A minimum standard, not a substitute 
What MAIC's new claims standard for unrepresented CTP claimants does – and what it can't do

21 July 2026

In February 2026, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission introduced a new claims management standard for people who lodge CTP claims in Queensland without a lawyer. It's a good step. But it raises a harder question the standard can't answer: can a rulebook for insurer behaviour fix a problem that is really about fairness, not conduct?

More people are lodging CTP claims directly. On the Commission's own figures, the share doing so is approaching one third. Insurers increasingly encourage direct lodgement, and there's a popular idea that hiring a lawyer just eats into your payout. The pitch is that you keep all your compensation instead of sharing it. The problem is the assumption underneath it: that the payout is a fixed number, and the only question is whether a lawyer takes a cut. It isn't fixed. The amount is the very thing being fought over.

What the standard gets right

The standard sets minimum rules for how insurers must deal with unrepresented claimants, and makes one point clear that injured people often miss: you can get legal advice or representation at any stage. That right doesn't disappear because you started the claim alone, or because months have passed.

That matters, because claims rarely stay simple. Injuries that looked minor don't heal. Liability that seemed clear gets disputed. Gathering medical evidence and proving loss turns out to be heavier going than expected. Keeping the door to representation open throughout is the standard's best feature – it treats getting a lawyer as a choice you make when you actually need it, not a one-shot decision at the start.

The standard also says plainly what an insurer is not: it's not your advocate. It can't tell you what your claim is really worth, weigh up your evidence, or build your case for you. That's not a knock on insurers, who manage claims under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). It just describes their position – and it's worth saying clearly to unrepresented people.

The gap a conduct standard can't close 

But being honest about the insurer's role also shows the limit of any conduct standard. It governs how an insurer behaves. It can't give the claimant the one thing representation provides: someone whose job is to look after the claimant, and only the claimant. The real imbalance isn't about conduct – it's about knowledge and whose side you're on.

Think about what a claimant has to do: prove fault, establish injuries and their effect on earning capacity across a working life, and identify losses that aren't obvious – future economic loss, future care costs, lost superannuation, unpaid family help. Then weigh a settlement offer against an alternative they can't picture, because you can't value what you don't know to claim.
An insurer can follow every rule and still, quite properly, decline to do those jobs for the claimant. It can act reasonably and meet its deadlines – and the claimant is still negotiating without knowing what a fair result looks like. A standard can make the process fairer to deal with. It can't make the contest itself equal.

How final a settlement really is

This matters more because of something injured people often underestimate: once a CTP claim is settled, it's settled. There's ordinarily no reopening it because something was missed or undervalued. That's why early decisions carry far more weight than they feel like at the time. Accepting an early offer because you're exhausted and want it over isn't just a step in the process – it's often the biggest financial decision of a person's life, made without the information to make it well. A standard can make sure the offer is communicated properly. It can't make sure the person understands what they're giving up.

What about our job?

None of this is an argument against the standard – it's a real improvement, and the Commission deserves credit for being clear-eyed about the unrepresented claimant's position. 

The profession's job is to avoid two traps: dismissing the standard as a PR exercise, and mistaking it for a fix to a problem it was never built to solve. That means being upfront about when self-representation is fine – genuinely minor injuries, clear liability, modest loss – and when it isn't, and treating the standard as what it is: a floor under insurer conduct, and a reminder that the right to representation never closes.

A minimum standard is a good thing to have. It isn't the same as an equal contest.

The ALA thanks Mitch Herlihy of Lifestyle Injury Lawyers for this contribution. 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

Learn how you can get involved and contribute an article.