MTAA has held a number of in-person and online consultation sessions with the industry, nationally, over the consultation period which spanned from 5 March to 23 June and listened to the concerns of repairers and other stakeholders over the wording of the draft Code of Conduct.
"MTAA acknowledges the value of the MVIRI Code as a framework for guiding the relationship between insurers and repairers. However, to remain effective and relevant, the Code must evolve in response to the changing dynamics of the automotive and insurance sectors, advances in repair technologies, and rising expectations around transparency, governance, and fairness." today's release states.
MTAA has prepared a submission outlining its analysis of the draft Code, highlighting areas where amendments are required, and providing detailed recommendations to address structural imbalances identified through the industry consultation process. These recommendations will be presented to the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) as part of the broader negotiation process to finalise a revised Code.
"Key provisions either lack clarity or reinforce imbalances, while critical elements such as payment fairness, dispute resolution, and protections against insurer retaliation are inadequately addressed. Without substantive reform, the draft Code will fall short of delivering the balanced, forward-looking framework that industry and consumers require.
"MTAA’s objective is to ensure the final Code is fair, pragmatic, and delivers improvements for all parties. It is anticipated that negotiations with the ICA will conclude by the end of 2025, with implementation of the updated Code to follow in early 2026.
"A persistent concern raised throughout consultation is the extent to which insurers overreach in instructing repairers, who are the technical experts, on how to repair vehicles. This includes insurer direction on repair methods, replacement part selection, and adherence to timeframes or scopes that may not align with manufacturer standards or safe repair practices.
"The revised Code must explicitly reaffirm the authority of repairers to determine appropriate repair methods in accordance with OEM guidelines or recognised industry standards and limit the capacity for insurer interference in technical decisions."
Through the consultation process, MTAA identified several priority issues where the proposed Code falls short of supporting fair, transparent, and sustainable industry practice. These concerns broadly align with five key themes:
- Assessor standards and role clarity – Concerns about the absence of mandatory certification for assessors and the need for clearer professional standards to support consistency and credibility.
- Influence of insurers on estimates – Ongoing dissatisfaction with the extent of insurer control over estimating methods, labour rates, and the autonomy of assessors.
- Dispute resolution – Strong calls for a more accessible, impartial, and cost-effective adjudication framework that ensures all parties receive a fair hearing.
- Use of technology and AI – General support for innovation, tempered by concerns about algorithmic bias and the absence of human validation in automated assessments.
- Commercial pressure and power imbalance – Recognition of the systemic disadvantage faced by small and independent repairers in negotiating with large insurers or navigating Code processes.
You can download the Code of Conduct Review here.
VACC rejects code
“We do not support the current draft code,” said VACC CEO Peter Jones. “Rather than creating a fair and balanced regulatory framework, this draft threatens to entrench the existing power imbalances that have plagued our industry for decades.”
The submission, informed by extensive feedback from VACC members across Victoria and Tasmania through written submissions and industry forums, identifies several critical failings in the proposed code. The draft code grants insurers excessive control over repair methodologies, parts selection, and pricing structures while marginalising the professional expertise of qualified repairers. Particularly concerning are provisions such as Clause 6.2(c), which grants repairers “permission” to include essential costs like paint, parts, and mandatory environmental levies, highlighting shifts in authority that legitimise insurer overreach.
The VACC commissioned The Hon. Michael Whitten KC, one of Australia’s pre-eminent barristers, to examine the draft Code. His analysis identified significant technical drafting issues and highlighted how the draft Code reflects a bias towards insurers whilst failing to support fair market conditions.
“The depth of concern expressed by our members during this consultation process has been extraordinary,” said Jones.
“From small family-owned workshops to larger repair operations, the message has been consistent – this draft Code does not address the fundamental issues facing our industry.”
Specifically, the Code Administration Committee (CAC) requires urgent reform to be more representative, transparent, and accountable to all stakeholders, including consumers. The VACC calls the CAC to be restructured to include independent members, end-user advocates, and technical experts. The draft Code also fails to adequately regulate the use of artificial intelligence in assessments, potentially creating unfair advantages for well-resourced insurers.
The VACC is advocating for substantial reforms, including mandatory payment for repair estimates requested by insurers, reciprocal timeframes requiring insurers to accept or reject estimates within five business days, fair dispute resolution processes with appropriate cost allocation, and robust warranty arrangements that don’t unfairly burden repairers.
The VACC will continue to engage constructively in the consultation process, working toward a regulatory framework that genuinely respects the role and expertise of repairers, addresses structural power imbalances, and delivers fair and sustainable outcomes for the industry and the consumers it serves.