Australians are divided over who should pay for the rising cost of insuring homes against climate‑related disasters, with new polling showing contrasting views on the roles of individuals, industry, and government.
A nationwide survey conducted for Charles Sturt University (CSU) found that around half of respondents support a levy on carbon‑intensive industries to help fund higher home insurance premiums in disaster‑prone regions. The survey reported higher support for such a levy among progressive voters, while other political groups were more mixed in their responses.
The research – developed and commissioned by Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics at CSU in Canberra, and carried out by Roy Morgan Research – examined how Australians think about climate change, insurance, and responsibility for disaster risk in the context of recent extreme weather events. Hamilton said the findings reflect concerns about how costs are being shared. “The results signal a deep‐seated distrust of a major financial institution. Home insurance has become framed in public conversation as a matter of fairness rather than actuarial calculation. The widespread sense of grievance may be fertile ground for political campaigning,” Hamilton said. For insurers, the level of support for a levy on high‑emitting industries points to community interest in risk‑sharing arrangements that extend beyond traditional premium funding.
The CSU survey reports widespread scepticism toward insurers’ pricing decisions. According to the results, three quarters of Australians believe insurance companies are “gouging their customers” and using extreme weather as a pretext for excessive premium increases. For insurance professionals, the findings suggest differences between how insurers price risk and how many policyholders perceive those changes. While insurers have been repricing portfolios to reflect hazard trends, reinsurance costs, and updated catastrophe models, the survey indicates that many policyholders view these changes through a fairness lens rather than a technical risk‑assessment lens. This disconnect is likely to feature in ongoing discussions about disclosure practices, regulatory oversight, and the design of shared‑risk arrangements, including possible levies, public reinsurance backstops, or targeted subsidies for high‑risk communities.
The CSU research also explored attitudes toward residents in high‑risk locations who struggle to obtain or afford standard home insurance. Survey respondents were divided on whether these households should relocate rather than rely on financial support. About 32% of respondents agreed that people in disaster‑prone areas who cannot secure home insurance should move instead of seeking subsidies from government or other policyholders. Roughly 39% disagreed and viewed subsidies as a reasonable response to climate‑related risk, with the remainder undecided.
The survey identified demographic and attitudinal differences. Women and respondents more concerned about climate change were more likely to support assistance for those unable to obtain cover. Greens voters were most likely to support financial assistance, while One Nation voters were more likely to favour individuals taking responsibility for their own risk. Those unconcerned about climate change, or who do not accept it, were more inclined to say individuals should bear the risk themselves. “The traditional division in Australia between those who are more individualistic and those who emphasise social solidarity is playing out in the climate risk arena. This suggests a new moral axis in how to deal with growing climate extremes. Either we are on our own or we should respond collectively,” Hamilton said. For insurers, this emerging “moral axis” relates to debates about risk‑based pricing versus affordability, and the extent to which public intervention is considered where private markets alone do not provide widely accessible cover.
Separate national polling commissioned by the Climate Council and conducted by YouGov indicates that affordability concerns linked to extreme weather are influencing household insurance decisions. In a survey of more than 1,500 Australians, 54% of respondents with home and/or contents insurance said they are worried that extreme weather events such as bushfires, floods, or storms will make cover unaffordable or unavailable where they live. Almost half (46%) of this insured group reported that they have already experienced a premium increase they attributed to extreme weather.
In the survey, 22% of people with home and/or contents insurance said they are likely to consider going without cover if worsening extreme weather continues to push up costs. Affordability is already a key barrier: as of 2023, about 5.1% of Australian households were underinsured and 3.3% were uninsured, representing more than two million people. For intermediaries and advisers, the polling points to continued demand for guidance on cover adequacy, risk‑mitigation options, and product choices as households weigh rising premiums against exposure.
Recent loss data illustrates the financial scale of climate‑related events. The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) reported that extreme weather in 2025 generated almost $3.5 billion in insured losses from 264,000 claims. Climate Council analysis estimated that Australians paid up to $700 more on average for home and contents insurance in 2025 than in 2024. Climate Councillor and infrastructure expert Janice Lee said these events are affecting household budgets and property values. “Unfortunately, this summer is another reminder that more and more often we’re seeing wild and unpredictable weather that burns and floods houses. The costs of these events, driven by climate change, hurt families, impact the value of homes, and create additional cost of living pressure,” Lee said. She said climate mitigation and adaptation are critical to economic stability. “Reducing climate pollution is critical to Australia’s economic security. Either we invest early to avoid climate change tipping points, or we pay for constant repair and adaptation, with ordinary Australians footing the bill,” she said.
For insurers, intermediaries, and regulators, the combined polling highlights ongoing tension between maintaining risk‑adequate pricing and solvency and responding to political, social, and customer expectations around fairness and access. For governments, it adds to pressure to clarify the respective roles of households, industry, taxpayers, and high‑emitting sectors in funding future climate losses and in supporting communities where private insurance cover is becoming more difficult to sustain.
