The Senate Economics References Committee has criticised the contempt that some directors show for company laws, the “mild” consequences of non-compliance and the low likelihood that unlawful conduct will be detected.
In its report “Insolvency in the Australian construction industry: I just want to be paid” – published 3 December 2015 – the Senate Committee states:
The committee considers that the estimates of the incidence of illegal phoenix activity detailed in this report suggest that construction industry is being beset by a growing culture among some company directors of disregard for the corporations law. This view is reinforced by the anecdotal evidence received by the committee which indicates that phoenixing is considered by some in the industry as merely the way business is done in order to make a profit.
The committee is particularly concerned at evidence that a culture has developed in sections of the industry in which some company directors consider compliance with the corporations law to be optional, because the consequences of non-compliance are so mild and the likelihood that unlawful conduct will be detected is so low.
This culture is reflected in the number of external administrator reports indicating possible breaches of civil and criminal misconduct by company directors in the construction industry. Over three thousand possible cases of civil misconduct and nearly 250 possible criminal offences under the Corporations Act 2001 were reported in a single year in the construction industry. This is a matter for serious concern. It suggests an industry in which company directors’ contempt for the rule of law is becoming all too common.
[from Executive summary, Phoenixing (page xix) and paragraph 5.100 (page 87)]
Contents of Senate Report
For an overview of the numerous insolvency issues considered in the report, the Table of Contents is reproduced below (minus the page numbers).
TABLE OF CONTENTS | |||||
Membership of Committee | |||||
Executive summary | |||||
Insolvency affects everyone | |||||
Early detection is critical to curbing illegal phoenix activity and preventing | |||||
smaller scale insolvencies from becoming more significant | |||||
More needs to be done to protect honest industry participants from unscrupulous | |||||
individuals | |||||
Disqualification of directors | |||||
Director Penalty Regime | |||||
Transactions entered into in order to avoid employee entitlements | |||||
Licensing arrangements | |||||
Transfer of jurisdiction of insolvency matters | |||||
Valuing debt assignments fairly | |||||
Subcontractors have a right to be paid for work completed | |||||
Retention trusts and project bank accounts | |||||
Information asymmetries | |||||
A legal obligation to warn of impending insolvency | |||||
A beneficial owners’ register and a Director Identification Number | |||||
List of recommendations | |||||
Chapter 1 | |||||
Introduction | |||||
Conduct of inquiry | |||||
Adverse comment | |||||
Acknowledgements | |||||
Structure of report | |||||
Part I (chapters 2–6) | |||||
Part II (chapters 7–12) | |||||
PART I | |||||
Quantifying the incidence, causes and cost of insolvency in the Australian | |||||
construction industry | |||||
Overview of Part I | |||||
Chapter 2 | |||||
Overview and background | |||||
What is insolvency? | |||||
Structure of the Australian construction industry | |||||
Cultural change in the Australian construction industry | |||||
Insolvency in the construction industry | |||||
Inadequate record-keeping on insolvencies | |||||
Incidence of insolvency | |||||
Causes of insolvency | |||||
Broader economic conditions and cyclical nature of the industry | |||||
Inadequate cash flow and poor industry payment practices | |||||
Level of business acumen in the construction industry | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Chapter 3 | |||||
Economic effects of construction industry insolvencies | |||||
Creditors | |||||
Total Economic Cost | |||||
Unsecured Creditors | |||||
Employees | |||||
Subcontractors | |||||
Public Revenue | |||||
Direct Costs—Taxation | |||||
Indirect Costs—Legislative Safety Net | |||||
Conclusion | |||||
Chapter 4 | |||||
Broader effects of construction industry insolvencies | |||||
Social impact | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Effect on productivity | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Potential to attract criminal elements | |||||
Outlaw motorcycle gangs and debt recovery | |||||
Reasons for criminal elements | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Chapter 5 | |||||
Illegal phoenix activity and other misconduct | |||||
What is phoenix activity? | |||||
Illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Corralling the illegal phoenix | |||||
Incidence of phoenix activity | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Effect of illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Cost of illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Impact of illegal phoenix activity on other businesses | |||||
Non-economic effects of illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Curbing illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Identifying illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Preventing and punishing illegal phoenix activity | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Other criminal and civil misconduct related to insolvencies | |||||
Incidence of civil and criminal misconduct | |||||
Nature of misconduct | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Chapter 6 | |||||
The Collapse of Walton Constructions | |||||
Background | |||||
The National Australia Bank’s relationship with Walton Constructions | |||||
What did the National Australia Bank know? | |||||
What should the National Australia Bank have done? | |||||
Committee’s view | |||||
Problem of pre-insolvency advice | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Licensing—a failure of the regulator? | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Impact of Walton Constructions Collapse | |||||
Conclusion | |||||
PART II | |||||
Assessing the legislative framework | |||||
Overview of Part II | |||||
Chapter 7 | |||||
Action against directors | |||||
Disqualification of directors | |||||
Legislative requirements | |||||
Challenges in disqualifying directors | |||||
ASIC’s high profile list | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Director Penalty Regime | |||||
Committee’s view | |||||
Transactions entered into in order to avoid employee entitlements | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Chapter 8 | |||||
Security of payments legislation | |||||
Early warning signs of insolvency | |||||
Security of payments protections | |||||
East Coast model | |||||
West Coast model | |||||
Skipping up the contractual chain | |||||
Timelines under the Security of Payment Acts | |||||
Are the Security of Payment Acts working effectively? | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Chapter 9 | |||||
Problems with the Security of Payments Acts | |||||
False statutory declarations | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Intimidation and retribution | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Enforcement costs | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Education and support | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Authorised Nominating Authorities | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Adjudication timelines | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
The problem of insolvency | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
No national security of payments Act | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Chapter 10 | |||||
A Statutory Construction Trust | |||||
Exploring a statutory construction trust model for security of payments | |||||
What is a trust? | |||||
What is retention money? | |||||
Difference between a retention trust and a trust over the entire project | |||||
In favour of the trust | |||||
Opposition to the trust | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
How would the trust operate? | |||||
Approach in Western Australia and the Northern Territory | |||||
Approach in New South Wales | |||||
Project bank accounts (PBAs) | |||||
Conclusion | |||||
Chapter 11 | |||||
Licensing arrangements | |||||
Capital Backing | |||||
Financial and business acumen | |||||
Fit and Proper Person Test | |||||
Conclusion | |||||
Chapter 12 | |||||
Additional proposed reforms | |||||
Legal obligation to warn of impending insolvency | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Increasing transparency and verifying company directors | |||||
Beneficial owners’ register | |||||
Director identification number | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Problem of pre-insolvency advice | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Valuing debt assignments fairly | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Transfer of jurisdiction of insolvency matters | |||||
Committee’s views | |||||
Coalition Senators’ Additional Comments | |||||
Appendix 1 | |||||
Submissions received | |||||
Answers to questions on notice | |||||
Appendix 2 | |||||
Public hearings and witnesses |
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.