The National Insurance Brokers Association (NIBA) has issued its formal response to all 14 recommendations in the Independent Review of the Insurance Brokers Code of Practice (the Code), backing six of the proposed reforms while opposing — or seeking to rework — the remaining eight. The split position puts NIBA in an awkward but familiar place: signalling a willingness to tighten standards and broaden consumer protections, while drawing hard lines around how far the Code should go in reshaping broker obligations and legal enforceability.
NIBA President Nick Cook (main picture, left) said the association has “listened to all stakeholders” and would use the review to lift standards in a 2026 Code update. CEO Richard Klipin (main picture, right) framed the response as a trust play: “Codes are about trust and confidence. NIBA is committed to high standards for professional conduct,” he said, adding that the end result would be “a Code with real consumer benefits, understandable to clients, and clear guidance for professionals.”
NIBA’s said that it supports a package of reforms it argues will deliver clearer consumer protections without fundamentally changing what the Code is. In its review response, NIBA said it supports extending remuneration disclosure beyond current settings to all retail clients — including small business retail clients — provided there is a “reasonable adjustment period” for implementation. It also backs improved protections for vulnerable clients, a new requirement for brokers to make contact 28 days before renewal, and new record‑keeping standards.
NIBA is also supporting a governance recommendation that would embed a minimum five‑year independent review cycle for the Code — effectively hard-wiring a timetable for future scrutiny rather than leaving reform to periodic pressure from regulators, consumer groups, or media investigations.
Taken together, the six measures NIBA supports are pitched as a transparency and safeguards upgrade — more disclosure, earlier renewal engagement, better records, and more explicit attention to vulnerable clients — with a scheduled external review process to prevent the Code from drifting out of date.
The 28‑day renewal requirement is likely to be one of the most visible operational changes for brokerages, particularly where renewals have become compressed by insurer turnaround times, late terms, or shifting appetites. A mandated renewal-contact window could also create new compliance and audit obligations for broker firms, especially those managing high volumes of SME and strata renewals.
NIBA’s response leans on forthcoming consumer research to support its argument that brokers retain strong client trust. The association said research conducted in late 2025 — due for release in February 2026 — shows 87% of client respondents are satisfied with their broker, 91% say brokers have helped them achieve better business outcomes, and 95% see brokers as critical to claims resolution.
NIBA also points to complaints data, saying only 0.8% of AFCA complaints over the 2024/25 financial year were related to brokers. The association argues those figures, together with the research, underline brokers’ role “in building trust and confidence in the sector and improving client outcomes.”
The sharper edge of the response is NIBA’s pushback against recommendations it says would either mischaracterise what the Code is, create unintended legal confusion, or impose one‑size‑fits‑all requirements on a diverse broking profession.
One early flashpoint is Recommendation 1: recasting the Code as “promises to clients”. NIBA said it shares the goal of making the Code more accessible and client‑focused, but argued that “promises” is the wrong construct because it implies contractual commitments to individual clients rather than professional standards. Instead, NIBA commits to a comprehensive plain‑English rewrite and consumer‑facing guides explaining what clients can expect from a broker.
The association firmly rejected Recommendation 2: making the Code contractually enforceable. NIBA argues this would blur the line between product manufacturer codes and professional advice codes and pointed to existing frameworks — AFSL obligations, terms of engagement, client service agreements, AFCA access and common law duties — as already governing the broker‑client relationship. It also argues that the Code’s enforcement model is designed to sit with an independent compliance body rather than the courts and warned that contractual enforceability could increase costs that end up passed on to clients “without commensurate benefit.”
On remuneration disclosure, NIBA backed “meaningful disclosure” but rejected Recommendation 5’s push for mandated disclosure templates. It said templates built from a single context — it cited strata insurance as an example — risk being too prescriptive for a profession spanning sole practitioners in regional communities through to multinational brokerages with complex corporate clients. NIBA warned that rigid templates could become a compliance exercise rather than real transparency and raises the risk of “disclosure fatigue” when layered on top of existing requirements. Its alternative is to support dollar‑based disclosure at the invoice stage, allow flexibility in formatting, and reinstate a client‑initiated disclosure provision from the 2014 Code so clients can request more detail.
NIBA also opposed importing FASEA Standard 9 into the Code (Recommendation 9). The association argued the FASEA standards were designed for financial advisers under a different regulatory framework, and says importing “good faith” language could create confusion because “utmost good faith” has a specific meaning in insurance law. It says the underlying obligations — competence and not misleading clients — are already explicit in existing law, and commits instead to clearer professional‑obligation drafting “free from unintended legal ambiguity.”
A further set of contested recommendations relates to the Insurance Brokers Code Compliance Committee (IBCCC): Recommendations 4, 7, 10 and 13. NIBA said it agrees the issues matter, but argues they should be handled through IBCCC governance and Charter updates rather than written into the Code. NIBA commited to a “comprehensive review” of the IBCCC Charter and governance, including resourcing, improved industry data collection, and a forward work program.
NIBA's response to the review could set up a key tension of relevance to both brokers and consumer advocates: whether meaningful accountability can sit outside the Code itself, or whether the Code must hard‑wire stronger enforcement architecture to be credible as self‑regulation.
NIBA said it will now begin member and stakeholder consultations before releasing the 2026 Code.
