The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has pushed back its deadline for lodging the redrafted General Insurance Code of Practice with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to late October 2026 – the second time the schedule has slipped – after receiving 28 submissions that expose a sharp divide between industry and consumer advocates over whether the redraft strengthens or dilutes existing protections. The ICA’s board agreed to the revised lodgement date, citing the number, complexity, and variation of submissions received, requests from some stakeholders for additional consultation time, the Code’s importance to insurance customers, and potential impacts on insurer operations. The consultation period ran from June 24 to July 21, 2026. The ICA published the submissions on August 28.
The National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA) and the Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) – approaching from opposite sides of the market – identified the same structural problem: a new closed-list definition of Wholesale Insurance that would, for the first time, strip several common commercial lines of Code protection entirely. Under the current Code, the ICA’s own FAQ confirms that Wholesale Insurance means a general insurance product covered by the Code which is not Retail Insurance – a residual definition that keeps all commercial covers within the Code’s scope by default. The redrafted Code, published by the ICA in June 2026 for public consultation, replaces this with a closed positive list of eight cover types and expressly excludes from the Wholesale Insurance definition: business interruption, contractors’ all risks, fidelity guarantee, legal liability (including public and product liability), professional indemnity (including management liability, directors’ and officers’ insurance, and tax audit insurance), cyber insurance, and industrial special risks. Products falling outside both the Retail and Wholesale definitions receive no Code protection at all.
NIBA chief executive officer Richard Klipin said in the association’s submission that the practical consequence falls directly on the small-business clients brokers serve. “A small consulting firm facing a professional indemnity claim, or a small business suffering a cyber loss, would – under the redrafted definition – have no recourse to the Code’s investigation standards or its complaints and hardship protections, and no oversight from the Code Governance Committee,” the submission stated. ACIL identified the same gap, noting that the Independent Code Review’s Recommendation 47 specifically flagged the Code’s exclusion of significant small-business insurance categories as an ongoing problem – one the redraft does not resolve.
The ICA has characterised the redraft as developed through extensive pre-consultation with consumer advocates, regulators, and the General Insurance Code Governance Committee (GICGC) – a process it says distinguishes this iteration from prior versions. The ICA has not addressed the wholesale definition concern directly in public statements. ICA chief executive Andrew Hall said: “The world has changed and the Code needs to keep pace with those changes; customers face more frequent extreme weather, more complex claims, and new technology that is reshaping every part of the insurance process.”
Both NIBA and ACIL supported the redraft’s headline proposal to make Code provisions contractually enforceable for the first time in the Code’s 32-year history. Under the mechanism pursued through ASIC’s Regulatory Guide 183, Code obligations from Sections 1 to 9 would form part of each subscriber's insurance contract, giving policyholders direct legal recourse for breaches in court. This is a different and narrower mechanism than the statutory “enforceable code provisions” framework available under the Corporations Act – which can attract civil penalties – and which requires a separate ASIC designation process.
ACIL warned the enforceability gain may be offset by the weakening of the obligations being enforced. “While consumers are told they will receive a contractually enforceable Code, many of the underlying commitments are softened through broader exceptions, more subjective language and reduced accountability,” the submission stated, adding the redraft risks appearing to “give with one hand and take away with the other.”
A comparison of the two documents confirms several of the specific changes ACIL identified. The current Code requires insurers to “immediately” take action to correct mistakes in claims handling; the redraft replaces this with an obligation to act “promptly.” The current Code requires complaint progress updates at least every 10 business days throughout the complaints process; the redraft removes that interval from the primary obligation, substituting a general commitment and monthly updates only once a complaint exceeds 30 calendar days. The current Code requires insurers to review non-genuine claims indicators at least once a year; the redraft removes the annual requirement, retaining only a general obligation to review.
ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland had put the industry on notice at the ICA’s Annual Conference in October 2025. “The development of a new General Insurance Code of Practice that will be enforceable by contract is an important step towards rebuilding trust. However, unless the provisions themselves improve overall levels of consumer protection, it will be a step backwards. Simple cannot be code for stripped out,” Kirkland said.
The submissions arrive against a backdrop of rising Code breaches and complaint volumes. The GICGC’s Annual Industry Data and Compliance Report for 2024-25 recorded 70,325 code breaches – a 20.5% rise on the 58,385 logged the prior year, with claims-related failures comprising 59% of that total, or 41,140 breaches. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) recorded a third consecutive year of complaints exceeding 100,000 in 2025-26, with delay in claim handling, service quality, and claim rejection the top three issues across all financial products. Rejection of claim complaints in general insurance rose 47% during the period.
ACIL’s Tyrone Shandiman went further than the submission’s technical concerns, calling on the federal government to remove Code administration from the ICA. “After years of inquiries, reviews, and public criticism, the industry was handed a clear roadmap for reform. Instead, it has chosen to water down existing protections and leave many of the most significant recommendations unaddressed. This is no longer a drafting issue. It is a governance failure,” Shandiman said.
The Financial Rights Legal Centre, Financial Counselling Australia (FCA), and Consumer Action Law Centre warned jointly that government intervention may be needed if insurers fail to significantly strengthen the redrafted Code. Financial Rights’ Drew MacRae said: “The current consultation is the industry's last chance to step up and make the changes it needs to regain the trust of Australians.”
Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino, who chaired the parliamentary inquiry into insurers’ responses to the 2022 major floods, which recommended making the General Insurance Code contractually enforceable, told the ICA’s October 2025 conference: “Agreeing to make the industry code ASIC-approved and contractually enforceable is an important step. It tells consumers that this isn’t just words on a page. It’s backed by real accountability.
The ICA said it will provide a considered response to all submissions ahead of lodgement. The current Code remains in force in the interim, with the Code Governance Committee continuing its oversight function. For subscribing insurers, the revised timeline extends planning uncertainty on policy wordings, product disclosure statement updates, and vulnerability framework implementation – with contractual enforceability still unlikely to take effect before the 2027-2028 window even after a late October lodgement.
