The Australian Consumers Insurance Lobby (ACIL) has reiterated concerns about the limits of self-regulation in insurance broking, arguing that the National Insurance Brokers Association’s (NIBA) response to the Independent Review of the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice could increase the likelihood of regulatory intervention. ACIL believes the review has revealed a division within the broking market, with some stakeholders pushing for a more client‑focused and modern code that deals directly with conflicts of interest, and others maintaining that the current legal framework already provides sufficient protections and that extensive change is not required.
A central issue for ACIL is NIBA’s position that the code should broadly reflect existing obligations under the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s (ASIC) Regulatory Guide 181 on conflicts management and the provision of advice. ACIL argues that such an approach limits the role of a voluntary code. “A Code of Practice is not meant to be a cut-and-paste summary of the Corporations Act. Self-governance exists to lift standards above the legal minimum, to address emerging risks and to prohibit practices that may be legal but are plainly unacceptable. By failing to do this, NIBA undermines the case for self-regulation and instead invites regulatory intervention,” said ACIL chair Tyrone Shandiman.
The Independent Review highlights ongoing concerns about aspects of broking practice, with strata insurance identified as a persistent problem area. Issues include conflicts of interest linked to placement and remuneration arrangements, limited transparency around payments, and governance weaknesses that have drawn interest from media, regulators, and consumer advocates. ACIL has called on NIBA to use the code to set clearer constraints on referral and other payments where parties owe fiduciary duties to clients. In particular, it has urged the association to address payments by brokers to strata managers and similar intermediaries.
“One clear example we raised in our submission was the need for the code to expressly prohibit brokers from paying referral fees or other benefits to people who owe a fiduciary duty to the client, such as strata managers. ASIC Regulatory Guide 181 doesn’t spell this out, but that’s not the point. This isn’t about regulatory silence – it’s about professional responsibility. If it’s unlawful for a fiduciary to receive a payment, then it is clearly not right or fair for a broker to facilitate or be complicit in that arrangement, regardless of whether a regulatory guide explicitly says so,” Shandiman said. He added that NIBA “has an opportunity to lead” by spelling out in the code that brokers should not participate in arrangements that undermine fiduciary protections, rather than leaving those issues to be addressed later by regulators.
“The fact that conduct may sit within the letter of the law does not mean it should be permitted. NIBA’s role as the steward of a self-regulatory code is to operate ahead of the law, setting higher standards and intervening where practices undermine consumer confidence or professional integrity. By choosing not to do so, NIBA is not avoiding regulation – it is simply leaving regulators to do the work the industry has declined to undertake itself,” Shandiman said. ACIL maintains that if conflicts of interest are framed mainly in terms of existing legal rules, the code becomes secondary to regulation as a driver of change. The group says it is reviewing its position and potential next steps.
ACIL’s comments follow NIBA’s publication of its formal response to the Independent Review of the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice, led by independent reviewer Phil Khoury of cameron. ralph. khoury. NIBA’s board has considered all 14 recommendations from the review. The recommendations address the code’s structure and enforceability, disclosure of remuneration and conflicts of interest, protections for vulnerable clients, standards of professional conduct, renewal and record‑keeping practices, the role of the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee (IBCCC), and overall governance arrangements. “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,” said NIBA president Nick Cook.
NIBA supports six of the recommendations it considers to enhance protections for clients. These include:
For several other recommendations, NIBA has proposed alternative approaches based on its consumer research and feedback from members. On IBCCC‑related proposals, the association plans to respond through amendments to the committee’s governance framework and charter, rather than incorporating additional detail into the code itself. NIBA says this is intended to preserve oversight while limiting the complexity of the code.
NIBA also plans a rewrite of the code in plain English to clarify what clients can expect from brokers and to make obligations easier to understand. “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,” said NIBA CEO Richard Klipin.
NIBA’s position draws partly on independent consumer research conducted in late 2025 and scheduled for release in February 2026. According to NIBA, the research indicates that 87% of client respondents are satisfied with their broker, 91% say brokers have helped them achieve better business outcomes, and 95% regard brokers as critical to claims resolution. The association also refers to Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) data for the 2024/25 financial year, which it says show that complaints involving brokers accounted for 0.8% of AFCA’s total complaints. NIBA links these findings to the role of brokers in the wider general insurance market.
NIBA says it will continue consultations as it works towards a revised code. In the first quarter of 2026, Phase 3 of the review will involve discussions with members and stakeholders through forums, education activities, and direct engagement on how the proposed changes may be implemented. Phase 4, planned for the second quarter of 2026, will focus on developing and publicly reviewing a revised code that incorporates the recommendations NIBA has accepted and feedback from consultations. NIBA then intends to release the 2026 code and support members, stakeholders, and consumers through an implementation period.
Code Review Committee chair Di Phelan said engagement during the review has been strong. “The profession is committed to improvement. We now move to the next phase – consulting members and stakeholders to develop a revised code reflecting best practice for Australians,” Phelan said. For insurance professionals, the exchange between ACIL and NIBA underscores an ongoing debate over how far an industry code should go in addressing conflicts, remuneration structures and governance, and the respective roles of self‑regulation and formal regulatory oversight in the Australian broking sector.
