New Strata Broking Findings Raise the Bar for Trust

The findings matter because strata insurance is rarely a small administrative purchase. For many owners corporations, the annual premium is one of the scheme’s largest shared expenses, and the decision affects every lot owner. The review identified weaknesses in representative agreements, remuneration disclosure, conflict management and oversight of conduct. In practical terms, it suggests some arrangements were not giving owners the level of assurance they should expect when high-value insurance decisions are made.

NIBA has responded by acknowledging that governance needs to be tighter and that conflicts must be actively managed, not simply placed in disclosure documents. That distinction is important. Disclosure can tell owners that a payment, referral arrangement or ownership link exists; it does not automatically prove the recommendation is appropriate, competitive or aligned with the owners corporation’s interests.

For strata committees, the immediate lesson is not to assume that a policy recommendation is complete just because it has come through a familiar manager or intermediary. Renewal should be treated as an active governance exercise: asking who is providing the advice, how the broker is paid, whether any representative relationship exists, what insurers were approached, and why the preferred finding suitable cover pathway was chosen. Those questions are especially relevant for buildings with defects, high claims histories, cyclone exposure, combustible materials or other risk factors that may limit available markets.

This story also extends the broader commission and conflict-of-interest debate already playing out in NSW and Victoria. While governments consider how far reforms should go, the code findings show that industry processes are already being tested against community expectations. Owners are increasingly asking not only what the premium is, but whether the process behind that premium can withstand scrutiny.

Good brokers still play a valuable role, particularly where cover is difficult to place or policy terms need careful comparison. The challenge is ensuring their role is clear, their remuneration is understood, and any conflicts are managed in the client’s interests. For owners corporations, transparency should now be treated as part of the cover itself: if the advice chain is unclear, the insurance decision may not be as secure as it appears.