‘It's just maths': uninsurable, disaster-hit pockets of Australia pose existential questions requiring radical answers

On Tuesday 20 May, as rain pounded Taree and flood waters rose, eight people wheeled a grand piano on its castors across one of the town's main streets and into an office block.
The piano, worth $20,000, was saved and still sits, nearly two weeks later, in the office with employees working around it.
But much of the rest of the stock from Bass 'N' Blues Music Megastore – including 180 guitars, 80 amplifiers and $100,000 worth of sheet music – was destroyed.
'We went through the floods four years ago and we've been putting it back together ever since,' Tanya Brown says. 'But we did a shop change a few weeks ago and it's the best it's ever looked.
'We got new guitar lines in just days before the flood. A $6,000 amplifier I've been waiting on for nine months for a customer, that arrived a couple of days before – it's gone.'
Brown, 51, who has lived in Taree all her life, says the hardest moment was walking back into the store the first time after the flood waters that hit the mid-north coast of New South Wales had receded.
'There were tears for about 20 minutes and we thought, we'll let ourselves have that moment, then we put our boots on and got to work.'
Brown, her husband, Trevor, with whom she runs the store, friends and a crew of volunteers who were just waiting outside the shop ready to help clean it up have successfully got the place emptied and ready for reconstruction: gyprock walls need pulling out, carpets need replacing, the place needs to dry.
'Once we've done that we can get some stock back in and start getting it back together,' she says. Reopening is her primary focus, for her staff and for the town. 'Our community needs us, we're a driver of musical education and live music playing – we need to get back up and going.'
On the one hand, Brown is testament to the resilience of survivors of disasters that politicians rightly praise as they tour waterlogged or fire-ravaged towns.
But she has questions too, questions that move beyond immediate recovery for her store and Taree, and shift the focus from individual – or even community – responsibility for recovery. Questions about how we handle crises like these going forward, the perils of insurance in increasingly uninsurable communities, how governments support people in the wake of disasters, and whether bigger conversations around disaster adaptation and mitigation need to happen.
'We've really been dealing with these massive events these last few years,' Brown says. 'It seems to take governments a long time to be able to initiate those conversations and change.
'Whatever's changing our climate – they can argue about what it is until the cows come home – but the fact is it's changing and we're going to have to do things differently.'
The most immediate question for many people following the frantic drumbeat of disasters across Australia is what to do about insurance.
Floods in 2021 that hit the east coast of Australia, including the mid-coast and Hunter region that has been devastated by last week's flood event, rendered nearly 1,200 houses uninhabitable – including one in Taree that was found drifting in the Manning River – and led to more than 53,144 insurance claims totalling $629.6m.
In the wake of that disaster, many home and business owners found their properties suddenly uninsurable for flood damage. Others were faced with insurance premiums costing tens of thousands more each year.
Brown was one of the lucky ones – if anyone whose business has just been destroyed and community pulverised by a natural disaster can be described as lucky – in that she had flood insurance. But she does not anticipate that getting a payout will be straightforward.
Her insurance payout from 2021 – about $350,000 – only just came through four months ago. She describes getting it as 'the fight of our lives'.
This time around, three times the volume of water came into her store, the damage was far worse, and the claim could be as much as double last time. She anticipates another battle.
Rupesh Phirangi, owner of Manning Valley Dental, which sits right on the riverfront, with sweeping views from its veranda and bay windows of the beautiful Manning River, had flood insurance – though didn't need it – until the floods of 2021. After that flood event, he suddenly found no company would offer flood insurance to him.
'The problem is we have been given a red flag for flood insurance,' he says. 'The maximum we could take is storm damage.'
In Phirangi's 20 years in the area, the flood waters only ever filled his surgery's garage on the lower level, never getting beyond the doorstep of the clinic on the first floor.
But this time – his first flood uninsured – the flood waters breached the clinic, reaching waist-height.
He estimates 80% of his equipment – much of it electrical, expensive and specialised – has been destroyed, leaving him with a bill of $250,000-$300,000.
'It has done a massive devastation,' he says. 'Unimaginable.'
Without insurance, it isn't clear how Phirangi will be able to rebuild and get his business running again.
Various state and federal government grants exist to help people who are uninsured and the NSW premier, Chris Minns, said on a visit to the area on Thursday that he'd had 'extensive talks' with the prime minister about a package of support for businesses and primary producers.
As of Friday, the details of the package had not been announced, with Minns saying they would be made public 'imminently'.
'We want to make sure that the assistance … works, pulls those businesses back out of a very difficult situation and ensures that they continue to operate,' the premier said on Thursday.
Phirangi says: 'We have been told there will be some sort of funding available. But this is a big loss, I'm not sure to what extent they will help us.'
Ian Wright, associate professor in environmental science at Western Sydney University, specialising in water management and policy, says the situation facing so many communities in flood-prone or bushfire-prone areas, who now either could not get insurance or could not afford skyrocketing premiums, shows 'the insurance system has broken down'.
'I think there's a question about the social licence to operate of insurers at the moment. And I think that's really, really, really deep, and I think it's going to hit other disaster-hit communities as well: coastal flooding, bushfire, floods.'
Wright says a new model has to be considered to replace how insurance is currently working, suggesting that the Australian government could implement an underwriting agreement with insurers for flood disasters, in the same way it does for cyclone-hit communities.
'I don't know why we wouldn't adopt that. But it seems half-hearted, very petty, and we really haven't got our heads around collectively how we support these communities and step in to provide very significant help to those who are uninsured.'
Greg Mullins, the former NSW Fire and Rescue Commissioner, and founder of Emergency Leaders for Climate Action (Elca), says insurance companies pulling out of providing coverage for disaster-prone areas cop a lot of criticism but are often just following the business case.
'People don't realise, but insurers have to price to the risk, and … they're sometimes better at risk assessment than governments are.
'People like to blame them. But why would you give away money if you're in a business?
'I'm not an apologist for the insurance industry, but it's just maths.'
The problem is that there is just not enough money in the government coffers to make up the shortfall, he says.
'There's too many people needing that government help, now that there's so many uninsured. Everything we're talking about is billions and billions of dollars.'
Mullins' solution would be to institute a tax on super profits of fossil fuel companies. 'Let's tax them properly and set up a national climate adaptation and resilience fund.'
Can he imagine there ever being political will for such a policy?
'I hope so. I hope [Labor] have got the guts with this massive mandate for change, and the proof will be in the pudding when people can actually be moved – you know, have their homes moved out of harm's way, have a new home built, do it with dignity. They'll think, 'Wow, what a great idea.''
The question of moving is a fraught one and not one that Jenny Wilkinson, 77, had considered until last week's flood.
She lives with her partner George on a two-hectare property on the edge of Taree that her parents bought in 1978. It's a property she loves dearly, describing the huge fig trees that line the drive, that were planted by her father four decades ago, and likely protected the home from some damage when the flood waters rose, the giant branches catching wood and debris that could have smashed their house.
George, who is in his late 80s, has serious health problems that prevented the couple from leaving their property in a timely way and so they had to be rescued, clambering over an upstairs veranda and into a police boat and ferried to safety.
When she returned to the property, she found the body of one of her three pet horses, a Shetland pony, by the house. They lost all of their horses, most of their 20 cattle and all but one chicken.
Inside the house, the ground floor was filled with mud and furniture had been ruined, but the biggest blow was the photographs. 'Mum and dad's photos that were up on the walls, the real old ones with the curved glass, they're all gone. So the memories you've got in your head, but you can't look at them and say, 'Hi Mum, hi Dad'.'
Wilkinson doesn't have insurance for the property. After the 2021 floods, which saw about a metre of water enter her home and much of the contents be destroyed, only one company would offer her flood insurance, but the premium they were asking exceeded the amount she got for her pension each year and so she couldn't take it up.
She has had a lot of community and family help clearing the property, and is staying with her sister in town until the home is habitable again, but isn't sure whether this home – that has been in her family for nearly 50 years – is one she could stay in for the long term.
After the devastating northern rivers floods of 2022, the NSW government instituted a buyback scheme in which the government buy properties in areas at risk of flooding from property owners, with the option to move that home to a new location in some cases.
Wright says we may have reached a tipping point where we need to start having conversations about moving people – and even whole communities – off flood plains and out of the line of future disasters. These are big and challenging conversations, he acknowledges.
'We are so far from knowing how to respond in a collective sense. I think we're suffering policy failure in this area. And again, looking at somewhere like Lismore and … our inability handle that on what in Australia really should be a manageable scale, to help a vulnerable community like that. I don't think it bodes well for the recovery of the people of the Manning.'
Asked whether she would consider accepting a buyback if the government were to institute such a program in Taree, Wilkinson is initially emphatic.
'I'd never move. Even if they paid me to move, I wouldn't move.'
But then she stops for a moment. 'Maybe I might reconsider that, not moving. After all, it depends how much they offer, I guess, so you can set up somewhere else. Yeah, I guess I might reconsider it. I have to give that a bit of thought. I love it out here, but sometimes, as we're getting so old, maybe it's a good thing that we do move.
'You worry about the next one, don't you?'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

2 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

Cringeworthy moment Labor brags about building 17 new homes in seven months in a far cry from 1.2million goal

Labor has been slammed for bragging about building 17 new homes in Canberra in seven months - a far cry from its target of 1.2million homes in five years. 'We're here in Canberra visiting some brand spanking new homes, what do you reckon Chris?' Minister for Housing Clare O'Neil said in a TikTok on Friday. In an awkward game of catch, she tossed the phone to Chris Steel, ACT Minister for Planning and Sustainable Development, who then turned the camera on himself. 'Pretty good, 17 class C adaptable homes for new residents,' said a grinning Steel. He then threw the phone to Labor MP David Smith, who added: 'A great example of two Labor governments working together and taking pressure off housing right here in Bean'. 'And the good news is we're just getting started,' O'Neil said after Smith had tossed the phone back to her. 'This is 17 out of 55,000 social and affordable homes that our government is going to deliver to Australians over the coming few years.' The 55,000 social and affordable homes O'Neil mentioned fall under Labor's broader target of building 1.2million homes over five years from mid-2024. The policy known as the National Housing Accord includes $3.5billion in payments to state, territory and local governments to support the delivery of new homes towards the target, and a one-off $2billion payment to help states and territories to increase social housing stock. Aussies were quick to criticise the video, slamming the lacklustre seven-month timeframe for building just 17 houses. '17 homes in seven months... At that rate it will take you 1,886 years to complete the remaining 55,000 homes,' one said. 'You should reach your target by 2080 - what a joke,' said another. 'Do you realise another major building company has just declared bankruptcy?' a third asked. Critics have labelled Labor's housing target unrealistic, if not impossible, amid soaring construction costs and unfettered immigration. Australia had a record level of construction company insolvencies in 2025, a 24 per cent increase over last year's rate. Labor's policy requires 240,000 homes to be delivered every single year for five years - a significant improvement on Australia's record year of construction in 2017, when about 223,000 homes were built. Leith van Onselen, who formerly worked at the Australian Treasury and is the chief economist at MacroBusiness, said the construction sector was struggling. 'As a result, builders are caught between a rock and a hard place whereby they can't deliver stock at a profitable level, and that has created a major handbrake on housing construction,' Mr van Onselen said. 'We're still seeing lots of builders going under, and they're struggling to make a profit at the moment, which just means this housing construction target from the federal government is completely unrealistic. 'It's just too expensive to build housing in Australia at the moment, for a variety of reasons, and that just means that less housing is going to be built at the same time the government has the throttle on immigration.'

The Guardian

3 hours ago

• The Guardian

Australia urged to press US to ‘act responsibly' as threat of nuclear disaster rises amid Israel-Iran conflict

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) has described the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran as a 'terrifying reminder of how close the world remains to nuclear disaster', arguing Australia should condemn illegal military attacks and ratify the global treaty banning nuclear weapons. Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities violate international law, Ican has alleged, and could cause radioactive contamination with long-term consequences for human health and the environment. 'The prospect of radiation release, the erosion of non-proliferation norms, and the emboldening of nuclear-armed states to act without accountability – this is the deadly logic of nuclear deterrence playing out in real time,' said Gem Romuld, the Australian director of Ican, a Nobel prize-winning anti-nuclear group. 'We need urgent de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. Australia should press its allies, particularly the United States, to act responsibly and stop enabling this cycle of violence.' Israel, the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, is widely believed to be modernising its arsenal. It remains outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), but is estimated to have 90 nuclear warheads. Israel has never officially acknowledged that it possesses nuclear weapons. Israel has maintained its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities are lawful and necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The attacks were 'pre-emptive and precise strikes' against military targets, the Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Brig Effie Defrin said. Iran, which had previously proposed a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, is a state party to the NPT but has now threatened to withdraw. The Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, insisted Iran's nuclear programme was peaceful and that it sought an end to hostilities: 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again – once the aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed.' Globally, the nuclear threat is growing. The decades-long trend of the number of dismantled warheads outstripping the deployment of new warheads – resulting in an overall year-on-year decrease in the global inventory of nuclear weapons – appears set to end: the pace of dismantlement is slowing, while the deployment of new nuclear weapons is accelerating. Figures released this week by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) show that of the 12,241 nuclear warheads globally, 9,614 remain in military stockpiles, and 3,912 are deployed on missiles and aircraft, with 2,100 kept on high operational alert. 'The era of reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which had lasted since the end of the cold war, is coming to an end,' said Hans M Kristensen, an associate senior fellow with SIPRI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme. 'Instead, we see a clear trend of growing nuclear arsenals, sharpened nuclear rhetoric and the abandonment of arms control agreements.' Since before winning office in 2022, Labor has committed to ratifying the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in government, but it has not yet done so. The government has argued it is 'considering the TPNW systematically and methodically as part of our ambitious agenda to advance nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament'. Globally, 94 countries have signed the ban treaty, and 73 have ratified it. No nuclear weapons states are party to the treaty.

Daily Mail​

8 hours ago

• Daily Mail​

Why a single photo of a Magnum ice cream has Aussies up in arms

A disappointed Aussie has questioned if his favourite ice cream has shrunk in size after he bought a Magnum from his local petrol station. The man placed his hand beside the ice cream to give Aussies a size reference. 'Is this a special servo size or is this just how big a magnum ice cream is now?' he captioned a photo of the sweet treat on Reddit. 'Haven't had a Magnum ice cream in ages. I swear these were three times bigger when I was a kid. It's about as big as a couple fingers now.' Aussies were quick to weigh in to the Magnum size debate. 'What used to be the mini became the regular a long time ago,' one person claimed. 'Absolutely not worth the purchase given the quality also dropped massively from when they were first released.' 'Oh old school magnum ego were the go-to ice cream,' a second agreed. 'The chocolate is much thinner now. I bought two at the footy the other night for $7 each and they were very underwhelming,' a third said. 'Wait, seriously? I stopped getting them years ago after one of the price hikes, but now they only sell the minis and call them regular ones? What a rort,' a fourth added. 'Kept the same overpriced tags and shrank,' another commenter agreed. It came as another upset Aussie claimed they only received 317g of peas in a 500g bag of McCain frozen baby peas they purchased at Woolworths. 'I've heard of shrinkflation, but really?' they captioned a photo of the peas on a scale. 'Guess I'm keeping receipts for longer from now on.' Aussies were divided over whether Woolworths or McCains, the manufacturer of the frozen peas, were at fault over the weight discrepancy. 'Don't Woolworths buy these products to sell to us? Maybe they should do a better job ensuring the quality of what they offer including that consumers are getting what they are paying for,' one person wrote. 'Somebody procures these things. There should be quality control at both levels, I'd be complaining to both.' But another defended Woolworths, writing: 'What do you expect, someone to weigh every single item that is on the shelf?!' 'It's on Woolies to ensure it's delivered within temperature and not tampered with and it's on Woolies to report customer complaints to the supplier/relevant food authorities,' a third person argued.