A couple of years ago, strata insurance was the poster child for unaffordable cover. News stories fixated on buildings slugged with renewal increases of up to 50%, especially in nat cat exposed parts of the country. For brokers, explaining those increases to strata managers – and, in turn, to the owners’ corporations they advise – became some of the toughest conversations in the market.
Fast-forward to mid‑2025 and the underlying story looks very different. A softer market cycle, a relatively benign nat cat period, more capacity and sustained work by some strata communities to address building risks have all helped take heat out of pricing. CHU Underwriting Agencies' 2025 State of the Strata Market report puts national premium growth at 2.8% in the 12 months to June 2025 – a world away from the crisis narrative. CHU, owned by the Steadfast Group, is one of largest underwriting agencies in the sector.
Yet affordability remains an issue and it's still under intense scrutiny. In July, the ACCC, drawing on 2024 statistics, reported that concerns about strata affordability persist “across the country” and that premiums remain “very high” in northern Australia, especially in north‑west WA. However, for many stakeholders, the strata debate has evolved to become as much about perceptions, transparency and who gets paid what - as it is about rate movements and cost.
Against that backdrop, CHU CEO Kimberley Jonsson (pictured) is making a bid to reset the conversation.
“Strata insurance is affordable,” said Jonsson. “In our report we’re using the same methodology as the Australian Actuaries Home Insurance Affordability Index and we’re finding a different answer, which is there’s nowhere in Australia that’s under strata insurance affordability distress.”
Jonsson’s core contention is that aggregate building premiums have distorted how owners think about cost. When an owners’ committee sees a six‑figure invoice, they experience shock, even if the per‑lot cost is modest in the context of broader household expenses.
“Two years ago in Sydney, we were looking at $945 a lot before charges,” said the CEO. “$945 annually is under $80 a month that strata owners have been paying for strata insurance.”
She said CHU sees that as affordable.
For brokers, that framing is crucial. Per lot, per‑month comparisons bring strata insurance back into a relatable frame – similar to a streaming subscription or a weekly grocery shop – rather than an abstract six figure line item.
Jonsson argued that the way premiums are presented is part of the strata problem.
“The rolled-up insurance number for the whole building creates a skewed perception of affordability that we are striving to change,” she said.
That skew is most acute in high exposure regions where sums insured are large and mitigation work is expensive. Even where risk adjusted pricing has stabilised, historical shock is still colouring decision making. The opportunity for brokers is to step into that perception gap with data, context and a more nuanced story about value and risk transfer – especially when benchmarking strata insurance against rising construction costs and tightening building standards.
Alongside affordability, transparency of fees and commissions – particularly in NSW – is reshaping expectations. Jonsson said reforms influenced by John Trowbridge’s work have forced clearer disclosure of who is being remunerated and how.
“What it did was it made it far simpler to understand who was getting paid and how much,” she said. “If the owners’ corporation can understand it, they can make an informed choice.”
For some brokers and strata managers, that clarity can feel uncomfortable, but it also levels the playing field. When committees can see the split between base premium, government charges, strata manager income and broker remuneration, it becomes easier to defend the value of advice, claims advocacy and placement expertise.
This is especially salient as debate intensifies around commission bans and fee‑for‑service models. Jonsson is blunt about the complexity.
“It’s not that simple,” she said. “People need to be remunerated for the job that they do and the question is who’s going to pay for that and at what part of the purchase process.”
The proposed move to fee‑for‑service in some quarters responds to consumer calls for cleaner, more direct remuneration. Jonsson said that simply shifts the timing and visibility of the cost – committees must “front up that money” rather than have it embedded in premiums. Brokers who can articulate the trade‑offs between commission and fee‑based models, and tailor options to each scheme’s appetite, will be better placed as owners’ corporations grapple with new payment regimes.
Across the market, strata management firms are experimenting with hybrid models: fee‑for‑service only, commission‑plus‑fee, or letting owners choose between commission and no‑commission structures. At the same time, industry bodies like the SCA New South Wales, are setting voluntary codes that phase down commissions in standard agreements.
“The industry is starting to anticipate the regulatory change that is likely to happen,” said Jonsson.
For brokers, this adds complexity but also opens doors. As remuneration structures diverge, schemes will need more guidance on what each model means for governance, incentives and long‑term building resilience. Broker relationships with strata managers will need to be recalibrated to avoid perceived conflicts while preserving collaboration on risk mitigation and maintenance.
Jonsson said that responsibility for resilience and proactive maintenance ultimately rests with owners and their committees, not their managers. New measures such as mandatory committee training in NSW are intended to lift capability and awareness of those obligations, including the need for adequate maintenance budgets and realistic expectations of insurance.
In that environment, the broker could become even more of a strategic adviser: reframing affordability, demystifying remuneration and helping owners’ corporations better understand and manage building risks.
