106 S McKinnon, C Eriksen, and E de Vet
cultivated, which blurred the visual boundary between his property and
surrounding bushland, were destroyed. Insurance did not cover the garden,
and the many hundreds of burnt plants would be costly to replace. Just as
significant, in Tony’s estimation, were the time and labour involved in establishing the gardens over several years. He stated, ‘What I’ve said to people
is that if the house had been damaged, we could put an insurance claim in
and rebuild it … You can’t replace the garden because I’ve just lost that
time and that effort and that money and that’s a start all over again thing.’
Gardening can be seen here as a form of home-making practice (Reid &
Beilin 2015), and in Tony’s description, the garden and the home are indistinguishable. Yet in insurantial terms, they are entirely separate. Tony had
lost the beauty of surrounding trees and shrubs, which were now an ashen
and charred environment. Also lost was the substantial effort of establishing and maintaining the garden over many years. Insurance covered none of
the entwined physical, emotional, and financial costs of this loss.
Michael (BM, 30s) was living in rental property at the time of the fires. A
shed on the property was destroyed, but the house survived. He had subsequently built a home and, in discussing plans for insurance, Michael positioned his own labour as a complicating factor in assessing insurable value.
A skilled builder, Michael had worked on the design and construction of
the home, which he saw as part of an emotional connection both to the site
at which the property was located, and to the process of homemaking. He
contrasted this with the choice to build a so-called ‘McMansion’ (a pejorative term for a large, mass-produced house), which could just be ‘plonked’
on a site by a building company – a process Michael saw as ‘all very clinical. There’s no emotion, there’s no connection.’ Unfortunately, his preferred
labour-intensive and emotionally rich process resulted in a cherished dwelling that was not easily insurable. Through his own labour, Michael had
been able to build a home that, in monetary terms, was more valuable than
he would have been able to afford otherwise. As a result, in Michael’s words,
‘the bloody premiums are going to be nuts, just nuts,’ and were beyond his
financial means. Because of these complicating factors, Michael was considering being ‘a little bit fatalistic,’ and insuring the home for less than its
replacement value. If he lost the home in a future fire, he would again invest
his own labour, and cover the financial shortfall from any payout by building back smaller next time. These considerations again reveal the complex
meaning of value, as the physical and emotional process of homemaking
often does not fit, or plainly conflicts with, insurantial values.
It is important to note how wellbeing, material belongings, and intangible objects are also deeply connected in survivor assessments of the value
of insurance. Ben (KV, 50s) had almost completed a 12-year process of
building his own home when the Currowan fires struck. Fortunately, the
near-complete home survived but a storage shed on the property, along with
a small cabin in which Ben had been living, were both destroyed. Ben had
paid little attention to insurance levels over the preceding years. He was
cultivated, which blurred the visual boundary between his property and
surrounding bushland, were destroyed. Insurance did not cover the garden,
and the many hundreds of burnt plants would be costly to replace. Just as
significant, in Tony’s estimation, were the time and labour involved in establishing the gardens over several years. He stated, ‘What I’ve said to people
is that if the house had been damaged, we could put an insurance claim in
and rebuild it … You can’t replace the garden because I’ve just lost that
time and that effort and that money and that’s a start all over again thing.’
Gardening can be seen here as a form of home-making practice (Reid &
Beilin 2015), and in Tony’s description, the garden and the home are indistinguishable. Yet in insurantial terms, they are entirely separate. Tony had
lost the beauty of surrounding trees and shrubs, which were now an ashen
and charred environment. Also lost was the substantial effort of establishing and maintaining the garden over many years. Insurance covered none of
the entwined physical, emotional, and financial costs of this loss.
Michael (BM, 30s) was living in rental property at the time of the fires. A
shed on the property was destroyed, but the house survived. He had subsequently built a home and, in discussing plans for insurance, Michael positioned his own labour as a complicating factor in assessing insurable value.
A skilled builder, Michael had worked on the design and construction of
the home, which he saw as part of an emotional connection both to the site
at which the property was located, and to the process of homemaking. He
contrasted this with the choice to build a so-called ‘McMansion’ (a pejorative term for a large, mass-produced house), which could just be ‘plonked’
on a site by a building company – a process Michael saw as ‘all very clinical. There’s no emotion, there’s no connection.’ Unfortunately, his preferred
labour-intensive and emotionally rich process resulted in a cherished dwelling that was not easily insurable. Through his own labour, Michael had
been able to build a home that, in monetary terms, was more valuable than
he would have been able to afford otherwise. As a result, in Michael’s words,
‘the bloody premiums are going to be nuts, just nuts,’ and were beyond his
financial means. Because of these complicating factors, Michael was considering being ‘a little bit fatalistic,’ and insuring the home for less than its
replacement value. If he lost the home in a future fire, he would again invest
his own labour, and cover the financial shortfall from any payout by building back smaller next time. These considerations again reveal the complex
meaning of value, as the physical and emotional process of homemaking
often does not fit, or plainly conflicts with, insurantial values.
It is important to note how wellbeing, material belongings, and intangible objects are also deeply connected in survivor assessments of the value
of insurance. Ben (KV, 50s) had almost completed a 12-year process of
building his own home when the Currowan fires struck. Fortunately, the
near-complete home survived but a storage shed on the property, along with
a small cabin in which Ben had been living, were both destroyed. Ben had
paid little attention to insurance levels over the preceding years. He was