logo
Flood-hit NSW residents say insurance unaffordable as premiums skyrocket

Flood-hit NSW residents say insurance unaffordable as premiums skyrocket

Glen Schmidt and Cindy West did everything they could to prepare when they heard flooding was expected to hit their town on the NSW Mid North Coast.
But despite their efforts, floodwater surged through their Wingham home, rising to 1.6 metres.
"I [did] everything possible — made over 150 sandbags, put bilge pumps in, the water was just so high," Mr Schmidt said.
With the water now gone, the couple face the daunting task of cleaning up the damage without the support of insurance.
They bought the property two years ago, with flood insurance which they claimed at the time cost just over $2,000.
"But the insurance prices now just skyrocketed to $28,000, we just couldn't afford it for the following years," Mr Schmidt said.
Ms West said most homeowners in the region wanted insurance but few could afford it.
"How can you find $28,000 to insure your property," she said.
Craig and Debbie Emerton, who run a dairy farm in the small village of Croki, said last week's floods had left their property in "total devastation".
Mr Emerton said it was the worst flood they had experienced.
"I've been through the 1978 flood, which only had 100 millimetres of water in the house, then (in) the 2021 flood we had 200 millimetres in the house, and this was around 900 millimetres in the house," he said.
The couple have been struggling to regroup.
"(We) haven't been able to produce any quality milk for a week now, weren't able to milk the cows for four days," Mr Emerton said.
The couple lost about 50 cattle, predominantly calves, when the flood swept through the town last week.
Five cattle were found in neighbours' paddocks, but 27 were still unaccounted for.
"It breaks your heart, they are just not cattle to us — they are something closer to children," Mr Emerton said.
Mr Emerton, a fifth-generation farmer, has been working the land with his wife for 35 years.
But after the damage to their property and farm, they are considering moving to higher ground.
"We don't want to but it looks like we are going to probably be forced to," Mr Emerton said.
"We can't deal with this again."
Like many of their neighbours around the Manning River, the couple were not insured.
"As residents in a flood plain, the premiums are so high so the majority of people can't afford them," Mr Emerton said.
Insurance Council of Australia CEO Andrew Hall said the rise in premiums was due to a range of issues.
"We've had record events, record claim numbers and, on top of that, building inflation has been around 40 per cent in three years alone," he said.
He said about 6,000 insurance claims have already been lodged, and it was growing by a thousand each day.
"What we do need to do is have a conversation with the federal and state governments about a flood-defence fund," he said.
The Insurance Council of Australia put forward a proposal to the Albanese government before the last federal election for a $30 billion flood-defence fund over 10 years.
"There are around 220,000 homes in high-risk flood areas that need to be better protected," he said.
Mr Hall said the Insurance Council of Australia was calling on the government to "put the money on the table".
"Give these communities options that they can work through, whether it's a flood levee, house raising, waterproofing or, in worst case scenarios, buybacks," he said.
Mr Schmidt said a flood-defence fund would be greatly welcomed and "they would 100 per cent accept a buyback scheme".
However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese recently said buybacks were unavailable.
"He hasn't even been down our street — our street was one of the hardest hit streets here in Wingham," Mr Schmidt said.
The federal government announced a one-off, $1,000 payment for residents of nine areas who had significant property damage or had lost a loved one.
"A thousand dollars is better than nothing, but when you have nothing, it doesn't go very far," Ms West said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

At least 10 killed, a dozen injured in Indonesian limestone quarry collapse
At least 10 killed, a dozen injured in Indonesian limestone quarry collapse

ABC News

time3 hours ago

  • ABC News

At least 10 killed, a dozen injured in Indonesian limestone quarry collapse

At least 10 people have been killed and a dozen injured in a rockfall at a limestone quarry in Indonesia's West Java province, officials say. More than two dozen people were trapped in the rubble when the mine in Cirebon district collapsed on Friday morning, local time. Local police chief Sumarni, who like many Indonesians has one name, said rescuers pulled a dozen injured people from the debris during a gruelling search effort. Sumarni said police, emergency personnel, soldiers and volunteers were trying to locate any remaining workers. They were supported by five excavators, but were hampered by unstable soil that risked further slides. The head of the local disaster agency, Deni Nurcahya, suggested in an interview with the AFP new agency that the death toll could be higher. "Until now, 13 people have been found dead," he said. Rescuers decided to halt the evacuation and resume the operation on Saturday morning for fear of another rockfall, Mr Deni said. Friday's incident was the second time the quarry collapsed. Parts of the mine collapsed in February but there were no casualties reported. West Java Governor Dedi Mulyadi said in a video statement on Instagram that he had visited and identified the vulnerability of collapse at the mine before he was elected. "I saw that C-grade mining was very dangerous, it did not meet the safety standard elements for its workers," he said. He added that at the time, "I didn't have any capacity to stop it." On Friday, Mr Dedi said he had taken firm action to close the mine and four other similar mines in West Java considered to be endangering the environment and lives. "I decided to shut down the pit permanently, not just this pit but also other pits nearby," he told Metro TV. A video showed rescuers struggling to bring out a body bag from a devastated area. Mining accidents are common across the mineral-rich South-east Asian archipelago, especially in unlicensed sites where safety protocols are often ignored. In 2023, eight workers died after being trapped in an illegal gold mine in Central Java. In July last year at least 23 people died and 35 others were missing when a landslide hit a remote village near an illegal gold mine on the central island of Sulawesi. AP/AFP

Defence minister concedes Australia's military spending may need to rise after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth
Defence minister concedes Australia's military spending may need to rise after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth

ABC News

time3 hours ago

  • ABC News

Defence minister concedes Australia's military spending may need to rise after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has urged Australia to increase military spending, a day after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blasted a leading security think tank which warned this country was poorly prepared for the growing risk of regional conflict. Ahead of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Defence Minister Richard Marles has told his US counterpart that the Albanese government is willing to have a 'conversation' about lifting expenditure. Australia is on track to reach defence spending levels of 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033-34, up from its current level of 2.02 per cent, but for months the Trump Administration has pressured the government to get to at least three per cent of GDP. 'I wouldn't put a number on it, the need to increase defence spending is something that he definitely raised,' Mr Marles told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing program following his meeting with the Pentagon boss. 'You have seen the Americans in the way in which they have engaged with all of their friends and allies asking them to do more and we can completely understand why America would do that.' 'What I made clear is that this is a conversation that we are very willing to have, and it is one that we are having, having already made very significant steps in the past.' 'But we want to make sure that we are contributing to the strategic moment that we face, that we all face, and what Pete Hegseth said is entirely consistent with in the way that the Americans have been speaking to all their friends'. 'We understand it and we are very much up for that conversation. On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese lashed out after a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) warned Australia could be left with a "brittle and hollowed defence force" if military funding was not increased. "Well, that's what they do, isn't it, ASPI? I mean, seriously, they need to … have a look at themselves and the way they conduct themselves in debates," Mr Albanese told the ABC following the report's release. "We've had a defence strategic review. We've got considerable additional investment going into defence — $10 billion," the Prime Minister said while insisting his government was acting. Mr Marles is due to meet with counterparts from a range of other countries on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, which brings together leaders, army chiefs, defence ministers and analysts from across the globe. On Saturday the Defence Minister will use a speech at the event to warn 'we also have to counter the grim, potentially imminent, possibility of another wave of global nuclear proliferation as states seek security in a new age of imperial ambition.' China has been rapidly building up its own nuclear arsenal, while Russia has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons since its invasion of Ukraine. The Defence Minister is expected to call that behaviour a 'profound abrogation of (Russia's) responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,' warning that the behaviour of states like Russia, Iran and North Korea could drive nuclear proliferation around the world. 'Not only does this work against states disarming their own nuclear arsenals, as Ukraine responsibly did in 1994, the war is prompting some frontier states most exposed to Russian aggression to consider their options,' he will say. 'And this has dire consequences for our region too. Russia has agreed a strategic partnership with North Korea to access the munitions and troops Moscow needs to continue its war.' 'The probability that Russia is transferring nuclear weapons technology in payment for Pyongyang's support places intolerable pressure on South Korea.' The Defence Minister will also once again criticise China for undertaking the 'largest conventional military build-up since WWII', saying it's doing so 'without providing any strategic transparency or reassurance.' 'This remains a defining feature of the strategic complexity that the Indo-Pacific and the world faces today,' he's expected to say. Mr Marles's speech comes in the wake of a series of meetings this week between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and a host of Pacific counterparts in the southern city of Xiamen. Officials from Australia, the US, New Zealand and Japan have all monitored the gathering closely, while China has hailed it as a major milestone in its ties with the Pacific. Beijing didn't unveil any major initiatives at the meeting. And while Pacific nations backed Beijing's claim over Taiwan, they didn't issue a direct endorsement of China's commitment to 'reunify' the self-ruled island with the mainland. But one Pacific government source told the ABC that China's criticisms of the Trump Administration's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs, as well as its move to slash aid and dump the Paris Agreement on climate change, resonated with the Pacific countries at the meeting. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Matt told the Financial Times that 'the Trump administration's economic policies have created some uncertainty' in the Pacific. But Mr Marles declined to say if he raised Australia's concerns about US aid cuts with Pete Hegseth, simply saying the Trump Administration 'understood' the importance of the Pacific region.

Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist
Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist

ABC News

time4 hours ago

  • ABC News

Tariffs a sideshow to greater US problem: economist

Samantha Donovan: Well up until the last couple of weeks, the financial markets have swung wildly after Donald Trump's every utterance on tariffs. Recent reaction to the President's trade policy shifts has been more muted though. Australian Justin Wolfers is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He told our business correspondent David Taylor, tariffs are now a sideshow to a much greater concern for the international community. Justin Wolfers: The Constitution gives the power over tariffs to Congress, not the White House. Now over the years, Congress has given some of that power, handed it off to the White House, but only in a very limited and constrained way. So a simple reading of the rules would say the President can't do this. So in order to have across the board tariffs or what he calls reciprocal tariffs on every country in the world, he's had to call it a national emergency and invoke the Emergency Powers Act, which is interesting, first of all, because that act says nothing about tariffs. And secondly, there's no emergency. The so-called emergencies, the US has trade deficits with many countries. Bilateral trade deficits are not themselves a problem. So it's been in the works that this was going to get knocked down and it finally hit court last night. The court said this is quite clearly unconstitutional. It was a three judge panel, an Obama judge, a Reagan judge, and a Trump judge. So it seems like a pretty clear decision. So that all seemed pretty clear until the US federal government, the Trump administration, filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals unsurprisingly agreed to hear the case. And while it's waiting to get its work done, so while they're reading the documents and so on, it decided to stay, that is to say reinstate the Trump tariffs. All of this is going to be on a pretty expedited schedule. So within a couple of weeks, they're going to come back with their decision. If, as I expect, they find this to be unconstitutional, then the tariffs will be back off again. Then we'll be off to the Supreme Court. We'll see the same drama play out one more time. And then what happens after that is what's really interesting. Because this is saying you can't have across the board tariffs, but recall Congress delegates certain tariff powers to the White House. And it turns out there's a lot of other statutory authorities that they could use. They're a little narrower. And so for instance, that's why the tariffs on steel and aluminium and cars are going to persist because they did not come through this overreach. And it would be easy to get further tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals and so on. So my guess is the White House lawyers are just going to find other ways of creating international trade havoc. David Taylor: That kind of goes to my next question though, Justin Wolfers, based on your understanding of recent history and Donald Trump, what is, and I know this is a very complicated and difficult question to answer, but where is Donald, where would you think that Donald Trump's mind is at? What do you think his next move is likely to be? Justin Wolfers: His lawyers will be telling him as of this afternoon, Mr. President, the statutory authority we were using will come under question. But if you want to push ahead with tariffs, I've got lots of other ways that you can do it. My guess based on past history is he'll say that's terrific. Let's keep going. David Taylor: Given that, and given how much you know that financial markets can't stand uncertainty, the market reaction, the financial markets reaction over the past 24 hours, I would describe as being quite muted compared to... Justin Wolfers: I agree. David Taylor: Yeah, why? Why? Justin Wolfers: Yeah, I've given this a lot of thought. So the S&P 500 rose one and a half percent when this was announced. That's quite muted given that the day that Trump... So, and this announced all of these tariffs are illegal and they're off. Compare that to seven days after Liberation Day when Trump announced a 90-day pause on the tariffs that led US stocks to rise by about 9%, like six times more for a pause as opposed to it's unconstitutional and you can't do it. So a few thoughts here. One is perhaps this is markets betting that this is going to be overturned at a later point. Another possibility is markets, even if markets don't think it's going to be overturned, and I don't think it's going to be overturned, I think the use of the Emergency Powers Act will be ruled unconstitutional. But even so, Trump has other ways of imposing tariffs. So I suspect that this is markets understanding someone's getting in the way of Trump creating tariffs the way he wants to, but he's probably just going to come back and do it a different way. If you're really interested in this, I'm going to give you one more interpretation. So the markets were incredibly volatile in early April when he announced Liberation Day tariffs, they tanked. When he paused, they soared. They acted like this was a huge thing. Now there's two interpretations of that. One, markets believe that tariffs are so fundamentally important to the profitability of American businesses they have no choice but to rise and fall dramatically every time something happens. If that were true, then you would have thought that the Supreme Court making it unconstitutional should have caused markets to absolutely soar today, and they merely rose a little. So the other possibility is that the original policy announcement was so incoherent, so poorly thought through, so dramatic, so unconstitutional on its face, so absurd, so much overreach in both the economic, political, and legal domains that it signalled an administration that's out of control, and that could do a lot of damage. And so maybe that's what markets were learning in early April. They reacted a little bit to tariffs and a huge amount to learning that this is an economically unhelpful administration. And if that's the case, then all that we learned today, when the courts say Trump wasn't allowed to do tariffs in a particular way, you're only going to see a small reaction because it's still true that the White House is full of lunatics, and that still weighs on people's minds. Samantha Donovan: Professor Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan. He was speaking with our business correspondent, David Taylor.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store