ACIL Calls for Stronger Enforcement and Oversight in Insurance Industry

The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby Inc. (ACIL) has made a formal submission to the General Insurance Code Governance Committee (CGC) as part of its 2025-26 Monitoring Priorities Consultations. Our submission focuses on two critical areas impacting consumers: the need for the CGC to demonstrate more visible and effective enforcement of the General Insurance Code of Practice, and persistent issues surrounding the use of expert reports in claims handling.

ACIL has raised concerns over the CGC's limited public accountability, specifically regarding the lack of transparency in naming insurers who breach the Code. We believe financial penalties alone are insufficient to drive meaningful change, and public naming of sanctioned insurers is essential to restoring consumer trust and ensuring industry accountability.

Our submission also calls for a comprehensive review of expert reports, particularly those that have been the subject of disputes through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). This review aims to assess whether insurers have improved the quality, accuracy, and fairness of their reports following the CGC's Thematic Inquiry into Making Better Claims Decisions.

ACIL expects these issues to gain significant public attention as we continue to advocate for stronger protections and greater transparency in the insurance industry. We remain committed to working with regulators and stakeholders to ensure that consumers receive fair and just treatment in their insurance dealings.

For more details on our submission:

Code Governance Committee Submission Final.pdf

Download PDF • 400KB

ACIL Calls for Transparency: CGC Must Name Insurer Responsible for Code Breaches

The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) is calling on the General Insurance Code Governance Committee (CGC) to release the identity of the insurer found to have breached the General Insurance Code of Practice. The CGC’s decision to withhold the insurer’s name undermines transparency, weakens public confidence in the regulatory process, and reduces the deterrent effect of Code enforcement.

“Consumers and industry stakeholders deserve to know when an insurer has failed to meet its obligations,” said ACIL Chairperson Tyrone Shandiman. “The justification that the insurer demonstrated a ‘proactive and effective response’ does not negate the right to transparency. Accountability should not be contingent on cooperation—it should be a fundamental expectation.  While the CGC may impose financial penalties such as the $100,000 sanction, this is a negligible expense for insurers with multi-billion dollar balance sheets. The real consequence for misconduct should be reputational—insurers must know that if they breach the Code, their actions will be made public.”

The refusal to name the insurer not only limits awareness among affected policyholders, potentially preventing them from recognising their right to take action, but also raises broader concerns about regulatory independence.  The CGC must prioritise consumer trust over industry relationships by ensuring that breaches are handled with full disclosure.  Consumers have a right to be informed, and transparency is critical to empowering them to make informed decisions.

“By keeping the insurer’s identity hidden, the CGC is sending the wrong message—that breaches can be quietly resolved behind closed doors, without meaningful consequences,” Shandiman said. “This approach weakens consumer confidence in the industry at a time when trust in the sector is already low and transparency is more critical than ever.”

ACIL urges the CGC to reconsider its stance and publicly name the insurer involved. The industry cannot expect to rebuild trust if accountability is not upheld.

ACIL Call for ASIC & CGC Investigation Claims Handling of following AFCA Ruling

The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby Inc. (ACIL) has formally requested the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the General Insurance Code Governance Committee (CGC) to investigate whether recent issues in insurance claims handling represent isolated incidents or point to broader systemic concerns within the industry.

The request follows a high-profile case involving a rejected insurance claim and subsequent apology by the insurer. This case, which has garnered media attention, highlights potential flaws in the oversight of expert reports and raises questions about insurers’ ability to manage claims fairly and professionally.

https://www.insurancenews.com.au/daily/insurer-ordered-to-say-sorry-over-claim-rejection.

ACIL Chairperson, Tyrone Shandiman, stated, “This case underscores the need for ASIC and the CGC to thoroughly review how insurers rely on external expert opinions and whether the current standards truly protect consumers. Our concern is that the current Expert Report Standard places too much responsibility on insurers to ensure experts act appropriately. This approach is fundamentally flawed, as insurers lack the expertise to effectively monitor or assess the work of these professionals. This creates a convenient layer of plausible deniability for insurers when issues arise.”

The ACIL has recommended a review of the recently updated Use of Expert Reports Standard in light of this case, to determine whether further enhancements are necessary. Specifically, ACIL is advocating for:

• Stronger accountability measures to ensure experts adhere to higher professional standards.

• A reassessment of the current framework to ensure insurers’ reliance on expert opinions does not disadvantage policyholders.

• Greater scrutiny of the standards to determine if ASIC or the CGC should make further recommendations to strengthen the General Insurance Code of Practice.

ACIL’s call for action aims to ensure the insurance industry upholds the highest standards of transparency and fairness in claims handling. “These investigations are critical to restoring consumer confidence and ensuring policyholders are treated with the fairness they deserve.  Insurers involved in systemic violations, should be required to initiate remediation programs for affected customers” Mr. Shandiman concluded.