Advocacy coalitions and flood insurance: Power and policies in the Australian Natural Disaster Insurance Review

Abstract

Insurance against flooding creates households and places that are protected against financial harm in the form of catastrophic losses. Contested here are questions surrounding the availability and affordability of private insurance cover, significantly affecting the lives of people in at-risk geographies by imposing costs either as insurance premiums or episodic flood damages. Policy choices and decisions (‘political/economic’) about such controversial place-based environmental/risk issues (‘spatial’) are often made “behind closed doors”. A public inquiry opens those doors, albeit briefly, so we can see “what goes on”. The Natural Disaster Insurance Review (NDIR), a public inquiry after the 2010/2011 Australian floods, was a major forum of debate about Australian flood insurance policy. We explore the intricate politics of the key advocacy coalitions involved, to understand the NDIR’s role and outcomes. Our case study methodology uses content analysis of c. 100 NDIR submissions and reports, media coverage, and insurance industry and government statements, supported by in-depth interviews with people directly involved. We show that a well-resourced and powerful coalition of insurers was the dominant advocacy coalition in the NDIR and that consumers and their at-risk communities were represented by a relatively under-resourced coalition. The primary role of the inquiry as a problem-solving process was ultimately overridden during the post-inquiry implementation phase, during which the insurance coalition was dominant. Major NDIR recommendations were not implemented, and hence key spatial/political issues that the inquiry was established to address for the benefit of those at risk remained unresolved.