Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten is a man in a hurry. The former union leader and aspiring future prime minister is eager to leave a lasting mark on his new high-profile portfolio, and it’s insurers who may end up paying the tolls as the minster speeds along the political highway.

Mr Shorten has made it clear that clearer language in policy wordings, an industry-wide flood definition and stronger consumer protection will be defining achievements in his campaign to straighten out the industry’s convoluted approach to flood insurance – if he can make them happen.

On the first two points insurers are willing to make progress, but a wider application of consumer protection legislation is likely to be the one that makes the brakes come back on.

Flood issues have dogged the insurance industry for years, and beyond a certain lethargy in the solution-seeking process it’s certainly not all the industry’s fault that so little progress has been made.

Work on a flood definition stalled in 2008 after the competition regulator rejected the Insurance Council of Australia’s (ICA) non-binding definition. But as any industry veteran knows, there’s nothing like a major flood to get insurance back on the agendas.

ICA has conceded on the call for clearer policy wordings, albeit grudgingly. Many in the industry believe policies read fine the way they are and it’s consumers who should actually read the document before complaining it’s too confusing.

Our sister publication Insurance News (the magazine) noted in December when it placed Mr Shorten third in the list of the 20 most influential people in insurance, that the Assistant Treasurer may be consultative but he’s also results-driven.

It’s the minister’s suggestions that insurers should be subject to consumer protection laws that will have insurers spooked. When they were excluded from consumer law amendments to the Trade Practices Act in September last year, the Senate Economics Committee recommended the Insurance Contracts Act be revisited to align the two acts.

For insurance industry lobbyists, it was the lesser of two evils; exclusion from the Australian Consumer Law Bill was paramount and any modifications to the Insurance Contracts Act could be worked through at a later date.

Anyone who thought the battle over consumer laws had already been fought and won should think again.

Mr Shorten’s comments on Thursday after meeting the ICA board suggest insurers’ immunity from Australian consumer law has been re-examined.

The legislation came into effect on January 1, replacing 20 state and territory laws serving the same but disjointed functions.

It essentially covers fair trading and consumer protection and includes new unfair contract terms covering standard form contracts.

Customers now have guaranteed rights when buying goods and services, a new national product safety law and a new national law for unsolicited consumer agreements. The law also enforces new penalties against companies and gives consumers better avenues for redress should they feel cheated or wronged.

As one example, the law stipulates that all products must have a clear title, no undisclosed securities and are fit for the “disclosed purpose” up to a value of $40,000.

And if a service fails to meet a guarantee, consumers have rights against the supplier. In some cases the manufacturer must provide a “remedy” or put right a fault, deficiency or failure to meet an obligation.

Mr Shorten says the Government has placed insurers “on notice” that a large group of stakeholders – namely consumer groups and a parliamentary inquiry – want “one law for all services to consumers”.

He has provided insurers with not one, but two options: “whether or not the insurance industry should be covered by the Australian consumer law, or have separate legal treatment under separate laws”.

With community interest in these issues at an all-time high, Mr Shorten will be eager to deliver a package that satisfies the public first. The wishes of the Insurance Council are likely to be well down the priority list.