Compulsory Third Party Insurance Naming Is Confusing

Frankensnore on 25/08/2025 - 22:35
Last edited 26/08/2025 - 15:28

I met someone who genuinely thought she had CTP Insurance and that is the same with third party insurance. As someone who like to make sure I am financially covered, this was shocking but understandable as I remembered I was confused about it when I first move to nsw.

I wonder how to propose a change to it? This can be very costly mistake otherwise.

Some other ideas:

  1. Includes information in every license renewal, the same way as banks are required to remind us to have Home insurance.
  2. Includes it in Learners test
  3. Remove or change the name of CTP, instead make an all in one package like Victoria.
  4. Make it mandatory to have.

Further thoughts:
Imagine if someone is on paycheque to paycheque and they accidentally bump your car. you demanded a repair, maybe through your insurance, maybe not. maybe you or the insurer will force a lawsuit order to seize their assets. what happen to this person? what would be going through their head? What if they live in your neighbourhood?

Automotive Compulsory Third Party Insurance Insurance

Comments

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 25/08/2025 - 22:39
    +2

    Maybe a mandatory disclaimer and explanation of the types of insurance that you must read and sign in front of a witness?

    • GordonD on 26/08/2025 - 18:56

      How does that prove you understand it? All the people who think they already understand it will sign without reading it, whether or not they really do.

  • tsunamisurfer on 25/08/2025 - 22:40
    +4

    Even in the 80's I understood it (the third party that came with the car rego) did not cover third party property.

    • Jimothy Wongingtons on 25/08/2025 - 22:40

      Times were easier back then to be fair

      • tsunamisurfer on 25/08/2025 - 22:42
        +1

        There was no internet, no social media, it had to be read from materials or told by someone senior.

        • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:12
          -5

          This isn’t a question of your intelligence, it is more on how much are you able to understand why people cant understand it.

          The way I see it, in the name itself is misleading. Unless someone walk them through the ABC, they wouldn’t know.

          When buying brand new car, or maybe old also (never bought used before), the ctp is organised by the dealer and we don’t fill anything. The second year yes we have to look and shop around, but maybe some people doesn’t, and just pay the bill without reading.

          If you were alive in the 80s, surely you have met many people that was shockingly like this?

          Thing is we are sharing the road with this people. Thankfully I have comprehensive insurance with rent cover, which i will use it to the max and ‘ltdy to ‘ignore’ whatever disaster may happen to them. But it still hurt my conscience.

          I think government need to do more on this.
          They should make the Property Third Party Mandatory also.

          • SlickMick on 26/08/2025 - 08:29
            +3

            @Frankensnore: I'm not sure what your problem is. Is CTP not part of the registration renewal in NSW?

            In QLD, it used to be part of rego, so couldn't possibly confuse it no matter how hard you tried. It's since been split into separate bills, but still due at same time, and part of same process.

            I bought a car in SA and wanted to register it in QLD. I had to buy CTP in SA and provide evidence to register in QLD. I can't imagine how CTP could be confused with insurance.

            I'd suggest don't think of CTP as insurance. It's just an additional fee part of rego.

            • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 08:39
              +7

              @SlickMick:

              can't imagine how CTP could be confused with insurance.

              Because it is called CTP insurance. It is provided by insurance companies.

              • SlickMick on 26/08/2025 - 08:58
                -2

                @Euphemistic: I know what it is, but I've only ever heard it referred to as CTP. Surely you'd say CTPI if anything??

                I can't imagine the trouble people must have in supermarkets with different by similarly named products from same manufacturers.

                • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 09:55

                  @SlickMick: In my experience its most often referred to as a green slip. But the correspondence and websites seem to refer to insurance in my experiencs.

                  In my head it is insuurance. Always has been.

                  Either way, it should just be part of the rego. Not separate.

                  • SlickMick on 26/08/2025 - 10:36
                    +5

                    @Euphemistic: Yeah. Somebody said it was separated to make cheaper through competition. What a joke. It was separated so you pay 2 smaller bills and looks like rego is cheaper.

                    They did the same separating water from rates.

            • kerfuffle on 26/08/2025 - 10:34
              +4

              @SlickMick:

              Is CTP not part of the registration renewal in NSW?

              It is, in that without CTP, you can't renew your car rego.

              • SlickMick on 26/08/2025 - 10:38
                -1

                @kerfuffle: Then I can't see how its confusing.

                • kerfuffle on 26/08/2025 - 12:06

                  @SlickMick: People think CTP is property insurance. Compulsory Third Party and Third Party Property …

                  • SlickMick on 26/08/2025 - 16:49
                    +3

                    @kerfuffle: why? I would either just consider it an additional charge with rego, or I would look into what it is.
                    It's hard enough getting insurance policies to pay claims on what you did actual insure. Who would make an assumption "oh I guess that should cover my property" without looking at the policy at all.

                    • kerfuffle on 26/08/2025 - 19:13
                      +1

                      @SlickMick:

                      Who would make an assumption "oh I guess that should cover my property" without looking at the policy at all.

                      A lot of people, hence all the 'I had an at-fault accident but I only have CTP' posts online …

                      • Chandler on 27/08/2025 - 15:27
                        +1

                        @kerfuffle: So lets add more cotton wool to account for people who aren't doing their due diligence and understanding what they are paying for…

                        CTP insurance ≠ TPP insurance ≠ TPFT insurance.

                        Seriously - you've bought a car, paid your rego + CTP bill/s and think you're insured for any damage you do in your car? Do these people also believe that their CTP will pay for repairs to their own car, because it is "insurance"?

                  • derrida derider on 27/08/2025 - 23:18

                    @kerfuffle: This is right. Plenty of past posts on this very site where someone is shocked to discover that the CTP insurance they paid for to get their car registered is only insurance against third party's INJURY and they are fully liable for the damage to that Bentley they just ran up the back of. For which they needed TPP.

                    I don't know why anyone downvoted it.

            • lint on 28/08/2025 - 09:38

              @SlickMick: It's a separate invoice issued by your choice of CTP insurer, but like with vehicle inspections (where required), you can't complete the rego renewal until the CTP has been paid.

          • GordonD on 26/08/2025 - 18:59
            -1

            @Frankensnore:

            This isn’t a question of your intelligence

            That's exactly what someone who's stupid say. It not that I am stupid, its just that YOU didn't explain it properly to me.

    • Dr Phil on 26/08/2025 - 14:31

      Yes one just needs to read the description of the insurance to see what is covered and how much - as you do with any insurance.

      One is third party "property" which relates to damage of a thrid party's car or property and is optional.

      The other is "Compulsory" third party "injury" which is linked to your registration renewal and also commonly called "Green Slip".

      This has always been the case with car registration renewals.

      And yes OP if you bothered to read the information enclosed with your license renewal it does explain.

      • randomusername2017 on 26/08/2025 - 17:15

        What does TPFT cover?

        • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 18:13
          +1

          Totally perfect fantastic terrific insurance.

        • BartholemewH on 26/08/2025 - 20:34

          Third party property, fire and theft.

    • Brianqpr on 26/08/2025 - 15:46
      +1

      Third party property cover should be compulsory. It is in the UK and I couldn't believe it wasn't when I moved here. People can be financially ruined.

      • Carmen Sandiego on 27/08/2025 - 14:05

        I personally get horrified at North America where your insurance premium reduces if you lower your Liability/TPPD, to the minimum of $20k

      • derrida derider on 27/08/2025 - 23:22

        And it is not only the uninsured party. Usually there is little hope of extracting much money from the sort of people who drive around uninsured, so the not-at-fault party ends up wearing the cost of all that damage to their pride and joy.
        That is why TPP should be compulsory - to protect those who did the right thing.

  • randomusername2017 on 25/08/2025 - 22:41
    +12

    Should make it compulsory knowledge to pass the learners test.. might keep a few off the roads 🤔

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:18
      +1

      This is pretty good idea.
      Although not all people pass L test, some get it converted from overseas or interstate. But this is a good start and will make the knowledge more common

      • smartazz104 on 26/08/2025 - 14:42
        +3

        some get it converted from overseas or interstate

        Should stop that too…

        • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 15:16

          from overseas, the challenge here is more tourism/educational profit. i think can stop it.

          interstate i dont think it can be stopped. would you take another driving test if u move interstate?

          • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 18:14

            @Frankensnore: Couls stop the interstate issue by making it the same for the whole country.

            • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 18:16

              @Euphemistic: it’s not easy to change government, i asked chatgpt how to change ctp into another name, its soo complicated. i cant imagine what it is like to change car rego procedure for the entire country

    • pharkurnell on 26/08/2025 - 10:44

      Well there goes 1/2 of Sydney outta luck.

    • tsunamisurfer on 26/08/2025 - 16:07
      +1

      I like it.

      The Compulsory Third Party Insurance covers :

      a) Third Party Property damages.
      b) Third Party personal injuries.
      c) Third Party Property and Personal injuries.
      d) None of the above, it is just another tax.

  • mungas on 25/08/2025 - 22:43
    +1

    I feel like they need to call it 'mandatory' - more compelling and clear than 'compulsory third party'. The "C" frequently confused me with compulsory vs comprehensive.

    Maybe a traffic light system? CTP could be called "Red insurance", like ee oh ee oh jail time if you dont have it. And then different levels of insurance taper with less intrusive colours

    EDIT: Alternatively they could call it a 'green slip', you know, green means good

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:02
      +7

      I think they should call it Compulsory Injury Protection.

      • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 05:44

        Then peopke would think it covers the driver at fault.

        • Poor Ass on 26/08/2025 - 07:38

          Well it does in Qld with the rego renewal via NIISQ

          Maybe not in other states

      • drfuzzy on 26/08/2025 - 15:42

        It doesn't protect you from injuries.
        That would be very misleading.

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:21
      +3

      Compulsory and Comprehensive is again also similar and they are not easy word for under educated non English background

  • Jaduqimon on 25/08/2025 - 23:29
    +10

    They should just merge the two insurance together. 3rd party property damage should also be compulsory….

    • EFC94 on 26/08/2025 - 09:21

      I don't disagree with you, but then you have the issue of an 18 year old male is more likely to crash than a 50 year old male and hence higher premiums etc (but again, thats a whole new argument in itself).

      • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 12:03
        +1

        Do you know that if you have a mortgage your bank may ask you to show your building insurance certificate? Not for strata though.
        They also remind you constantly in their statements that you are responsible to insure your building.

        This removes the responsibility for the bank if you gone bankrupt due to major accident and uninsured. The bank will assume they have done what they can and force u to pay the mortgage.

        why cant they do the same in the license renewal?

      • happydude on 26/08/2025 - 12:20

        And older people suck much more out of Medicare than younger people.

        Swings and roundabouts.

      • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 15:23
        +1

        Have a research of the difference of group and retail insurance. Group insurance like Life insurance inside super is cheap and all the same price. Or CTP that you got from dealership is bought in bulk, same concept. Wholesale vs retail. So it is not impossible.

        And then they can make a mandatory TP insurance but with huge excess, like $10k or $20k. That would surely be a cheap premium for all. Why? The idea is to avoid driving people into mental illness or severe poverty. Essentially this would reduce the costs of normal insurance also because it is ‘capped’.

      • Brianqpr on 26/08/2025 - 15:49
        +1

        Its all based on stats. There are some very good 18 year old male drivers and some abysmal 50 year olds that drive stupidly/aggressively. Insurers though work on the balance of probabilities which is all they can really do.

    • mskeggs on 26/08/2025 - 10:19

      Incredible to me you don't want to pay taxes for hospitals but you would mandate a property insurance tax.

      I'm genuinely curious about your other priority rankings!

      • Jaduqimon on 26/08/2025 - 10:57

        the property insurance tax is not mandatory. you dont have to pay if you dont have a car.

        • mskeggs on 26/08/2025 - 11:46

          Sure, and you don't have to pay income tax if you earn under $18k, but compulsory 3rd party property would definitely be a tax.

          • Jaduqimon on 26/08/2025 - 12:24

            @mskeggs: no.. my position was that i am happy to pay a tax as long as it is tied to my consumption (if you recall from the GST thread…)
            owning and driving a car is a consumption and 3rd party property tax is tied to that so I am happy to pay.

            What I am not for is be forced to pay for stuff I am not using.

    • Carmen Sandiego on 27/08/2025 - 14:09

      Merging them together, on a pure claim standpoint, that would be a genuine nightmare.

      Property damage issues can be solved relatively easily. Personal injuries can, and will, go the entire lifetime of the person.

  • pegaxs on 25/08/2025 - 23:30
    +4

    It’s already in the name… “compulsory”, meaning, if you want your car registered, this insurance is “compulsory”.

    It’s also called “CTP”, or “green slip” here… so another delineation in the naming convention.

    The other type is called “third party property”.

    It's really not that hard to figure out, unless you’re a little bit dense. And seeing how most people are, especially with their driving skill not far off their mental capabilities, maybe do what they did in Vic and call one TAC so people know this is the one that covers your rego.

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:03
      -2

      a lot of people is dense. i reckon half of australia is dense

      • Brianqpr on 26/08/2025 - 15:51

        People still read the Daily Mail etc and watch Sky News, so I make you right.

      • Carmen Sandiego on 27/08/2025 - 14:11

        Considering I know someone who said, completely genuinely, "I don't need car insurance. If I get into a car accident, I'll just crash into a tree", I concur

        I dunno about you but, the likelihood of running into a tree is pretty low in the inner city and suburbs.

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:28
      +1

      in nsw the ctp is separate so that the insurer can compete for prices.

      but in my opinion given how rego is more expensive than in vic, this has done more harm than good

      • apsilon on 26/08/2025 - 07:23

        Way back it used to be all in one with rego. They separated it to increase competition but all that's increased is price, there's very little difference between insurers for CTP.

        Anyway, while I agree it could be clearer, anyone that takes a few minutes to read what they're paying should understand what it is.

        • mskeggs on 26/08/2025 - 10:26

          I agree privatisation didn't work, but I do see a variety in CTP quotes, so I guess some insurers are trying to be more competitive in some segments or avoid other segments.

          It seems like it would be sensible for the government to define the product, then have insurers compete to supply the lowest price to the state, with the state having the option to self-insure the populace if all the insurers price was too high.

          • mskeggs on 26/08/2025 - 10:28

            @mskeggs: I think it is quite reasonable to charge higher premiums for inexperienced or high risk drivers, and it would be reasonable to define the product across a number of tiers, e.g. low kms or inexperience.

            • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 10:47
              +2

              @mskeggs: Since everyone must have CTP they should just average it over everyone. Making new drivers pay extra just makes it more likely theyll run the risk of going without rego. I wouldnt be surprised if CTP is also more expensive in low socio-economic areas when it probably should be more for more expensive vehicles .

              • mskeggs on 26/08/2025 - 11:45
                +1

                @Euphemistic: That's probably fair. Oldies get the benefit of health insurance pooling so youngsters should get some for driving.

            • apsilon on 26/08/2025 - 14:00

              @mskeggs: The argument is this isn't insurance for the driver, it's on the vehicle, it even goes with the vehicle if you sell it so experience and location shouldn't matter but it does. Even if we ignore driver experience, why should my third party injury insurance change just because I move postcodes. Insurance for vehicle theft, damage etc sure but injury to another party? That's just taking the you know what.

              • mskeggs on 26/08/2025 - 14:06

                @apsilon: I guess if you are an inexperienced driver you are more likely to cause an injury, and if you have a bunch of traffic offences you are more likely, and if you drive 50000km a year your chance of causing an injury is higher. Maybe the vehicle you drive contributes (a big 4wd might injure more other parties than a fiat500).

                Of course insurance companies also use data to price things as high as they can within the envelope you will pay. So maybe they quote higher in ritzy suburbs.
                Having the government define the product would prevent that second phase of using data to squeeze extra profit.

  • try2bhelpful on 26/08/2025 - 00:33

    I suspect the document you fill in to pay your CTP would lay out what is included under this cover. Personally I think it should be extended to third party property but there would be a bunch of people who would fill in dodgy claims.

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 03:04
      -2

      when buying brand new car, this isn’t asked. no form.

      but looking at this one person, i don’t think she is the type that reads pdf or inclusions list or any lists more than 3 bullet points

      • try2bhelpful on 26/08/2025 - 07:49
        +1

        Then she will be in for a rude shock on a number of fronts. Rather than changing the name of the insurance we need to teach people to understand what they are doing. With a brand new car the paperwork is still required but the dealer can fill in the paperwork.

        As others have said maybe that needs to be part of the driving licence test.

        • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 08:36
          +1

          Whille it is important for a new car salesman to let an owner know about this stuff, could you imagine how frustrating it would be for someone who buys new cars regularly to sit through all that waffle? Frustrating. And even those who dont know are likely to say 'yes i know' just to get the keys quicker.

          It wpuld be like the pre flight emergency talk that noone listens to after the second time they fly.

          • try2bhelpful on 26/08/2025 - 08:52

            @Euphemistic: Got to admit I’m part of the group that ignores the pre flight emergency talk because I’ve flown a bit, but I do look for my nearest exit.

  • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 05:49

    It probably should just be part of the rego like it used to be. They decided to separate it to reduce the costs by opening it up to competition, but ill bet that theyd get a better price by putting it out to tender in bulk.

    What annoys me most is that you get the policy at rego time, then if the car is sold it is not adjusted for the new buyer. That does work both ways, young driver gets slugged more and sells to a pensioner who should get a rebate or 'safe' driver sells to p plater and the CTP isnt adjusted up.

    • Poor Ass on 26/08/2025 - 07:40

      QLD still part of the rego also covers at fault drivers

      • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 07:45

        Having different systems in different states only adds to the confusion

      • try2bhelpful on 26/08/2025 - 07:54

        Seems to still only cover injury not property.

        • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 08:37

          Not seems to. It ONLY covers injury.

        • Poor Ass on 26/08/2025 - 08:46

          Yes I wasn't talking about property

          Never did cover property that I know ..

          • try2bhelpful on 26/08/2025 - 08:48

            @Poor Ass: Just confirming coverage. Some people could see “at fault” drivers to mean third party property.

            • Poor Ass on 26/08/2025 - 08:50

              @try2bhelpful: Yeah I know I heard that a lot

              This can be educated at the learning stage or first time issuing the licence by transport department

      • Wasabi Ninja on 27/08/2025 - 15:01

        Same in WA.
        2 out of 6 states got it right.
        Didn’t forget the territories. Just they aren’t states

        • Poor Ass on 27/08/2025 - 15:16
          +1

          those daylight saving states have failed

  • ihbh on 26/08/2025 - 06:42

    Compulsory Third Party Insurance Naming Is Confusing

    The only addition to clarify it a bit more is:

    Compulsory Third Party Bodily Insurance

    (But some idiot might ask, does another car's body that I hit get covered?)

    • Shoocat on 26/08/2025 - 08:03
      +2

      Third party injury insurance?

  • kraigg on 26/08/2025 - 08:13
    +3

    I always remembered it like this:

    • Compulsory pink slip,
    • Compulsory green slip,
    • Compulsory rego,
    • Optional, but highly recommended, car insurance (basic or full)
    • ihbh on 26/08/2025 - 08:34
      +2

      Optional, but highly recommended, car insurance (basic or full)

      • If Optional, compulsory OZB Forum sob story post.
    • Euphemistic on 26/08/2025 - 08:38

      Even saying basic or full is naming it differently and adding confusion.

  • jason101 on 26/08/2025 - 08:29

    Agree, it’s confusing. Imagine you are new to Australia and don’t have the benefit of parents or locals helping you, it’s confusing.

  • tabitha731 on 26/08/2025 - 09:30
    +1

    re-registering your vehicle in NSW is already being spoon -fed with information about what you need to do in order to register your car, you registration will not go thru if you do not have the right insurance or pink slip for cars older than 5 years, for cars less ta 5 years old, you just follow wat the dealership set up for your car.. its not rocket-science.. we cannot design this world to cater for the slower & lazier ones.

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 14:21
      -1

      I disagree a bit. If there is an easy way to reduce the number of people going into severe poverty, it can help our community.

  • fantombloo on 26/08/2025 - 10:00
    +6

    I wasn't aware of the CTP vs 3rd party property damage diff when I got my first vehicle. I discovered it in my first accident - luckily I was on a motorbike and the other's car was cheap - was a few hundred $ out of pocket which was huge at the time for a uni student working part time, luckily not debilitating.

    I see people scoff and whatever about how others should know better - not necessarily all but lots of entitlement there. Many people are still very green at the time they start driving and would benefit from good direction.

    IMO yes, a general summary on how insurance works should be a part of driver training. 5 minutes of instruction would clear up a lot for a lot of people. So should some other things like the most basic safety checks and maintenance.

  • 82norm on 26/08/2025 - 13:57
    +3

    If anything 3rd party property should be made compulsory if you don’t take up comprehensive insurance.

  • ricadam on 26/08/2025 - 14:15

    Wasn't it in NSW:
    - Pink slip - Road worthy inspection
    - Blue slip - CTP insurance
    - Green slip - Rego

    You needed all three AND some for of car insurance (thirs part or comp)

    • randomusername2017 on 26/08/2025 - 17:30

      Blue slip comes before pink slip and is only relevant when re-registering.

      Pink- annual RWC for cars older than 5 years.

      Green - CTP insurance required before registration renewal can be processed.

      • ricadam on 27/08/2025 - 09:02

        Either way, the colours are easier to remember than names.

  • cashless on 26/08/2025 - 15:20

    I go for option 4

  • quick-dry on 26/08/2025 - 16:15

    so rename it to CTPI Insurance? Compulsory Third Party Injury Insurance

    I think adding "injury" should be sufficient to make it clear that it is for Injury to someone, and doesn't cover a fender bender with a third party. I can see people being reasonably confused with that if they just heard what the type of policy was.

    (Really we should have something like the New Zealand ACC, so if you're injured you don't have to deal with insurers, or being hurt by someone without valid insurance)

  • randomusername2017 on 26/08/2025 - 17:32
    +1

    Introduce CCP Compulsory Comprehensive Policy 🤔

  • brendanm on 26/08/2025 - 17:49
    +1

    I think that people should just use their brains and/or do some research into what they are paying for.

    • derrida derider on 27/08/2025 - 23:32

      Bu a lot of people NEVER use their brains. And the people who suffer from it are those they run into, because the very fact that they are someone who never uses their brain means they probably will never have money to pay for the damage. You can't get blood out of a stone.

      It's for the sake of those who have used their brain that TPP should be compulsory.

  • Daabido on 26/08/2025 - 21:18
    +1

    Further thoughts: You broke my brain.

    On topic, yes, I knew someone who thought the same. It took some time to convince him otherwise.

    • Frankensnore on 26/08/2025 - 21:42

      Thats the pain in the ass part, theat they don’t believe us in the first place.

      but it is called compulsory third party insurance. how come it is not for third party then?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join