Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

That may be the case, but, clearly, the death of an individual, regardless of what occupation—whether it is high risk or in the four-fifths of this cohort who won't have any cover under this amendment—and especially if they have dependants, is a tragedy.

The Productivity Commission figures were a long-term projection, looking at weighted data across 15 or 20 years of estimates. I know you understand why insurance is necessary, why a pooled-risk system is necessary and why insurance actually developed; it's for this very reason. But do you accept the reason we have a pooled-risk system and the reason your government set this up in the first place? I remind the chamber again that it was Mr Howard who felt it was necessary to have a safety net in place for the most vulnerable cohort. Do you accept that you are kind of turning your back on the entire premise of why we need a pooled-risk system in this country?