Should Australia follow Europe's lead in banning Male/Female insurance rates in favour of 'unisex' rates?
- No (90%)
- Yes (8%)
- Not sure (2%)
The recent announcement that Europe and the UK must switch to unisex insurance rates for all consumers is the catalyst for our latest riskinfo poll, where we ask:
Should Australia follow Europe’s lead in banning Male/Female insurance rates in favour of ‘unisex’ rates?
The argument in favour of banning specific male and female life insurance rates is a philosophical argument tied to a move away from any social discrimination based on gender. Following the insurance judgement by the European Court of Justice on 1 March 2011, the European Commission responded in part:
“… it is now clear that an insurance company must not distinguish between women and men; all customers must be treated equally. This is a matter of respect for fundamental rights. It is now also becoming a matter of good business practice.”
The Association of British Insurers argued strongly over a long period against the move to unisex rates. Its arguments are summarised in our article: Male/Female Premium Rates to be Banned…, but essentially object to the removal of existing accuracy and value from the current male/female distinction, which is based purely on unemotional, factual actuarial data.
What is your position? As our social world continues to evolve, do you agree that any gender discrimination should be removed from insurance premiums? Or do you subscribe to the existing system and hold that any well-intended efforts at removing gender discrimination are outweighed by the potential downside to consumers that may be caused as a result of a move to unisex rates?
Tell us what you think should happen here…
Add your comment now
15 Comments
This could create a windfall for insurers as their attitude would be to take the female rate on IP as standard and the male rate on life and TPD.
My initial reaction to this is to say no, gender equality is OK and even important and fair in many areas of society but not for the risk rating of personal insurance. I can see where the European Court of Justice is coming from but I don’t think they understand the ramifications for personal insurance and haven’t thought it through sufficiently.
There will be winners and losers out of it, I would say that some consumers will lose out but I suspect most of the insurance companies will come out winners.
Not only are the regulators telling us how we can/cannot earn income, now they are telling the insurers how to make a profit!
Actuarial research show that males are at a higher risk of making a claim on their policy than a female. (we all know this because females live longer than males)Consequently, males pay a higher rate of premium. By disallowing male/female premiums, the regulators are making it more expensive to insure females (please don’t tell me that you think the insurers will bring their premiums down to female rates!)and increase the level of underinsurance
Don’t you just love the power of these unelected social engineers.In explaining the reason for different male/female insurance rates over a period of many years, I have not had one male complain or fail to see the commercial common sense behind the rationale.I expect the “court of justice” will next turn its attention to the age “discrimination” in car insurance rates.
Research shows that females live longer. The data is based over many years and as above the Insurance companies base their premiums around this. There is no need to change. I also read above that Insurance companies may use it to their advantage -is there any reason why this would not happe. Please do not change the existing arrangements.
Does a man’s haircut cost the same as a lady’s? No,and it’s not discrimination. Our system of rating males and females is not discrimination but rather based on the assessment of risk which in turn is a function of differing morbidity and mortality from information gathered over a very long period. We must not change what is right.
Who let these idiots into the room?
Next thing you know we won’t be able to ask a client their height and weight, whether they smoke, what occupation they do etc - where will it end? All these questions are discriminatory, and next thing you know claims will go through the roof, premiums will go through the roof and none of us will be able to have cover when all the insurance companies go broke!
of course, the natural progression here is that scaffolders will ay the same as accountants and be able to insure themselves for the same lemgth of employmeny, and that smokers pay the same rates as non-smokers, because, why should these groups be ‘discriminated’ against. This society is becoming laughable.
Now I know the world is crazy!
Where on earth did these PC zealots come from. What a joke.
What next …… Remove age discrimination and charge everybody a flat rate?
Why not make medical tests illegal as an invasion of privacy?
Or better still, let’s outlaw choice and have the Government decide how much insurance we should have.
Maybe the Government can provide free insurance for everybody.
What an extraordinary decision …. The lunatics are definitely running the asylum.
What a joke and it’s not even April Fools Day.
THIS IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF STUPIDITY. WHEN ARE THESE JUDGES AND DO-GOODERS GOING TO STOP THIS NON SENSE AND GET A BRAIN? EVERYONE KNOWS WOMEN GENERALLY LIVE LONGER, FACE DIFFERENT LIFE RISKS AND THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT TO MEN IN MANY ASPECTS.
When will it end? Soon they will be telling the insurers they can’t decline the terminally ill for life insurance as it is discrimination.
Here we go again… the zealots of purity and gender equality setting the game up for even more unintended consequences. In a perfect world we would all be uni-sex, molicoddled by the do gooders and living in cocoons of irellevance.. and subject to 100% control by the pink panther! Mark my words, there will be meetings now taking place in Public corridors formulating the next wave of F.S reforms based on this proposition. If there was anything to be gained in the commercial world for UNI-SEX rates, it would be now for all to see. It takes the best of hairbrained, under-occupied European “newspeak” to come up with something like this.
One could be forgiven for thinking that this is another Gillardism ( she’s alright, sic) Noted for ignorance of all things financial.
What a stupid agenda to even raise, the whole world is going crazy!
That’s it! The world is officially being ruled by Morons!
We should gather all the sane ones and find another planet to inhabit!