick it up in three colours - including White and Green - plus there are bigger screen sizes (55 and 65-inch), although these do cost extra. One bonus of Sky Glass is that it doesn't need a dish to work with all content beamed to the screen via the web instead. Other extras found on Glass Air include personalised recommendations, full access to all the most popular streaming apps such as Netflix and a clever Playlists feature that stores things to watch at a later date. Of course, like all things in life, there is a catch. That £6 price is just for the TV. If you want to add things to watch, things start from an extra £15 per month. That means you'll pay around £21, but that does include over one hundred channels and Netflix. If you start adding more channels such as Sports and Cinema you'll pay more. A full content pack and the Air telly can cost over £50. Mirror Online has tested the more premium Gen 2 Glass TV which we like but are yet to fully try the Air. Hopefullt we'll have a full review soon.

Australia is no model for assisted dying
Australia is no model for assisted dying

New Statesman​

time6 hours ago

  • New Statesman​

Australia is no model for assisted dying

Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store