Seems a fair compromise

Will Harvie at The Press writes:

But the two groups are distinct and should be treated differently. First are the people with empty sections, who could not buy insurance in the marketplace and were expressly forbidden from buying insurance under the EQC Act.

The second group is people who chose not to insure their residences, or forgot or made some mistake that meant they were uninsured.

It’s unfair that bare-land owners were offered just 50 per cent. It should be 100 per cent. These people did nothing wrong, took all steps practicable and suffered as a result of a natural disaster.

Those who did not have insurance when it was available should be offered 50 per cent. They also did nothing wrong, but did not take all steps necessary to protect themselves and their investments.

I accept the ”moral hazard” argument that compensating the uninsured at 100 per cent would encourage people to skip insurance in the hope that the Government would bail them out.

That sounds pretty fair to me.

Comments (34)

Login to comment or vote