30 January 2026
Transparency in strata is often treated as a disclosure problem, as though better paperwork, longer reports, or more detailed declarations will naturally lead to better outcomes.
In practice, most of the information people say they want already exists. Relationships are disclosed. Interests are declared. Processes are documented. Yet frustration persists, trust erodes, and outcomes rarely change.
The issue isn’t the absence of transparency.
It’s that responsibility for understanding and acting on that transparency is often abstract – shared, deferred, or quietly avoided.
When information is technically disclosed but practically unintelligible, transparency exists in form, not in function.
The transparency paradox
Over time, strata has responded to scrutiny by increasing disclosure. Notices are longer. Wording is more careful. References to legislation are more explicit.
On paper, this looks like progress.
In reality, disclosure has increasingly become a defensive exercise, designed to meet legal requirements while avoiding disruption. Information is provided but rarely framed in a way that allows an ordinary lot owner to clearly understand what it means for them.
This is how transparency stalls: not through concealment, but through abstraction.
A practical example: insurance arrangements in plain sight
Consider a scenario I’ve seen recently, which reflects a broader pattern rather than any single business.
A strata managing agent provides committees with a formal notice explaining its insurance arrangement. The notice makes a clear point early on the strata manager does not receive insurance commission.
For many readers, that statement alone provides reassurance.
Elsewhere in the same notice, it is disclosed that the insurance services are provided by a related entity within the broader corporate group. The relationship is acknowledged. The disclosure is technically correct. The legislative references are cited.
What is not explained in plain English is how the overall group benefits economically from that arrangement.
The structure typically works like this:
while the strata management business does not receive commission directly, it has an ownership interest – or is connected through ownership – to the insurance brokerage. Profits generated by the brokerage flow to shareholders or beneficiaries within the group.
In economic terms, the outcome can be similar – and sometimes greater – than receiving commission outright.
Yet that reality is not stated clearly. It must be inferred.
Why this matters
This is not a question of legality.
It’s a question of understanding.
Most lot owners are not expected to understand corporate group structures, indirect benefit flows, or how ownership interests translate into incentives. Nor should they have to piece that together across multiple paragraphs and definitions.
When disclosures rely on technical distinctions, “no direct commission”, “related entity”, “no additional fees,” without explaining the practical effect, responsibility for interpretation quietly shifts onto the reader.
Transparency, in that moment, stops doing its job.
Where responsibility gets lost
This is not about bad faith. It’s about how responsibility dissolves in shared systems.
Three things tend to happen.
1. Disclosure becomes the finish line
Once something is declared somewhere in the paperwork, the obligation feels complete, even if the implications are not obvious to the people receiving it.
2. Questioning becomes optional
Committees assume compliance equals adequacy. Owners assume someone else has understood the detail. Managers assume that disclosure satisfies the requirement.
Everyone has access.
No one clearly owns the question: “How does this arrangement actually benefit the business?”
3. Plain English is avoided because it’s uncomfortable
Saying “we don’t receive commission” is easy.
Saying “we still benefit financially through ownership in a related entity” is harder, even when true.
So disclosures are drafted to be correct rather than clear.
This is not an integrity issue
It’s important to be precise.
In most cases, these arrangements are disclosed and lawful. The documentation exists. The statutory boxes are ticked.
The failure is not one of honesty.
It is one of ownership.
Transparency that requires professional interpretation to be meaningful places the burden in the wrong place. It assumes understanding rather than enabling it.
What functional transparency would look like
Functional transparency does not require businesses to abandon commercial interests. Profit is not the issue.
Clarity is.
In the example above, functional transparency would sound something like this:
“While we do not receive insurance commission directly, our business is connected through ownership to the insurance brokerage providing these services. This means the group may benefit financially from the brokerage’s performance. We want you to be aware of this so you can assess whether you’re comfortable with that arrangement.”
That explanation is not radical.
It is professional.
It allows committees and owners to make informed judgments rather than relying on assumptions created by technical language.
Transparency as a maturity marker
Transparency is often framed as disruption, something adversarial or destabilising.
In reality, it is a marker of governance maturity.
Mature systems do not rely on silence for stability. They do not confuse legality with clarity. They understand that trust is built when incentives are explained in terms people can actually understand.
Until then, we will continue to see the same pattern:
information everywhere, responsibility nowhere, and transparency that exists on paper but not in practice.
JM
Founder + Managing Director
Bettr Strata