The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) has warned that confidence in industry‑run insurance codes of practice may weaken if governance arrangements are perceived as closely linked to commercial interests. The group’s comments come as both the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice and the General Insurance Code of Practice undergo review and rewrite processes led by industry bodies.
ACIL says its concern is not about specific individuals or conduct, but about whether boards overseeing the codes have sufficient independent representation to distinguish professional standard‑setting from commercial considerations. “This is not an allegation of misconduct, nor a criticism of individuals. It is about confidence. Professional codes only work where the community can be confident that professionalism, not commercial convenience, is driving the standards being set,” ACIL chairperson Tyrone Shandiman said.
Shandiman said boards dominated by industry participants whose businesses are directly affected by code provisions may find it difficult to maintain public confidence in the objectivity of standard‑setting and enforcement. He pointed to other professions, including accounting, mortgage and finance broking, healthcare, and agriculture, where independent directors sit within governance frameworks for professional standards. According to ACIL, the key issue is not whether independent reviewers are engaged, but how their findings are handled once reviews are completed. “Independent reviews are meant to inform reform, not simply validate existing positions. When industry commissions independent scrutiny but then retains broad discretion to set aside uncomfortable recommendations, it raises legitimate questions about whether professionalism or commercial interest is ultimately driving the outcome,” Shandiman said.
Shandiman said similar governance debates have emerged in sectors such as superannuation and financial services, where boards with strong industry representation have been challenged on how they respond to independent review recommendations. “Time and again, we see the same pattern. Without sufficient independence, hard questions about professionalism are deferred, diluted, or avoided altogether,” he said. ACIL has cautioned that if confidence in self‑regulation continues to decline, policy responses are likely to move toward more prescriptive regulatory intervention. “If industry wants the public, consumers, and regulators to have confidence in self‑regulation, it must demonstrate that professionalism comes first. Where that confidence is absent, reform inevitably shifts away from industry processes and toward regulatory solutions,” Shandiman said.
ACIL’s comments follow the National Insurance Brokers Association’s (NIBA) release of its formal response to the Independent Review of the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, conducted by Phil Khoury of cameron. ralph. khoury. The review made 14 recommendations covering the code’s structure, enforceability, remuneration, conflicts of interest, vulnerable clients, professional conduct, renewals, record‑keeping, investigations, and governance. NIBA’s board has considered each recommendation and published a position outlining which changes it supports and where it proposes alternative approaches. “This review has provided valuable input, and NIBA has listened to all stakeholders. Our response reflects feedback from our profession and clients, and our commitment to continuing to raise standards. The broking profession exists to serve – our code ensures we deliver trusted advice, and the 2026 code update will set high standards for excellence,” NIBA president Nick Cook said.
NIBA has indicated support for several changes relating to client protections. These include extending remuneration disclosure obligations to all retail clients, including small business retail clients, subject to a transition period; strengthening provisions relating to customer vulnerability; adopting a 28‑day renewal contact period; introducing new record‑keeping requirements; and establishing a minimum five‑year independent review cycle for the code. The association has raised reservations about some recommendations and proposed alternatives informed by member consultation and new research. For matters connected to the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee (IBCCC), NIBA favours addressing changes through the IBCCC’s charter and governance arrangements rather than incorporating those details directly into the code.
A plain‑English rewrite of the code is a central element of NIBA’s program. The goal is to provide clearer information about “what clients can expect from their professional insurance broker” and to outline guidance for brokers on expected conduct. NIBA also cites independent consumer research conducted in late 2025. The association says the research found 87% of client respondents were satisfied with their broker, 91% said brokers helped them achieve better business outcomes, and 95% viewed brokers as critical to claims resolution. NIBA notes that, for the 2024/25 financial year, complaints relating to brokers represented 0.8% of cases lodged with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). “Codes are about trust and confidence. NIBA is committed to high standards for professional conduct. We have been clear about where we agree or differ. The result will be a code with real consumer benefits, understandable to clients, and clear guidance for professionals,” NIBA CEO Richard Klipin said. NIBA plans further consultations with members and other stakeholders through 2026 as it develops a revised code, with a public exposure draft expected after the next phase of discussions.
In the general insurance market, the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) and its members are moving to the next phase of work on a new General Insurance Code of Practice after an independent review of the current 2020 code. The code, first introduced in 1993 and revised several times, is being substantially redrafted. The ICA says the new code is intended to be a “consumer‑centric, modern, fit‑for‑purpose, and contractually enforceable” framework that clarifies rights and obligations in accessible language. The current code will remain in force until the new version is approved and implemented.
The rewrite is drawing on multiple inputs, including the independent code review, recommendations from the Parliamentary Flood Inquiry, and broader stakeholder feedback. Planned changes include enforceable commitments on how insurers use expert reports in claims decisions, with an Expert Report Best Practice Standard to be referenced in the code, and alignment with the ICA’s Extreme Weather and Disaster Response Charter.
The ICA is also developing an industry‑wide framework addressing customers experiencing vulnerability, with definitions and obligations expected to be incorporated into the revised code. In addition, the industry sought authorisation from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in the second half of 2025 to adopt standard policy definitions for home maintenance and wear and tear. Insurers have given in‑principle support to introducing internal consumer advocates to assist customers with the claims process, with implementation to vary according to individual business models.
ICA CEO Andrew Hall said the rewrite is being undertaken against a backdrop of evolving climate risk, regulatory change, and shifting consumer expectations. Developing a new code is, he said, “a once‑in‑a‑generation opportunity to deliver better outcomes for consumers.” He added that “a well‑functioning code must balance the need to generate trust in the robustness of the industry’s consumer protection frameworks with the flexibility to be able to continue to provide accessible and affordable products to Australians as extreme weather risk and pricing pressures continue to grow.” Hall added that the revised code is intended to “commit to standards and specific practices which go over and above legislative and regulatory requirements and as a result improve customer outcomes,” while remaining adaptable to future market and regulatory developments.
For insurance professionals, these developments amount to parallel reform tracks for brokers and general insurers, with differing governance models and consultation processes but overlapping expectations on conduct, disclosure, and support for vulnerable customers. ACIL’s intervention indicates that – alongside the detailed provisions on remuneration, disclosure, renewal practices, and claims handling – questions about control of code design and the role of independent voices in decision‑making are likely to remain central to ongoing policy and regulatory discussions. As broking and general insurance bodies move toward revised codes targeted for 2026, industry participants face scrutiny not only on the substance of consumer protections but also on whether oversight structures are configured in a way that sustains confidence in self‑regulation over time.
