This perspective comes not from first-hand attendance, but from my regular morning ring-around with colleagues I respect and admire. As we caught up, the topic of the Strata Community Association (NSW) Convention naturally came up – several of them had attended, while I had not as I am not a current Strata Community Association (SCA) member as an individual or business. Their feedback was candid and insightful, reflecting a genuine passion for the future of our industry.
Their comments were not directed at the SCA as an organisation; indeed, I again want to acknowledge the positive leadership of Mr Robert Anderson, who is guiding the move towards a no-commission model from 2026. This is a significant and commendable step forward.
The concerns raised relate to the actions of certain members who promote “transparency” while maintaining complex financial relationships – such as third-party arrangements or ownership in brokerage firms – that are difficult for clients to fully understand. These arrangements, while disclosed, are often so layered that even experienced professionals can struggle to interpret them.
From my own experience at Bettr, I can confirm that transparency is now the second most requested quality from new business clients, right after customer service. In every new business meeting, clients raise questions about fees, commissions, and how their current agent is remunerated. Too often, they share that their current agent is evasive or unable to provide clear answers. This creates uncertainty and, in some cases, a genuine fear that the manager may get into trouble if they answer incorrectly. This is not the foundation for trust that our industry needs.
When “Transparency” Gets Lost in the Fine Print
It’s one thing to disclose relationships and interests; it’s another to make those disclosures truly understandable. Take, for example, a recent notice sent to an owners corporation. The document outlines the insurance service arrangement, stating that the strata managing agent receives no direct payments, but that a broker’s fee will be payable to an associated entity if services are used. It goes on to disclose that the managing agent, the broker, and an administrative support company are all “associated entities” or “related bodies corporate.” The notice assures owners that there are no direct financial interests and that all quotes are obtained independently, but the web of relationships is so intricate that only someone with a legal or financial background could fully grasp the implications.
This is disclosure, yes, but is it transparency? If owners need a degree to understand who benefits and how, the spirit of transparency is lost.
What Real Transparency Looks Like
(a) Clearly outline every financial relationship and interest in plain English.
(b) Explain who is paid, how much, and for what purpose.
(c) Make it easy for owners to identify any potential conflicts of interest.
If understanding these arrangements requires specialist knowledge, then true transparency has not been achieved.
Fake vs Real Transparency
(1) Fake Transparency: “We don’t take commissions,” (but accept broker fees or have ownership in related entities).
(2) Real Transparency: “Here’s every financial arrangement we have, and here’s how it affects you.”
Our Commitment to Transparency
At Bettr, I don’t claim to have all the answers or to be perfect. But I am committed to continually improving transparency, both in my own business and across the industry. We’re making a conscious effort to ensure that expected costs for the first year are set out in plain English within our agreements, so owners corporations can make informed decisions. While these details have always been discussed in meetings with committees, we’re now making sure nothing gets lost when it comes time for the broader owners corporation to decide. For us, it’s not about ticking boxes; it’s about clarity, openness, and making things genuinely understandable. That’s the standard we’re striving for, and it’s encouraging to see more of the industry moving in this direction. I know we’re not perfect, but we’re committed to chasing that ideal – especially when it comes to transparency.
Recognising Industry Leaders
I also want to give special recognition to the strata companies and the outstanding strata professionals within them, who are truly leading the way on transparency. While I won’t single anyone out by name, I know first-hand that many of these organisations are not just keeping pace with change; they are actively driving it. They’re making deliberate, values-driven decisions to adapt, innovate, and set higher standards for openness in our industry. Their leadership and willingness to embrace transparency are helping to reshape the landscape of strata for the better, and they deserve to be acknowledged for their commitment to progress.
SCA: Continuing to Lead
To the SCA and its leadership: please continue to champion genuine transparency and plain-language disclosure. The move towards a no-commission model is a positive step, and the opportunity now is to ensure all members embrace this higher standard for the benefit of the entire industry.
Committees: Setting Expectations
Committees should feel empowered to request written disclosure policies that are clear and easy to understand. Consider asking:
(1) Do you receive any payments or benefits from third parties?
(2) Do you have ownership or financial interest in any brokerage or related entity?
(3) How do you disclose these arrangements?
(4) Are your fees fully inclusive?
(5) What safeguards ensure impartial advice?
If answers from your strata manager are unclear or evasive, consider escalating your questions to their supervisor or the person they report to. If you still cannot obtain clear information, it may be time to seek a provider who genuinely values openness and transparency.
The industry is evolving, and genuine transparency is essential for building trust with owners and peers alike. Let’s set a higher standard, one where openness isn’t just promised but practised.
Yours in strata,
JM