The much-anticipated new version of the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice could be some months away. Nick Cook (main picture), president of NIBA, has told Insurance Business that the new Code’s preliminary launch date of January 2026 is delayed pending client research and further consultations with brokers. The enduring sticking point is fee transparency obligations in Section 6.1.
In 2023, NIBA dialled back the fee transparency obligations in the current 2022 version of the Code and announced that brokers would only be obliged to disclose commissions to a restricted definition of retail clients.
As the insurance broking industry awaits the revised Code, the debate over Section 6.1 concerning fee transparency remains unresolved. According to Cook, the delay is not just a matter of logistics but of principle. “We certainly don't expect January next year,” he said. “We want to do it properly and we also want to do it so that it's relevant.”
At the heart of the issue is the question of what clients expect from their brokers in terms of service and disclosure. Cook emphasised that while tweaks and additions to the Code are possible, “is that really making the code any more relevant or more accessible?” The industry, he suggested, must avoid the trap of regulation for regulation’s sake, which could ultimately alienate consumers.
The challenge for NIBA is the lack of consensus among brokers themselves. Cook was candid about the contrasting perspectives. “A lot of the non-broker stakeholders were very consistent and uniform in respect to their submissions, particularly in respect to 6.1 around the transparency of remuneration,” he said.
The Financial Rights Legal Centre, other consumer advocates and some industry voices argued for full fee and commission transparency as standard practice for all clients — retail and small business alike. The current Insurance Brokers Code of Practice does not require brokers to disclose their fees or commissions to small business clients, except where those clients fall under the restricted definition of “retail clients.”
Cook said one challenge is that the review received relatively few submissions from brokers and those submissions presented contrasting positions on fee transparency. “So we had a much lower base in sample and divergent views,” he said.
This divergence has made it difficult for NIBA to chart a clear path forward. The result is a stalemate, with NIBA unable to present a unified industry position to regulators and policymakers.
Cook said a big step that needs to happen is deepening and widening the consultation with brokers to get a bigger sample that’s more representative.
“There's two pieces to this: what are clients’ expectations and how can we best address those? Then discuss this with brokers and that's going to be the big piece,” he said.
Read next: Another broker code review “early in 2024”
He also acknowledged past missteps, where changes were introduced without sufficient broker input, leading to confusion and the need to “walk it back.” This time, Cook is determined to avoid surprises. “I want us to have the research done properly, canvass it with the broker fraternity and then start to lock down what our Code review looks like,” he said.
Cook’s vision is for a Code that is “more client-facing, more client-driven, rather than just a tweak or an addition to what is already in place.” He believes that robust research into client expectations will provide the “proof point” needed to shape a Code that is both relevant and accessible.
The delayed launch of the new Code reflects the complexity of balancing regulatory expectations with the realities of broking practice.
“What we don't want to do is continue to build additional regulation which actually pushes the consumer away and doesn't bring them on the journey,” he said.
IB has reached out to Phil Khoury from the specialist consulting firm Cameron Ralph Khoury (CRK), who NIBA charged with leading the Code review, for any update
