It's a very emotive letter, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. For example, the letter says that
"Queensland motorists have the cheapest and fairest Compulsory Third Party insurance in Australia", but it does not mention that Queensland's CTP scheme is "fault-based" (i.e. you have to go to court to prove who is at fault before an injured person can access a cent of compensation), and benefits ultimately payable are a "settlement sum" (again often requiring court action to determine). Qld CTP may be cheaper than other states, but it is not obvious to me that it is necessarily better.
The letter writer is a member of the legal fraternity - some of whom could lose out badly if the QLD CTP scheme moved to a "no-fault defined-benefits" scheme, for example. (Note: I'm not necessarily arguing that this would be the best outcome.) Yes, they're entitled to their view (and to put their view in the RACQ magazine), but they could be just as "conflicted" as they claim the RACQ to be.
I suggest people should check out the RACQ's "Rethink CTP" website to see what is actually being discussed:
https://rethinkctp.com.au/
https://rethinkctp.com.au/wp-content...Guide-View.pdf
Then take a look at the 10 recommendations of the "Citizen's Jury":
https://rethinkctp.com.au/rethink-ctp-findings/#jury
Recommendation (Jury Support levels - %)
Improve MAIC Transparency & Accountability (96%)
Remove Opportunities for profiteering from the scheme (96%)
CTP awareness and Navigation of the scheme should be improved (93%)
Expand the types of vehicles registered & covered by the scheme (90%)
More money available for claimants to access (90%)
Scheme design options (88%)
Retain Governments’ role in the scheme (88%)
Improve the scheme by introducing a minimum level of cover (88%)
The scheme should remain compulsory (86%)
Independent Advocacy (85%)