ACTL3141 Assignment

Discuss from an ethical perspective whether Australian insurers should charge

different life insurance premiums to Indigenous Australians and Non-Indigenous
Australians.

The ethical dilemma of whether Australian insurers should charge different life insurance
premiums to Indigenous Australians and Non-Indigenous Australians is discussed in accordance
with quantitative analysis, ethical frameworks and legal frameworks. Quantitative analysis
devoid of emotional and moral rhetoric is first used to conclude that insurers should negatively
discriminate against Indigenous policyholders based solely upon their medical statistics and
other social indicators. Consequentialist ethical frameworks focusing on the consequences of
action produce thoughts that align closely with the result of quantitative analysis. The application
of legal frameworks entails the empathetic consideration of the intergenerational Indigenous
experience of suffering and loss. In summary, life insurers should charge higher premiums to
Indigenous Australians based on their higher mortality rates. Alternatively, the Australian
government must embody the multicultural vision and virtues it has so tirelessly promoted to
restore the lives of Indigenous Australians in alienated communities.

From a quantitative perspective, life insurers should charge different premiums to Indigenous
Australians and Non-Indigenous Australians. Based on all categories of available mortality
statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, 2015), Indigenous Australians mortality rates
were much higher than Non-Indigenous Australians mortality rates. Age-standardised death rates
for Indigenous Australians were 1.4 times that of Non-Indigenous Australians in NSW and 2.4
times in NT. The expectation of life for Indigenous Australians is 9.3 years less than NonIndigenous Australians in NSW and 14.4 years less in NT. The infant mortality ratio for
Indigenous males in NSW was 1.2 times higher than Non-Indigenous males and in NT it was 4.1
times higher. It is important to note that the diversity in Indigenous populations is as great as the
diversity in the broader Australian population. Nevertheless, Indigenous health statistics reveal

an experiential chasm between Indigenous Australians and Non-Indigenous Australians in terms

of life expectancy and basic quality of life (Gordon & Boyle, 2014).

The lack of empathetic understanding and contextual social and cultural consideration in the use
of statistical evidence implies the application of an ethical framework devoid of consideration for
others. Utilitarianism as a consequentialist framework seeks to maximise the utility generated by
an action, by which life insurers applying this framework would implement the results of
quantitative analysis in the determination of profit and value generation for the corporate balance
sheet, ensuring that diverse key stakeholders are satisfied with their investment returns. Under
utilitarianism, the consequences of charging lower premiums to Indigenous Australians provides
them an unfair but deserved, advantage against other policyholders. Yet pragmatic complexities
would entail involving their interest in life insurance products, their ability to afford such
products and their general participation in the Australian governmental and corporate systems
symbolising their trust in a society that has repressed their experiences for so long.

Using statistics and utilitarian frameworks implies ignorance of the past, the history of trauma
that many generations of Indigenous Australians endured. How does a multicultural Australian
society with modern values address the victimisation suffered by Indigenous Australians at a
time when no legal system was present to guard against the crimes committed by the first
European settlers? By applying legal frameworks, the inter-generational loss and inhumane
suffering of Indigenous Australians is considered, concluding that the current level of
compensation for surviving Indigenous Australians is far from adequate. Indigenous Australians
occupied their land for tens of thousands of years in relative peace and harmony with nature.

European convict colonisation introduced new threats by spreading viral diseases, the vices of
alcohol and extermination tactics that were cunningly heinous. Indeed, the first European convict
colonisers committed atrocious acts against humanity, they must be seen as criminals to this day.
The restructuring of Indigenous lives at the mercy of suffering and psychological trauma
demands the legal system of Australian to restore their right for egalitarian participation in a now
culturally rich society of equal opportunities. However, this requires the passing of momentous
legal precedents to punish the first crimes of genocide that were committed in past history. The
legal ramifications of doing so would rebound across the globe, whereby similarly repressed
cultural groups and races would similarly demand compensation for their suffering.

Indigenous Australians are clearly disadvantaged with the wider societal view prophesising an
alienated existence, demanding compensation on ethical grounds. Why must life insurance be the
compensatory vehicle for Indigenous Australians who were the victims of atrocious initially
propagated centuries ago? The society nourished by the Australian government and legal system
is renowned for its cultural diversity, equal business opportunities and transcendent quality of
life in comparison to many other societies around the globe. Transformative measures of
exceeding initiative must be taken to restore the psychological, physical and mental faculties of
Indigenous Australians in respect for the modern ethical values so tirelessly promoted and
vocalised. Thus ethical business decision making frameworks utilising quantitative, ethical and
legal perspectives determine that Australian insurers should charge higher life insurance
premiums to Indigenous Australians, while the legal and government bodies underpinning
Australian society must take firm and purposeful action in reinstating the quality of life to
Indigenous Australians to resound with Australias morally advanced milieu.

References
Bonde, S & Firenze, P, A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions, Brown University, accessed
21/4/2016 <https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/frameworkmaking-ethical-decisions>

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015, Deaths, Australia, 2014. Australian Bureau of Statistics
Canberra, accessed 21/4/2016
<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3302.0?OpenDocument>

Gordon, A & Boyle, N, ASIC Indigenous Law Bulletin Article on Superannuation, ILB Dec 2016

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, Life tables for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Australians, 2010-2012, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, accessed 21/4/2016
<http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-facts/overviews/mortality>

The Australian Government, Financial System Inquiry Final Report, 95, 7 December 2014,
accessed 21/4/2016 <http://fsi.gov.au/publications/final-report/>