I support the need for product diversification.

Another area not discussed in the article is the impact of the current risk pricing practices of the insurance industry. Premiums should reflect risk rather than just spread the exposure across all premium payers.

The first company to price in this way will attract those owners who plan to minimise the impact of events such as flood, fire and storm through location, maintenance and/or design. These people currently subsidise the premiums of more lifestyle oriented, or less thoughtful owners. For example, where is the premium incentive for people in fire prone areas to build and maintain property to be defendable against fire.

This reform may make insurance more affordable for the groups currently poorly covered. After all, it is not the poor who build expensive foreshore and river frontage structures more suceptable to damage.

Burra, NSW

I know that the people who have been or are the those members of the governing parties of Australia over mainly the last fourty years, have had no thoughts of the Australian government being even careful or economically considerate regarding holding any type of insurance to cover repair and other compensation for our natural disasters. We had a top tax of 66.6% on top incomes for twenty years from 1950, and those who were affected, had been taking too much anyway. A decent kitty could be built up if we had any government with intelligence and enough integrity not to swindle any for their own objective, personal greed or other. I have no confidence of any existing party, but hopefully, we will get a party who demands its members have integrity, and are also intelligent. Certainly we have seen some strong, almost insane objections to what might be be improvements to the economy.

There is no reason why the commonwealth does not re-impose that 1950's-'60's 66.6% top tax and build up a commonwealth insurance scheme for disasters, it would have been very valuable after every disaster we have had, floods, fires, cyclones and more. The only problem would be to have people who have proved they can be trusted to manage it, and that leaves out our politicial parties, they would sell it unless we have a referendum to ensure they can't, insurance companies and churches, there's not much more left, but we can hope, can't we, I know there are honest people, I know quite a lot.

People are perfectly capable of insuring themselves. The reason they don't, is because they don't want it. They would rather spend the money on something else. "Present mirth hath present laughter, what's to come is still unsure." There's no reason why one person's time preferences should be forcibly substituted for anyone else's. Insurance is a classic locus of contracts for the benefit of third parties, which are a classic locus of fraud. Setting up a compulsory insurance scheme is just asking for the population to be defrauded on a massive scale. Sh/t happens. Government does not have anything more to bring to the table than force, which is neither an ethical nor an economic advance on the original problem.