On the final day of submissions for the draft MVIRI Code of Conduct, major automotive groups have come out in opposition to its handling of key issues.
The industry feedback period for the crucial MVIRI Code of Conduct governing relations between repairers and insurers ends on June 23 in anticipation of a final Code being developed later in the year.
Both the MTAA and VACC have created submissions to the draft code governing relations between insurers s and repairers arguing in its current form it is not ‘fit for purpose’ in the hope of further reforms.
An independent review by Dr Michale Schaper in 2022 found the old code was largely unknown and under-utilised for the modern collision repair industry and so put in place the long process of redrawing the document so that the end result was both amenable and binding to all parties.
Imbalance ‘remains’
But both motor industry advocacy groups have argued the current draft code fails to properly address power imbalances in industry relations and will not provide a viable code to ensure a self-regulating collision repair industry.
“Rather than addressing the issues that have long undermined fairness in the industry, the draft risks entrenching insurer dominance, marginalising the professional judgement of repairers, and failing to deliver the transparency, enforceability, and governance standards expected of a modern co-regulatory framework,” the MTAA argues in its draft submission.
“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.”
READ MORE;Code ‘falls short’ : MTAA compiles feedback to prompt reform
The VACC has also opposed the code in its current form, with VACC Peter Jones saying across Victoria and Tasmania, multiple members have voiced their opposition at forums and in submissions.
“The depth of concern expressed by our members during this consultation process has been extraordinary,” Jones says.
“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.
“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 VACC argues code in its draft form 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.”
Legal review
They also commissioned barrister Michael Whitten KC to examine the draft Code, who identified significant technical drafting issues around its enforceability because codes were voluntary instruments and not regulatory.
Whitten also highlighted issues relating to its adjudicator model that lacked safeguards to ensure independence, defined processes, and appeal rights, risking breaches of natural justice.
Whitten’s report also noted the Code Administrative Committee’s structure ws not sufficiently independent, as the casting vote provision raised concerns about balanced decision-making.
He submitted that the proposed CAC and adjudicator roles were insufficiently separated, risking conflicts of interest and that the committee’s composition “did not meet contemporary standards of institutional independence in self-regulatory environments.”
What the VACC wants
The VACC is calling for the CAC to be restructured to include independent members, end-user advocates, and technical experts.
It also maintains the draft Code also fails to adequately regulate the use of artificial intelligence in assessments, potentially creating unfair advantages for well-resourced insurers.
It has listed 16 areas in total where it believes the code can be improved, better ;protect customer rights, create greater fairness for repaiers and add accountability and transpercncy to the repair process.
See the full list of recommendations here
Both groups have supported the importance of the code and the process but say they they want to ensure a final Code is fair, pragmatic, and delivers improvements for all parties.
“The Motor Trades Association of Australia remains committed to working collaboratively with the Insurance Council of Australia and all stakeholders in strengthening the MVIRI Code of Conduct. This is an opportunity to reaffirm the professionalism, skill, and safety focus of Australia’s vehicle repair industry.”
MTA NSW joins call for reform
MTA NSW has also submitted detailed feedback on the Code of Conduct that was developed through extensive consultation with members across NSW and the ACT
It offers practical and constructive recommendations aimed at fostering a fairer, more sustainable, and future-ready collision repair industry.
The MTA NSW says it fully supports the recommendations of Schaper’s review and acknowledges the collaborative efforts of all parties in shaping a revised Code that prioritises clarity, improved governance, and enhanced accountability.
It has focussed on five key areas:
Governance and Compliance:
MTA NSW advocates for clearer guidelines for sanctions, transparent publication of CAC decisions, and the establishment of an appeal process to ensure natural justice. These measures are designed to build industry trust and guarantee fair and proportionate penalties, particularly for small businesses.
Estimate and Assessment Processes:
Significant reforms are proposed to enhance fairness and efficiency. This includes reinforcing transparency in estimation, mandating the inclusion of government charges in estimates, and accelerating approvals and payments for supplementary work. The submission also calls for timely payment of parts and invoices to alleviate cash flow pressures on small businesses, codified standards for assessments and repairs, and a formal Code of Conduct for estimators and assessors.
Methods of Repair:
Emphasising consumer safety and industry professionalism, we stress the critical importance of prioritising OEM repair methods and acknowledging the validity of Paint Company methodologies. The use of genuine OEM or authorised parallel import parts is recommended for vehicles still under warranty, and only qualified, licensed, or OEM-certified repairers should undertake authorised repairs.
–Dispute Resolution Process (DRP):
To improve accessibility for small businesses, MTA NSW recommends simplifying DRP procedures. The submission also suggests that adjudications should be binding, with limited allowances for appeals in cases involving safety or OEM warranty breaches. It is further recommended that adjudicators possess demonstrated experience in estimating, assessing, and repair methodology, with transparent role descriptions.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI):
While recognising the increasing role of AI in the industry, MTA NSW firmly states that any AI-generated estimate or assessment must undergo review and approval by a qualified human to ensure accuracy and accountability.
An updated code is expected in early 2026.
READ MORE: Download the draft Code of Conduct here
The draft was developed by the Code Administration Committee made up of representatives from the Insurance Council of Australia and the Motor Trades Association of Australia.
Earlier this year as the draft was opened up for feedback, the CAC posed a number of questions around formative issues for the collision repair industry aimed at generating interest and reaction from repairers.
IN an explanatory note it asked three questions to help frame industry feedback, including how long should be allowed for the insurer-repairer to resolve a dispute before it is allowed to proceed to expert adjudication or mediation?
It also asked what should the appropriate skill sets, experience and attributes of an adjudicator be along with what Code sanctions should be?
Long journey
It follows a long journey and extensive work following Dr Michael Schaper’s review in 2023 of the old code that found it was under utilised and too little known about in the industry. The Code Administration Committee was set up in and a rewrite conducted last year.
The updated Code aims to improve clarity, fairness, and effectiveness in several critical areas, including Sanctions and penalties, assessment and estimation times, methods of repair, and dispute resolution processes.
The consultation period will also make available proposed changes to the governance structure of the Code and formalisation of the Code Administration Committee under an incorporated association.
The draft Code and supporting documents can be found on the consultation website here