Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) | Hansard source

I'll just make the point that, in terms of obtaining insurance, which is an important product in every community—and it is a product which is heavily regulated but which is a product provided by the market—we want to see all Australians being able to access it. When there is a regulatory failure or a market failure, there is a case for regulatory intervention. It has been asserted that this would lower the cost of insurance in this part of the world, and that is a laudable objective, but it is a significant intervention in the market, and we ought to be very careful in making interventions in the market. I would be concerned if the scope of the scheme were to be expanded in any way. The way that the legislation works is that, once the BOM declares that there's been a cyclone, the scheme can be triggered. Given the issue we're now facing with climate change, it is possible that, because of climate change, the scope could expand, and I think that gives us two implications to consider.

First, we should be working as hard as we can with other countries to reduce the impact of climate change throughout the world. Secondly, we need to get moving on the mitigation issues, such as the planning, the building codes and the council issues, because this should be a temporary solution. It should be a fix for a point in time when the mitigation approaches are not strong enough. We want to have resilient buildings. We want to have buildings that are insurable by the market. We don't want to have a government insurance company. This is an intervention that is required now, and I accept that. As I explained in my additional comments in the Senate report, I accept that it is a desirable measure to have right now, but we want to see it there whilst it's needed. So we need to get moving on mitigation, and we need to maintain our commitment to climate change. It is good that we are the country to sign up to net zero by 2050. There have been past governments that haven't agreed to all the international protocols, but this government has agreed at the Glasgow conference to commit Australia to net zero, which I think is an important economic measure.

Finally, it is an important precedent, and I don't want to see it expanded beyond its current bounds. I do think that the review that is to be conducted within 12 months and then every three years after gives us cause to ensure that this scheme is only there whilst it is needed. It is needed in the short term so that people in northern Australia can get access to insurance, and I accept that, but we don't want to set precedents where the government ends up running insurance companies or other things that the market should run. That is not saying that we should let the market rip. It is saying that there should be regulation where it's needed and where there is genuine market failure. So I look forward to us maintaining our commitment to climate change adaptation but also to adaptation on the ground, in terms of mitigation, against these sorts of floods.