Builders say ERA missed point on insurance reform

The Master Builders Association says proposed changes to the state’s home warranty insurance scheme do not address the industry’s fundamental concerns and have the potential to lead to higher costs fo


(existing subscribers)

The password field is case sensitive.
Request new password


Level 3, 10 William St, Perth
Ive been workng in the insurance industry speacialising in Home Indemnity insurance for 19 years. I concur with the MBA that this is a lost opprtunity, however making it a voluntary scheme likeTasmania might be good thing for builders, but ultimately, consumers would be the ones who would be disadvantage. The legislation was first put in place to protect consumers against builders becoming insolvent, disappearing and/or dying. With claims at an all time high, why would we want to hand the power to the builders as to whether to take out voluntary cover. The more participants to the scheme the lower the costs, therefore I believe the MBA solution would only drive up costs as the would be fewer participates with higher claims and/or consumers uninured.Is this what we really want? There is a better solution, one that is fair (same rules to apply to all) and to build a fund that would support the industry for many years to come. All it would take is a investment from governments and potentially the larger volume builders in WA. We worry about assessing financials that are already some 12 months old. If a company is to goes into liquidation, it is based on what is happening today. This is what we need to focus on. Getting jobs completed within industry standard time. Those builders who can not, more than likely run into management / cost issues. Its a sad day for the residential building indusrty with the proposed indusrty reforms.

Add your comment