It’s called Marks of Life by Spanish artist Lupo Sol.

And, to us, it evokes feelings [and thoughts] about how many strata citizens internalise their experience of work and life in strata title.

In it, they ask whether strata insurance commissions are understood, whether conflicts of interest are managed, whether their proposed options make sense, and whether anything’s missing. Spoiler: everything is missing.

And, here’s what we think everyone who makes a submission to NSW Fair Trading will say in a quick summary.

For our more detailed explanation of what we think they’ll say and why, become a paid subscriber to read the full GoStrata Media article here.

Subscribe now

WHAT STRATA STAKEHOLDERS WILL SAY …

26% of all respondents will simply answer ‘I don’t know’, since they don’t know enough to understand the commission system.

92% of strata owners will say ‘Ban commissions’, as they see them as conflicted, opaque and an unjustified tax on rising premiums.

100% of strata commentators will announce they ‘always said commissions were a problem’ to credential themselves.

One very large strata management business will warn that banning strata insurance commissions will collapse the strata title sector, since they’re already saying that.

Another very large strata management business will stay completely silent …guess who?

Strata Community Association NSW will propose phasing commissions out over a lengthy period as a halfway bet.

Strata insurers, underwriters & brokers will politely support ‘whatever outcome is decided’, knowing their revenue streams remain untouched.

Interstate strata stakeholders will say nothing and pray that the attention stays on NSW and not their state.

So, we already know what the responses to NSW Fair Trading’s invitation by strata stakeholders will be. And, frankly, they don’t much matter to the outcomes or the issues

That’s because the real question isn’t ‘what strata stakeholders think’, it’s who NSW Fair Trading believes the strata title system should serve.

The first incident occurred on 3 November in a mixed-use residential tower in Jordan, Kowloon, the Garley Building, and the second on 18 November in a Tuen Mun high-rise, Wang Fuk Court. Both buildings were more than 30 storeys, densely occupied, and [crucially] had complex internal layouts that made firefighting operations extremely challenging.

In the Jordan incident, the fire is believed to have started in a lower-floor commercial unit and travelled rapidly through ventilation and service risers. More than 40 people were hospitalised, with multiple casualties caused by smoke inhalation in the building’s mid-levels, where thick smoke accumulated. The Tuen Mun blaze, thought to have originated from an electrical fault in a subdivided flat, reignited long standing concerns about illegal alterations and overloaded electrical systems in ageing towers.

Government and regulatory response is now well underway, and Hong Kong’s Fire Services Department and Buildings Department launched parallel investigations within hours of each incident.

Preliminary Fire Services Department reports have confirmed several contributing factors:

• aging fire-service installations,

• obstructed escape routes,

• combustible materials stored in common areas, and

• non-compliant internal partitions in several apartments.

The Buildings Department has already issued statutory notices to owners requiring rectification of identified fire-safety breaches, with compliance deadlines expected to fall between February and April 2026.

The Chief Executive has announced a High-Rise Residential Fire Safety Taskforce, expected to deliver its first findings in January 2026. Public consultations on proposed amendments to the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance are anticipated to begin shortly after, focusing on mandatory sprinkler retrofits, enhanced emergency lighting standards, and stricter enforcement of unauthorised building works in older structures.

For affected strata apartment residents, temporary housing has been assigned, and government financial assistance schemes are being processed. Insurance-related assessments are ongoing, with multiple strata-style owners corporations (known in Hong Kong as Owners’ Corporations) now working through damage quantification and reinstatement planning. Early estimates suggest full reinstatement works could take 12 to 24 months, depending on structural findings still to come.

Looking forward, the formal investigation reports are expected in mid-2026, with legislative changes likely to be tabled in the Hong Kong Legislative Council later in the year.

The fires have also sparked region-wide conversations about high-rise strata apartment resilience, ageing building stock, and the complexities of multi owner governance; issues that echo loudly for strata citizens and communities everywhere.

GoStrata Media will continue monitoring developments and the lessons Australian strata title could learn over the coming months.

This time, it’s another set of new strata laws that are currently under debate in the Parliament.

The Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 was introduced on 18 November 2025, had its second reading in the Legislative Assembly and is waiting consideration by the Legislative Council. So, it may be finalised by the time Strata Santa arrives.

The Bill implements the Government’s third and final actions to implement the recommendations from the 2021 statutory review, covering 28 of the recommendations as well as some additional changes responding to more recent stakeholder concerns.

We won’t go into the changes now and until they are finalised, but given the history of recent NSW strata law changes, we don’t expect much to change.

You can read:

• the Strata Schemes Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous) Bill 2025 here,

• the Explanatory Note here, and

• Minister Mr Anoulack Chanthivong’s second reading speech to the Legislative Assembly here.

So, enjoy your NSW strata festive season, getting on top of a few more new strata laws.

So, whatever you think, here’s your chance to say it, and why.

The submissions will make fascinating reading.

You can find out more about and complete the NSW Fair Trading Have Your Say survey here.

And, you can read the NSW Fair Trading Strata Commissions Review issues paper here.

Rather, the Victorian Government has initiated a consultation project under Engage Victoria by appointing an Expert Panel to review strata laws.

There’s a Consultation Paper [of course], there’s been a survey [which is increasingly popular with state governments], and the Expert Panel is examining and will make recommendations in relation to the following things.

Terms of Reference

1. Whether the governance and related reforms to the Act made by the Amendment Act are meeting their objectives.

2. Whether the amendments made to the Act by the Short-Stay Act are meeting their objectives.

3. The need for any specific arrangements under the Act for lot owners who experience difficulty paying their OC fees due to financial hardship, and how such arrangements could be balanced against the interests of other lot owners.

4. Whether the existing arrangements in the Act to promote the probity and ethical conduct of OC managers are sufficient to protect the interests of lot owners.

5. Whether existing measures in the Act to address non-compliance committed by OC managers, lot owners, residents, and others with duties under the Act are sufficiently robust.

6. What is the most appropriate model for collective sales under Part 5 of the Subdivision Act 1988, including examining reforms to the current threshold, and what safeguards should be provided to protect lot owners who do not wish to sell.

7. Whether existing voting processes in OCs are clear, effective, and fair for all lot owners.

The Expert Panel was to present their report to the Victorian Government by 1 December 2025, but there’s no sign of it yet.

So, we’re keen to see what they say and will keep looking out for it.

You can find out more about the review and read the Consultation Paper here

And, you can see the survey here.

It was a bit of Dejavu since SCA NSW did exactly the same in 2014 when the spectre of strata insurance commission bans was also looming.

And, you might also recall that I wrote about the outcomes of the 2014 study and critiqued the report by identifying 9 major flaws and inadequacies in the Article A Critical Analysis of the AEC Group 2014 Strata Insurance Commissions Economic Impact Report; or, what was wrong with this report about banning strata insurance commissions 10 years ago …

According to the SCA NSW announcement, the report would be completed in the second quarter of 2025 [which is almost 6 months ago].

So, what’s happened to the latest study commissioned by Strata Community Association NSW?

Did the economic impact study by the AEC Group happen, or not?

Maybe it didn’t happen.

Especially, given that since September 2025, SCA NSW has changed its position to introducing a ban on its strata manager members receiving insurance commissions, phased out over time from January 2026 and then to make it optional for strata manager members when PICA complained.

Or, it could have been shelved for a range of other commercial, political, practical or other reasons.

If the AEC Group economic impact study was done, what did it say?

Presumably, if the AEC Group economic impact study showed that it would cost consumers more than they were already paying for insurance and strata manager under the current model, we’d have heard about it.

So, I’m guessing that any economic impact study wouldn’t and/or didn’t come to that conclusion.

Or, did the AEC Group economic impact study include bad news?

Maybe the AEC Group economic impact study contained the bad news [for strata managers] that ending insurance commissions wouldn’t increase the costs to strata buildings, strata owners and the community at large. Or, conversely, it contain good news for strata citizens.

If so, then I’m not surprised we haven’t heard any more about it.

Either way, it would be good to know what Strata Community Association NSW is doing for its members [and the larger strata title community] on this important issue.

We’ve asked SCA NSW … and will let you know what they say.

As this Sydney Morning Herald article Risks to structural integrity’: Photos reveal Sydney apartment tower’s slab defects and leaks explains.

Serious structural and waterproofing defects have re-emerged as a major crisis for apartment owners after the NSW Building Commission issued a rectification order for the Harbour Mill development in Pyrmont. Inspectors uncovered “uncontrolled cracking” in concrete slabs and basement walls, extensive water ingress, inadequate structural connections and multiple safety risks across the 10-storey building. The Commission warned that the cracking may indicate “structural distress and failure,” and that the defects pose clear risks to the building’s integrity and to occupant safety.

The Harbour Mill case highlights the broader resurgence of severe strata defects across NSW, occurring even in relatively new buildings. Residents of the Pyrmont tower had already been hit with a $13.1 million cladding replacement project, only to now face further uncertainty and potential financial exposure as the developer is ordered to carry out repairs within eight months. Owners describe rapid deterioration, ongoing leaks, stained and damaged interiors, and plummeting apartment values [some falling 20 per cent below market], leaving many unable to sell, relocate or meet rising levies.

This latest incident comes amid a statewide escalation in defect enforcement, with the Building Commission recording a record 1015 site inspections and 405 rectification orders this financial year.

The Pyrmont order underscores the continuing systemic failures in design, construction and regulatory oversight that have allowed serious defects to persist a decade after completion. For many strata owners, it reflects a deepening crisis: growing financial hardship, safety fears, and eroding confidence in NSW’s promise of better-built strata apartment buildings and evidence that the era of serious strata defects is far from over.

The Victorian government has announced a major planning overhaul that will scrap minimum car-parking requirements for strata apartment developments located near public transport and introduce a new infrastructure contributions scheme.

Removing long-standing parking mandates aims to accelerate apartment construction in well-connected areas, with the government arguing that outdated rules have slowed development and inflated housing costs. Citing Grattan Institute analysis, the government says car-parking requirements add around $70,000 per home, while up to 40 per cent of inner-city parking spaces now sit unused.

From 2027, strata apartment developers building within designated train and tram activity centres will be required to contribute $11,350 per new dwelling to help fund local infrastructure such as parks, roads, schools and community facilities. The government expects the new system, covering 58–68 activity centres, to raise around $4 billion by 2051. Funds will be split between local councils and the Victorian government, with the aim of ensuring growing high-density neighbourhoods have adequate public amenities. The reforms also set varying car-parking rules based on public transport access, with no minimums in well-serviced areas but continued requirements further from transit.

However, the property industry has strongly criticised the plan, warning that additional levies will further undermine the financial viability of apartment projects and ultimately increase purchase prices for buyers. Industry groups argue the policy contradicts the government’s call for more density, saying it adds costs in areas that have never previously paid infrastructure contributions.

Read more about the changes in The Age article Car park requirements set to be scrapped in planning shake-up

Here’s the next find in our ongoing search for beauty and artistry in strata title stuff.

It’s called Book 29 by Japanese artist Kouta Sasai.

And, it evokes feelings [and thoughts] about the unusual beauty from the juxta positioning of higher density and traditional homes in the modern urban environment.

One of those ways is by requiring strata buildings to include a Financial Hardship Information Statement with all strata levy notices which includes the following information.

Important Information for Owners Experiencing Financial Hardship

Strata levies are essential to cover shared property expenses.

If you are struggling to pay your strata levies due to financial hardship, contact your strata manager or committee as soon as possible to discuss what options are available.

The sooner you reach out for help, the more options you’ll have to prevent falling further behind.

These options may include applying for an affordable payment plan, waiving interest charges, more time to pay, or other options to help with your situation.

Free, confidential and independent financial counselling is available through the National Debt Helpline. Call 1800 007 007 to speak with a financial counsellor or visit ndh.org.au for more information or to use their live chat service.

If your hardship request isn’t being handled fairly, keep paying what you can and keep trying to catch up on payments.

To understand your rights under NSW strata laws, access a translated copy of this information, or apply for free strata mediation if you have a dispute about your levies, visit nsw.gov.au/strata-levies-help or call 13 32 20.

For language assistance, call 13 14 50 (ask for an interpreter in your language).

It’s really not much.

But it’s a lot more than NSW strata owners have enjoyed for the last 50 years, and when coupled with other changes about recovering unpaid strata levies, will help many strata owners in financial difficulty.

You can find out more about these things at NSW Fair Trading’s website.

The article [in summary] reports that:

• Victorian strata managers are continuing to charge unlawful administrative and debt recovery fees to lot owners despite repeated VCAT rulings that such fees have no basis in law because the only automatic financial consequence for late payment is penalty interest capped at 10 per cent.

• Yet Victorian strata owners are routinely being billed $50 to $150 extra through strata management software generated additions or owners corporation resolutions that managers know cannot be enforced without a VCAT order.

• Recent VCAT cases show managers loading thousands of dollars in invalid charges onto strata owners’ accounts, prompting advocates to accuse the industry of acting ‘above the law’ and profiting from illegal fees.

• Documents obtained by The Age show strata managers are still passing motions to impose these charges and automatically adding them to fee notices.

• Some strata managers defend the practice on grounds of fairness to compliant owners, while others admit to reversing charges after the default system settings were exposed.

It’s another damning expose of strata management business practices.

So, unsurprisingly, it’s prompted some pretty strong reactions from different strata citizens, like the following.

A Victorian strata management business, OCVM Group, defended the charges to The Age.

Another Victorian strata management business, Verticali Owners Corporation, blamed their management software settings and that it had turned the setting off and reversed the charges made.

Industry bodies like, Strata Community Association (Vic), said the fees were not lawful, but not predatory, arguing that managing chronic non payers in strata buildings creates unfair cost burdens and saying that VCAT decisions were not authoritative or binding.

Owner-advocacy groups like the Strata Owners Alliance say the persistence of these charges shows a culture of entitlement within strata managers, that they are out of touch and that, given modern automation, the existing lawful tools of penalty interest and tribunal enforcement are adequate to cover any necessary work.

The Strata Owners Alliance are also asking for refunds to affected strata owners.

The Victorian opposition consumer affairs spokesman, Tim McCurdy, said this demonstrates a lack of effective oversight by Consumer Affairs Victoria, calling for much stronger regulation and enforcement to end what they describe as predatory and illegal behaviour.

And, finally, there’s this LinkedIn post and comments chain which features some industry leaders getting feisty over the article and others’ comments …

You can read the full article here and have your own similar or unique reactions.

That’s a big deal.

So, it’s worth understanding the scope of the brief to the NSW Productivity and Equality Commissioner

Scope of the NSW Productivity and Equality Commissioner’s review

1. Consider whether prohibiting the payment of commissions and other conflicted payments to strata managing agents will lead to:

• better value for money for strata owners, or

• higher-quality services, or

• lower costs and simpler arrangements for strata owners, or

• any change in market conditions.

2. Assess and quantify (where possible) the costs and benefits and wider impacts of prohibiting strata managing agents from accepting commissions or other conflicted payments on:

• strata owners,

• strata managing agents, including effects on competition and workforce availability and capacity, and timeframes in which strata managing agents’ business models could adapt,

• insurers and underwriters,

• insurance brokers, and

• the NSW Government.

3. Undertake case studies of strata managing agents whose remuneration model does not include commissions or conflicted remuneration and consider their scalability to the wider strata industry.

4. Based on findings in points 1-3, identify pathways to transition away from strata commissions and other conflicted remuneration, including reforms to the regulatory framework and the intersections with the Commonwealth Government’s oversight of the insurance and insurance broker industry.

5. Examine any other related matters.

The review, the report and recommendations will be delivered by 27 February 2026.

Can’t wait.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority [AFCA] is Australia’s national, independent dispute resolution body for financial services. It acts as a free, external complaints tribunal for consumers and small businesses when they have disputes with financial firms, including insurers, and cannot resolve them directly. That specifically includes strata title insurance.

And, AFCA does that by:

• Conducting merits-based reviews of declined, reduced, delayed, or poorly handled insurance claims [meaning it looks at the dispute afresh, not just whether the insurer followed its own process] assesses the facts, evidence, product terms, good industry practice, fairness, and relevant law.

• Reviewing both the decision itself, but also whether the insurer acted fairly, promptly, transparently, and in accordance with the General Insurance Code of Practice.

• Issuing a binding determination on the insurer, requiring them to pay a claim, reassess it, refund premiums, pay compensation for financial loss, or fix a complaint-related error.

And, the processes are simple, free and can be accessed online.

A recent strata title example of what can be achieved occurred when AFCA increased a strata building’s insurance claim for vandalism to include the replacement of prematurely deteriorating elevator cables, as reported by Insurance News in this article.

So, if you’re a strata building, strata committee, strata owner or manager with refused or partly refused insurance claims, why not consider an AFCA complaint to get it approved and/or recover more money?

You can find out more about AFCA here.

In the article, Dean contrasts the positive macro environment for the strata title sector with declining strata manager profit margins and increasing business costs to a conclusion that there are opportunities in there, including the following interesting points[even if it’s blatantly promoting Macquarie’s financial services and related property services businesses].

• Australian strata buildings are estimated to be worth $1.3 trillion and rising fast. So, there are significant assets to manage.

• Since the 1990s, there’s been a 78% increase in the number of people living in strata buildings. So, there are a lot of consumers to service.

• Government policies are strata friendly to promote development, ease housing affordability, increase GDP, improve government revenues via taxes, duties and fees. So, these trends will continue.

• Technology, especially for knowledge and professional service workers, is developing fast. So, there are opportunities to improve productivity and customer service levels more economically.

• New business management theories, like Michael Maness’ approach to deal with ‘Dominant Logic’ offer modern change and organisational motivation strategies.

Read Dean’s full article here.

Australian property values have been growing strongly [perhaps too strongly] for more than 20 years.

And, this AFR article What Investors Can Learn from 20 Years of Property Data provides an interesting snapshot of how that’s affected different property types and locations, showing value increases of between 80% and 256%.

But what interested [and surprised] us more was the data around apartment prices.

Like, the fact that the greatest apartment value increases were in Hobart [a 133% increase], then Adelaide [a 129% increase], with Melbourne third [a 109% increase] followed by Brisbane, trailed by Sydney, Perth, Canberra and Darwin [in that order].

Or, that compared to houses, apartments value increases in the same locations have lagged behind by somewhere between 28% to 40% lower over the last 20 years.

And, finally, that after lagging behind house prices growth for so long, apartment prices are currently growing faster than house prices, especially in Brisbane and south-east Queensland, Perth and Adelaide.

It’s good news about the past and the future for strata citizens and other strata title stakeholders.

You can read the full article here.

The Issues Paper is to inform a review of those kinds of revenues and to what, if any, further changes the NSW Government may make to strata title laws affecting strata buildings, managers and owners.

It covers background information about strata manager revenues, commissions and regulation, the principles Government apply to changes that have sector wide economic effects, and includes 14 questions for strata stakeholders to consider [divided into 4 categories covering strata sector understanding, the effectiveness of current controls, whether the Issues Paper accurately describes the likely impacts, and asking whether other conflicts of interest need to be considered].

Most interestingly, the Issues Paper only includes 3 options that the NSW Government is considering.

Option One: Self-regulation, building on the Strata Community Association (NSW) plan to support and encourage members to transition away from insurance commissions.

Option Two: The NSW Government would introduce a ban on strata managers accepting commissions of any kind.

Option Three: Like option two, but with an additional ban on strata managers arranging certain services for strata buildings that involve commissions further up the supply chain.

That’s a pretty clear clue that the best outcome NSW strata managers can expect is having some time before they need to stop receiving strata insurance commissions. And, the worst outcome could be a lot more restrictive.

You can read the Strata Commissions Review Issues Paper here.

That seems inarguable to me.

So, improving strata building design should be a goal of all strata stakeholders.

That’s why this competition and the strata building design outcomes from it interested us.

Decoding Density is an international design competition run by Urbanarium in Vancouver, Canada, where entrants were asked to come up with development forms and structures for one of six actual 5-plus-storey residential redevelopment sites that had to comply with codes and regulations to address climate change and affordability.

There were 85 entries from 9 countries with winners from Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and the US.

The designs and innovative ideas that won and received honourable mentions are amazing, with clever repositioning and integration of the buildings and open spaces on the sites.

You can find out more about Decoding Density and see the entries and winning submissions here.

But you’re not alone.

Even the billionaires and millionaires of New York are going through exactly the same things.

Like at 432 Park Avenue [on the so called ‘Billionaires’ Row], where only a few years after it was completed, water began seeping through ceilings, the elevators broke down repeatedly, living rooms creaked and swayed when windy, and the façade became cracked, gouged and pockmarked. Their building defect repair cost estimates are now over $100 million, and some advisors say that if the defects are not fixed, the building will become uninhabitable.

As one of the tallest buildings in New York, where the 125 apartments sold for more than $2.5 billion, that’s not a great, good or even satisfactory outcome.

So, there are now 2 lawsuits by the condominium [US strata corporations] against the developers, builder, architects and other building designers with no agreement or quick end in sight.

So it seems that strata building defects are a familiar story for strata buildings and their owners, residents, committees and managers everywhere and at all price levels.

Read more about 432 Park Avenue in the NY Times article A Tower on Billionaires’ Row Is Full of Cracks. Who’s to Blame? by Dionne Searcey, Stefanos Chen and Urvashi Uberoy here or watch their YouTube Short here.

In case you missed them via our socials, here are this week’s GoStrata Daily Posts so you can catch up on what caught our strata eyes’ and ears’ attention.