ACIL Urges Queensland Treasurer to End the 'Tax on a Tax' and Double Investment in Resilience

The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) has called on Queensland Treasurer David Janetzki to double the state’s investment in disaster resilience by redirecting stamp duty collected on the GST component of insurance premiums—revenue widely criticised as an unfair “tax on a tax.”

In a letter sent, ACIL noted that Queensland is projected to collect over $10 billion in insurance stamp duty over the next five years. Of that, approximately $912 million will come from taxing the GSTon each and every general insurance policy in Queensland —an approach that disproportionately burdens households and small businesses already facing unaffordable premiums, particularly in North Queensland.

“Queensland is the most unaffordable state in Australia for insurance, and the Government is taxing people not just on their premiums, but also on the GST applied to those premiums,” said ACIL Chairperson Tyrone Shandiman. “Redirecting that revenue to fund risk reduction would send a powerful signal that the Government is serious about cost-of-living relief and disaster resilience.”

ACIL welcomed the existing $450 million Queensland Resilience and Risk Reduction Program but pointed out that it represents less than 5% of forecast insurance stamp duty revenue. In contrast, using just the tax-on-GST portion could more than double the current investment.

Targeted Funding for North Queensland

As part of the proposal, ACIL has again urged the Government to commit $100 million per annum specifically for cyclone resilience measures in North Queensland, where the insurance burden is most extreme. The funding could support roof strengthening, roof maintenance, debris management, and securing outdoor structures in high-risk areas.

The organisation also recommended that any such state investment be contingent on securing an agreement with the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC) and Federal Treasury to reduce Cyclone Reinsurance Pool premiums in regions where risk is materially reduced.

“It’s not just about spending more—it’s about ensuring that mitigation translates into real premium relief,” Mr Shandiman said.

ACIL has requested a meeting with Treasurer Janetzki to discuss how Queensland can better align its resilience funding with the communities that are paying the most—and getting the least relief.

“This is a chance to reform how we use stamp duty and invest where it matters most. The current system penalises those who can least afford it. That must change,” Mr Shandiman said.

Enough is Enough: ACIL Threatens Push for Publicly Appointed Assessors if Insurers Fail to Fix Expert Oversight

The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby Inc. (ACIL) has today responded to the latest ASIC directive (click here) urging home insurers to fix their oversight of independent experts and improve transparency on cash settlements, warning that if the industry fails to act, ACIL will begin advocating for government-sanctioned assessors and experts who represent the insured at claim time.

This is not the first warning. In July 2023, the General Insurance Code Governance Committee released a damning report that exposed serious concerns about the quality and reliability of expert reports relied on in claims decisions. While the industry responded by releasing a so-called “best practice” Expert Report Standard in 2024, the standard has failed to drive meaningful change. In practice, abuses persist and consumer outcomes remain compromised.

“We work closely with claims advocates at the coal face who are still seeing an alarming volume of biased and poor-quality expert reports,” said Tyrone Shandiman, Chairperson of ACIL. “The problem is systemic and deeply rooted in the way insurers engage, oversee, and influence the experts they appoint.”

While the industry’s 2024 Expert Report Standard was presented as progress, it has failed to deliver genuine reform. The document is riddled with out clauses and lacks teeth.

“One of the greatest travesties is that the Standard does not impose obligations on experts directly. Instead, it relies on insurers to ensure experts act properly. That’s like asking the fox to guard the henhouse,” Shandiman said.

Concerns around poor expert oversight are compounded by the ongoing mishandling of cash settlements. Despite clear recommendations from inquiries—such as PFI-13 from the flood inquiry, which called for fair uplift allowances to account for consumers managing their own repairs—insurers have failed to implement meaningful protections. Cash settlements are frequently offered without transparency, fall short of covering the true cost of repairs, and shift complex project management burdens onto policyholders. These practices leave consumers financially exposed, while insurers escape responsibility for ensuring fair outcomes.

ACIL has made issues associated with expert reports one of its core advocacy priorities.  It has raised concerns about these issues and to date has only had dismissive responses from the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA), which failed to address the substance of the concerns or explain why these matters should not be dealt with in the General Insurance Code of Practice or the Expert Report Guide:

• Direct interference by insurers in how experts assess claims, compromising independence;

• Incentivised denials of claims through hidden performance metrics favouring reduced payouts;

• Failure by experts to cite or apply relevant building codes, leaving consumers at risk of substandard outcomes;

• Disregard for previously certified solutions, resulting in inconsistent and unfair determinations on defects;

• Financial barriers to dispute—where even paying for a second opinion doesn’t shift the insurer’s stance, as they simply engage another expert to maintain a “two-to-one” advantage;

• Conflicted ownership models, where related entities control multiple parts of the claims process including loss adjusters, engineering consultants, builders, restorers, and surveyors  without disclosing this to the consumer;

• Unsolicited maintenance recommendations, coercing consumers into unnecessary and costly works.

Despite years of feedback, media scrutiny, and regulator interest, meaningful reform has stalled. ACIL is in the process of writing to the Insurance Council of Australia to formally signal that unless there is real progress, it will advocate for independent, publicly appointed assessors who advocate for consumers in the claims process.

“Consumers deserve confidence in the experts who decide the fate of their claims. If the industry cannot deliver that, then the model must change—because right now, it’s failing the people it claims to serve.”

Brokers Warned: Softening Market No Excuse for Unfair Remuneration Practices

The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby Inc (ACIL) is warning insurance brokers not to exploit softening market conditions to alter remuneration structures to the detriment of clients — particularly without proper disclosure and informed consent. ACIL has asked ASIC, the ACCC, and the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee to be on the lookout for this unscrupulous behaviour.

Brokers, as licensees under an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL), are required to act efficiently, honestly and fairly. Changing remuneration models during periods of premium reductions without transparent disclosure may contravene these core obligations.

ACIL Chairperson Tyrone Shandiman said “We have seen examples from previous soft market cycles, including in 2016, where brokers negotiated 20% premium reductions but failed to pass those savings on. Instead, they increased commissions on top of prior fee-for-service models, leaving clients significantly worse off without proper disclosure.  This conduct has even occurred with large, sophisticated clients such as high-rise buildings, showing that the industry's assumption that wholesale clients do not require disclosure is dangerously misplaced.”

ACIL notes that detecting this behaviour is not difficult. It is relatively simple for licensees and regulators to pull annual income reports from broking systems and identify sharp increases in remuneration following premium reductions. Where there has been no material change in the risk profile or policy structure, such increases warrant further scrutiny.

In its submission to the recent NIBA Code of Practice Review, ACIL made a number of recommendations specifically designed to safeguard consumers against this type of unscrupulous conduct, including:

• Requiring brokers to disclose any changes in their remuneration structures from the prior year, particularly where those changes disadvantage the client.

• Standardising disclosure obligations across both wholesale and retail clients.

• Requiring brokers with remuneration above standard industry levels to demonstrate the added value provided to the client.

Mr Shandiman added: “At a minimum, brokers must be upfront with clients when changing remuneration structures — especially where the benefit flows to the broker at the client’s expense. That means ensuring clients are properly informed and their consent is genuinely obtained. If current remuneration models are, as the industry claims, the right and fair way for brokers to be paid — then there should be no issue prominently displaying this information to clients. Concealing it doesn’t just undermine trust — it damages the professional image of the entire broking industry and reinforces negative perceptions about a lack of transparency.”

ACIL will continue to work with regulators, code monitors and industry bodies to improve standards and ensure fair treatment for all insurance consumers.