Bills Digest no. 59, 2016–17
PDF version [707KB]
Dr Nitin Gupta
Economics Section
9
February 2017
Contents
History of the Bill
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Overview of features of the proposed
CSF regime
Assessments of Crowd-sourced funding
in Australia
Policy and Economic Rationale
Committee consideration
Senate Economics Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/Independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Table 1: financial impact
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Eligible CSF company
Key issue: change from 2015
Bill—increase in assets and turnover thresholds
Key concern: limiting access to CSF
to public companies
CSF intermediary
Key issue: change from 2015
Bill—decrease in cooling-off period
Conclusion
Date introduced: 24
November 2016
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Treasury
Commencement: Schedules
1 and 2 of the Bill will commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation or six
months after Royal Assent, whichever occurs first. Schedule 3 will commence
on the day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal
Register of Legislation website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at
February 2017.
History of the
Bill
The Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 (2015 Bill) was introduced into
the House of Representatives on 3 December 2015, and passed the House on 10
February 2016. It was introduced into the Senate on 22 February 2016, but
lapsed at dissolution of the Parliament on 9 May 2016.
The Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill
2016 (2016 Bill or the current Bill) was introduced into the House of
Representatives on 24 November 2016, and is in similar terms to the 2015 Bill.
A Bills
Digest was prepared in respect of the 2015 Bill.[1]
Much of the material in this Bills Digest has been sourced from that earlier publication.
The main differences between the two versions of the Bills are an increase in
the assets and turnover thresholds for eligible companies from $5 million to
$25 million and a reduction in the cooling-off period for retail investors from
five business days to 48 hours. These changes are discussed below.
Purpose of
the Bill
The Corporations Amendment
(Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016 (the 2016 Bill) seeks to amend the Corporations Act 2001
(Cth) to:
- establish a framework to facilitate crowd-sourced equity funding
(CSF)[2]
offers by small unlisted public companies
- provide new public companies that are eligible to crowd fund with
temporary relief from reporting and corporate governance requirements that
would usually apply and
- enable the Minister to provide that certain financial market and
clearing and settlement facility operators are exempt from specified parts of
the Australian Market Licence and clearing and settlement facility licensing
regimes.
The Bill seeks to amend the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) (ASIC Act) to make consequential amendments.
Structure
of the Bill
The Bill has three Schedules. Schedule 1 to the Bill seeks
to amend the Corporations Act to create a framework to facilitate CSF in
Australia. The new framework covers:
- eligibility
requirements for a company to fundraise via CSF, including disclosure
requirements for CSF offers
- obligations
of a CSF intermediary in facilitating CSF offers
- the
process for making CSF offers
- rules
relating to defective disclosure as part of a CSF offer and
- investor
protection provisions.[3]
Schedule 1 to the Bill also seeks to make consequential
amendments to the ASIC Act to include ‘crowd-funding service’, as
defined in the Corporations Act, in a range of financial services
covered by the ASIC Act.[4]
Schedule 2 to the Bill seeks to amend the Corporations
Act to provide new public companies that are eligible to crowd fund with
temporary relief from the reporting and corporate governance requirements that
would usually apply.[5]
Schedule 3 amends the Corporations Act to
provide greater flexibility in the Australian Market Licence (AML) and clearing
and settlement facility licencing regimes.[6]
Background
Crowd-sourced equity funding (CSF) is a relatively new concept,
and is enabled by the rise of internet technologies. As the name suggests, it
allows businesses to obtain capital from a large number of investors (that is,
a crowd) through an online platform, where each investor typically contributes
a small amount of money in return for an equity stake in the business. At its
most basic level, CSF allows people to invest in unlisted shares issued
by businesses.
CSF has gained attention because access to finance is
considered a major impediment to improved productivity and innovation,
particularly for smaller and/or newer businesses that are not able to access
the more traditional sources of financing. CSF can notionally help to alleviate
some of these constraints by introducing an additional source of finance for
these firms. However, the current regulatory framework imposes burdens and
costs that are considered significant impediments to more widespread utilisation
of CSF in Australia.
The proposed changes in this Bill are intended to
alleviate these constraints.[7]
In its broadest form, the Bill will allow small companies, which would
otherwise find it difficult to raise money through traditional sources of
finance, to raise money from the general public through an online platform. The
proposed changes are also intended to improve investment opportunities for
retail investors. However, since small businesses and start-ups also pose a
greater relative risk for such retail investors, the proposed amendments also
aim to provide protection to these investors by imposing caps on the investment
in any single offer and by imposing information and gatekeeping requirements on
licensed CSF intermediaries.
Overview of
features of the proposed CSF regime
The Explanatory
Memorandum for this Bill contains discussions of three alternative models
for CSF in Australia. These are the:
- model
proposed by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee’s (CAMAC) 2014
review[8]
of CSF in Australia
- model
adopted in New Zealand and
- post-consultation
model that amalgamates aspects of the first two and introduces additional
provisions that are not in either of these.[9]
The New Zealand CSF law[10]
has been cited as a justification and model for possible emulation in
Australia.[11]
While the New Zealand law offers a readymade model, the CAMAC report proposed
an alternative framework for CSF in Australia. During consultations regarding
the Bill, however, concerns were raised that the New Zealand model would
increase flexibility but would not provide enough protections for investors,
while the CAMAC model would increase the overall complexity of crowdfunding.[12]
The current Bill, reflecting the post-consultation model,
amalgamates aspects of both the New Zealand and CAMAC approaches, but
introduces additional elements that reflect feedback from the overall
consultation process undertaken by the government.[13]
The model set out in the Bill will operate as follows:
Small and medium Australian companies that meet
eligibility requirements for CSF funding will be able to issue securities of
the company to the general public in order to raise funds. Offers for a
company’s securities must be made through eligible CSF intermediaries, by
publishing on the latter’s platform, a CSF offer document that contains
appropriate information required by regulations.[14]
Furthermore, all applications made in response to the offer, and all money in
respect of such applications must be sent and paid, respectively, to the CSF
intermediary.[15]
The issuing company must not make a CSF offer in any other way than that
specified above.[16]
Advertising for the CSF offers comes with restrictions, but can be made with
certain mandatory statements.[17]
Companies, individual directors, underwriters and CSF intermediaries may be
liable for loss or damage suffered by a person due to a defective CSF offer
document.[18]
Among the various eligibility requirements for CSF
funding, a company must be a public company limited by shares[19],
and must not have annual turnover or total assets in excess of $25 million
each.[20]
(The 2015 Bill imposed turnover and assets limits of $5 million.[21])
Its primary place of business should be in Australia and neither it, nor any of
its subsidiaries, should be a listed corporation.[22]
A CSF fundraising cap of $5 million in any 12-month period is imposed.[23] The funds raised through CSF must not be
used by the company or any of its related parties to invest in securities or
interests in other entities or schemes.[24]
The CSF provisions are only available to unlisted public
companies, that is, companies that can offer shares to the public, but whose
shares will not be included on the official list of a securities exchange.[25]
However, as the corporate governance and reporting
obligations imposed on public companies are more onerous than those imposed on
proprietary companies, the Bill provides proprietary companies that convert to
a public company in order to access CSF exemptions from certain reporting
obligations for a period of up to five years.[26] Among these, companies will be exempted from annual
general meeting and audit requirements.[27]
However, in order to benefit from these exemptions, companies must conduct a
CSF raising within one year.[28]
This would ensure proper targeting of the policy to companies that would most
need, and benefit from, the exemptions from reporting requirements and
governance arrangements that would otherwise apply.
Financial services companies wishing to act as CSF
intermediaries must hold an Australian Financial Service License and comply
with licensing requirements, including membership of an external dispute
resolution scheme.[29]
They must also conduct appropriate due diligence checks on the issues before
marketing the CSF offers, and suspend or terminate the offers if any
impropriety is discovered thereafter.[30]
They must also disclose fees paid to them by issuers and any investments they
make in the issuers using their platforms.[31]
CSF intermediaries who fail to comply with certain obligations may commit an
offence, with penalties ranging from five penalty units (currently $900[32])
to 300 penalty units (currently $54,000) and/or five years imprisonment.[33]
Finally, the proposed CSF regime creates safeguards for
retail investors, who face a greater relative risk from CSF offers. These
investors will be able to invest a maximum of $10,000 per offer,[34]
and will have the unconditional right to withdraw within 48 hours of making an
application for the issue of securities pursuant to the CSF offer.[35]
(The 2015 Bill proposed a cooling-off period of five business days.[36])
They will also need to sign a risk acknowledgement statement prior to investment.[37]
Assessments
of Crowd-sourced funding in Australia
A number of recent reviews have identified the potential
of CSF to improve access to finance for innovative businesses, and to
facilitate further research and/or commercialisation, including:
- the
CAMAC
review of 2014
- the
Government’s Industry
Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, released in October 2014,[38]
which called for consultation on a regulatory framework for CSF
- the Murray
Inquiry into Australia’s financial system, released by the Government in
December 2014,[39]
which specifically recommended reducing regulatory impediments to crowdfunding
by introducing graduated fundraising regulation (in its response to the
Inquiry, released in October 2015, the Government accepted this
recommendation)[40]
- the
Productivity Commission’s Business Set-up, Transfer
and Closure draft report,[41]
released in May 2015, which also supported the introduction of a CSF framework
- the
Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda,[42]
released in December 2015, which identified CSF as a reform that would make it
easier for small businesses to raise equity funds from the public and
- the
Government’s FinTech Statement,[43]
released in March 2016, which stipulated CSF as a FinTech priority.[44]
These public assessments of crowd-sourced funding in
Australia were done prior to the dissolution of the 44th Parliament in 2016
(when the 2015 Bill lapsed). There have been no substantive assessments of CSF
done since the current (45th) Parliament was sworn in. The 2016 Bill is largely
based on the 2015 Bill and therefore draws extensively on the lessons of these
earlier studies.
Consultations on CSF began in late 2014, following the
release of the Treasury Discussion Paper on Crowd-sourced
Equity Funding.[45]
This paper sought to canvass stakeholder opinions of two alternative models for
a CSF framework and presented the impact analysis of both models. The first of
these is the model implemented in New Zealand, while the second is the model
proposed by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC) in its Crowd
Sourced Equity Funding Report.[46]
Over 40 submissions were received in response to the
Treasury discussion paper, and two stakeholder roundtables were organised to
discuss the design of the framework. Overall there was broad support for an
integrated model that combined elements from both New Zealand’s and CAMAC’s
models. The proposed framework was outlined in a separate Treasury consultation
paper in August 2015.[47]
In addition to the initial stakeholder submissions and
roundtables, targeted consultations were also undertaken on the draft
legislation, and further public consultation was undertaken by the Senate
Economics Legislation Committee following the introduction of the 2015 Bill into
Parliament in December 2015.[48]
The CAMAC review into CSF in Australia found this form of
funding is currently costly and impractical for businesses, mainly due to
regulatory impediments in the Corporations Act, which imposed high
compliance costs for small and start-up businesses.[49]
According to the CAMAC report Crowd
Sourced Equity Funding:
There is no legal definition of [crowd-sourced equity
funding]. However, in practice, the concept refers to a form of corporate
fundraising that envisages start‑up or other smaller companies (issuers)
obtaining seed or other capital through small equity investments from
relatively large numbers of investors, with online portals (intermediaries)
publicising and facilitating these equity offers to online users (the crowd).
Typically, the amount of equity capital to be sought by an
issuer in a particular period through [CSF] would be relatively modest. [CSF]
does not cover large‑scale public offers by larger corporations.[50]
Policy and
Economic Rationale
The main policy rationale[51]
for CSF is to promote and facilitate innovation in the Australian economy,
particularly by small firms and new start-ups. Innovation is highly dependent
on access to adequate levels of finance. It is a common assertion that it takes
$1 to research an idea or concept, $10 to turn that into a marketable product,
and $100 to successfully commercialise it. The funding needs typically are for
either of the latter two stages, but a given amount will have a proportionally
smaller impact in the commercialisation stage than in the product development
stage.
There is evidence that inadequate access to finance is the
biggest impediment to innovation for small and medium enterprises, which account
for over 95 per cent of all businesses in Australia. As shown in the recently
released report by the Australian Council of Learned Academies, Securing
Australia's Future: Australia’s Comparative Advantage, a 2012 survey by
the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on constraints to innovation showed
that 43 per cent of small firms and 20 per cent of medium-sized firms
identified funding as the biggest impediment to innovation; this contrasted
with only 12.5 per cent of large firms that noted funding as a constraint.[52]
However, for innovation-active firms, the constraints are even more acute.
Relative to the all firms-case[53],
66 per cent of innovating small firms considered financing to be the biggest
impediment to innovation. The corresponding responses for medium and large
firms were 25 per cent and 15 per cent, respectively.[54]
Despite the fact that innovation helps to improve
productivity, competitiveness and growth, this smaller segment of the market
typically finds it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to access the
traditional sources of financing that are available to the more established
firms. The CAMAC report refers to the ‘capital gap’, where an enterprise is in
need of finance to continue to its next stage of development, but cannot
attract further funding from traditional financing sources and is not yet able
to conduct an initial public offer of its securities.[55]
As such, the exclusion of proprietary companies from being
able to access CSF would appear to potentially undermine the efficacy of the
policy as expressed in the Bill. However, in his second reading speech the
Minister noted that:
I have instructed Treasury to continue developing a framework
for proprietary companies as a priority and would expect that an extension of
the framework will be introduced through subsequent legislation in the near
future.[56]
The economic rationale[57]
for the Bill arises from the problems associated with imperfect information,
externalities[58]
and the regulatory burden inherent in the Corporations Act.
Probably the biggest impediment to finance arises from
information asymmetry problems. Any kind of investment is inherently and
unavoidably risky, in that business failure would result in the total loss of
investment. Traditional sources of finance like banks and stock markets manage
this risk by requiring a ‘track record’ of successful past performance, which,
all else being equal, would indicate the ‘quality’ of the application and
increase the probability of continuing success in the future. In this context,
this means that most small firms or start-ups would not have the track record to
obtain funding. Their inability to indicate their ‘quality’ to banks is a
problem of information asymmetry that was identified by Nobel laureate George
Akerlof as a major cause for market collapse and lost opportunities.[59]
One of the respondents to the CAMAC discussion paper described
this problem as the ‘valley of death’:
The valley of death represents the stage in the growth cycle
of an early stage business at which those early stage businesses have, on
balance, not yet matured in their networks and risk profile to identify and
attract sufficient capital from external sources to enable them to
commercialise their products and services to a level at which the risk profile
is sufficiently improved to enable sophisticated investors and professional
investors to risk their capital in such companies.[60]
Increased innovation would create knowledge spill-over
effects, which is a form of positive externality. According to standard theory,
this would lead to under-provision of innovation by businesses; that is, they
would be less willing to make the necessary investment if they are not able to
appropriate all or most of the benefits associated with this investment. This
is an example of market failure where government intervention to rectify the
failure would be justified.
Finally, as shown in the responses to the CAMAC discussion
paper that preceded its report,[61]
the current capital raising provisions of the Corporations Act were
designed for more substantive capital raising activities by large, established
public firms, and the regulatory (corporate governance) and compliance
(reporting) requirements associated with those would be prohibitively expensive
for small, start-up firms.[62]
While CSF is technically legal in Australia and there are
currently a small number of operators of online platforms offering investment
in Australian start-ups and small businesses, the current legislative
arrangements outlined above significantly limit the type of service they can
offer, and do not fulfil the 'crowd' element of CSF.
Thus the Bill is primarily intended to alleviate the
financing constraints facing small and start-up firms, subject to certain
requirements being met.
Committee
consideration
Senate Economics Committee
The current Bill was referred to the Senate Economics
Legislation Committee on 1 December 2016. The Committee report is due on 13
February 2017.[63]
Submissions to this inquiry closed on 9 January 2017, and the Committee had received
17 submissions by the time of the submission deadline.
The 2015 Bill was referred by the Senate to the Senate
Economics Legislation Committee on 3 December 2015,[64]
and its report was tabled on 1 March 2016.[65]
The main reason for referral was to thoroughly consider the issues surrounding
the impact of this legislation on the start-up sector. The earlier inquiry
elicited a relatively more extensive response, but the stakeholder perspectives
of groups that have made submissions to both inquiries have not substantially
changed.
The earlier Committee report reviewed and summarised
several preceding reports that considered the issue on its own, or as part of a
broader agenda dealing with productivity and innovation. A key point recognised
by the report was the importance of balancing the financing needs of businesses
with appropriate investor protections.[66]
The need for striking a balance was also recognised by all
the submitters to the Committee; however, there was a divergence of views on
the correct balance. Some respondents felt that the entry barriers for
companies were too high, and that the proposed CSF regime would prevent
deserving companies from raising much-needed finance. On the other hand, others
considered the responsibilities and obligations imposed on intermediaries as
too onerous, which would discourage people from providing this service.[67]
(The views of some submitters are considered under ‘Position of major interest groups’, below.)
The Committee noted the Government’s extensive
consultation process undertaken prior to the introduction of this Bill, and
also alluded to the fact that given this is a new policy issue around the
world, and therefore without robust results and lessons, a predominantly
cautious approach taken in this early stage is prudent. The crux of the
question, according to the Committee, is whether it would provide a good
starting point to build the necessary legislative framework. The Committee Report
responded in the affirmative. The Committee also noted that the legislative
framework would benefit from subsequent review and ‘fine-tuning’.[68]
The two main recommendations of the Report were:
- that
the government monitor carefully the implementation of the legislation and undertake
a review two years after its enactment with special attention to the matters
detailed in the report and
- that
the Senate pass the Bill.[69]
The Labor Senators on the Committee issued a Dissenting
Report that focused on the perceived costs and complexities of the Bill. According
to this Report, the Committee had failed to take account of concerns expressed
in several submissions that the requirement to take a company public in order
to access CSF would place an onerous financial burden, often running into
thousands of dollars. There was concern that many small companies would not
have the resources or the capabilities to implement such a change, despite the
proposed exemption period from some of the obligations usually imposed on
public companies.[70]
A key recommendation of the Dissenting Report was that the
Bill should be amended to remove the restriction that limits CSF to unlisted
public companies. It further stated:
In its place, the Bill should merely allow small firms to
access the Bill’s Corporations Law exemptions from the point at which they
enter into a legally enforceable agreement with an intermediary (crowdfunding
platform) to hold an equity crowdfunding campaign.[71]
A second recommendation was that the asset and turnover
cap should be raised from $5 million to $10 million, in order to increase the
number of firms that can access CSF.[72]
The 2016 Bill has raised these caps to $25 million each for assets and annual
turnover.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Committee dealt with the 2015 Bill in the Alert
Digest No. 1 of 2016, in which it raised concerns that provisions in the
Bill inappropriately delegated legislative power and reversed the burden of
proof. It also sought advice from the Assistant Treasurer on a number of issues.[73]
The Assistant Treasurer responded to the Committee’s comments in a letter
received on 18 February 2016. The relevant extracts from the Alert Digest,
and the Assistant Treasurer’s responses to those, are contained in the Second
Report of 2016 of the Committee.[74]
The Committee made further comments on the 2016 Bill.[75]
The following were the main areas of concern for the
Committee:
Proposed section 738F provides for certain rules in Chapter 7 of the Corporations
Act (which regulates financial services and markets) to apply in a modified
way to proposed Part 6D.3A of the Corporations Act (which will
regulate CSF). Proposed subsection 738F(3) then allows regulations to be
made to further modify the application of the relevant Chapter 7 rules in specified
situations. In short, regulations may be made to modify the application of the
primary legislation. This is an example of a ‘Henry VIII clause’, which enables
delegated or subordinate legislation to override the operation of legislation that
has been passed by the Parliament. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee raises
concerns in regards to such clauses when the rationale for their use is not
provided or is insufficient as ‘such clauses may subvert the appropriate
relationship between the Parliament and the Executive branch of government’.[76]
In this instance the Committee noted that the Explanatory Memorandum to the
Bill did not provide any justification of the provision and sought advice on
the matter from the Assistant Treasurer.[77]
The Assistant Treasurer advised that an equivalent regulation-making power was
provided in Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act and therefore was required
in the Bill to ensure consistency. The Committee asked for this information to
be included in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.[78]
It is now included at paragraph 3.88 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the 2016 Bill.[79]
Proposed subsection 738G(1) sets out the
eligibility conditions that would need to be satisfied before a CSF offer can
be made. Proposed paragraph 738G(1)(c) states that eligible CSF offers
would require that the securities are of a class specified in the regulations,
while proposed paragraph 738G(1)(f) provides a broad power to specify
‘any other requirements’ in the regulations. In relation to proposed
paragraph 738G(1)(c), the Committee noted that as the regulations will be
subject to disallowance, it would leave the question of whether the proposed
delegation of legislative power is appropriate to the Senate as a whole.[80]
The Assistant Treasurer’s response noted that the proposed clause would allow
the CSF regime to be restricted to a limited range of securities which, given
crowd-funding’s relatively new status in Australia, would provide the
flexibility to adjust the types of securities that are eligible for crowd-funding
as the risks and benefits associated with the sector are better understood. The
Committee thanked the Assistant Treasurer for providing this additional
information. [81]
In its report on the current Bill, the Committee also acknowledged the
inclusion of the additional information in the Explanatory Memorandum to the
2016 Bill.[82]
In relation to proposed paragraph 738G(1)(f) the Committee noted the
breadth of the provision and reiterated its expectation that when important
matters are dealt with in regulations, rather than primary legislation, this
approach should be justified. It noted that that there appeared to be no
information in the Explanatory Memorandum as to why such a broad power to
impact the scope of eligible offers should be left to the regulations. It has
sought advice from the Treasurer as to the rationale for the delegation and examples
of circumstances in which the power to prescribe other eligibility requirements
in the regulations are expected to be used.[83]
At the time of writing this Digest, a response from the Treasurer has not been
published.
The Committee also requested further information from the Assistant
Treasurer on provisions that would place an evidential burden of proof on a
defendant seeking to rely on certain defences. The relevant provisions are proposed
section 738Z (which sets out exceptions to the offences relating to
defective offer documents) and proposed section 738ZG (which relates to
prohibited advertising of a CSF offer).[84]
The Minister advised the Committee that the approach was consistent with that
taken in Chapter 6D of the Corporations Act and ‘fully consistent with the
principle in the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement
Notices and Enforcement Powers which establishes the general rule that a
defendant should only bear an evidential burden of proof for an
offence-specific defence’.[85]
The Committee asked for this information to be included in the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.[86]
It is now included at paragraph 5.46 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the 2016 Bill.[87]
Policy
position of non-government parties/Independents
The Labor Senators on the Economics Committee had, during
the inquiry on the 2015 Bill, offered qualified support for the Bill. Their
Dissenting Report, while noting that they did not intend to block the Bill,
nevertheless called for a ‘lighter regulatory touch’, and the ‘need to remove a
major barrier to small firms accessing equity crowdfunding system’.[88]
Their position was based on concerns raised in several submissions and
testimonies that the demand for small firms to convert into unlisted public
companies in order to access CSF would potentially add regulatory and financial
impost on start‑ups and crowdfunding platforms.
An additional concern expressed was that the Bill would
not meet the capital needs of start-ups and small firms, and while the various
exemptions from obligations usually imposed on public companies would provide
some relief, these would be hardly enough to overcome the costs associated with
becoming a public company.[89]
The Dissenting Report made two main recommendations to
improve access by start-ups and small firms to CSF. The first related to the
requirement that limits eligibility to unlisted public companies. Specifically,
the Dissenting Report recommended:
Section 738H(1)(a) should be amended to remove the
restriction that limits CSF to unlisted public companies. In its place, the
Bill should merely allow small firms to access the Bill’s Corporation Law
exemptions from the point at which they enter into a legally enforceable
agreement with an intermediary (crowdfunding platform) to hold an equity
crowdfunding campaign.[90]
The second major change called for in the Dissenting Report
was that the current cap on assets and turnover should be increased from $5 million
to $10 million. This would increase the number of firms that can access CSF. Senator
Wong proposed amendments to the 2015 Bill to action the Dissenting Report’s recommendations.[91]
In his second reading speech on the 2015 Bill, Adam Bandt of
the Australian Greens echoed the concerns about the regulatory burdens
associated with a company going public, and was appreciative of the exemptions
offered to small firms and the protections offered to retail investors. [92]
Overall, he was supportive of the Bill but emphasised the importance of
striking a good balance between the need for innovation and appropriate
investor protections.
With regards to the 2016 Bill, the Labor Party has
reaffirmed its contention that CSF funding should not be limited to public
firms only.[93]
Mr Ed Husic further raised concerns that the reduction of the cooling-off
period from five days to 48 hours would reduce investor protections.[94]
Position of major
interest groups
As mentioned above in the section Senate Economics Committee, there is nothing to indicate that the position of major interest
groups has changed materially from the time the Senate Economics Committee
considered the 2015 Bill. Unless mentioned otherwise, this section relates to
stakeholder perspectives that were expressed during the earlier inquiry
relating to the 2015 Bill.
The Economics Legislation Committee received 22 submissions
on the 2015 Bill, which generally favoured the idea of introducing a CSF
regime.[95]
The Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) was generally very supportive of the Bill,
and considered that the final regulatory settings in the Bill struck a
reasonable balance between making CSF an attractive and feasible option for
companies seeking to raise funds, and maintaining appropriate protections for
investors.[96]
However, some submitters expressed concerns relating to
the compliance burden and costs that this Bill would impose.[97]
The first of these concerns related to the requirement
that companies wishing to access CSF convert to a public company. According to
VentureCrowd, an equity crowd-funding business, this would impose a significant
regulatory, administrative and compliance burden on the companies.[98]
It also noted:
The Corporations Act requires a proprietary company
with 50 or more shareholders to become a public company. In the expectation
that a start-up who accesses ECF [equity crowd funding] will gain 50 or more
shareholders, the Bill requires that start-up to convert to become a public
company (whether or not it ever exceeds the 50 shareholder limit).
The public company regime was introduced to regulate large,
well-funded and well-resourced companies that were either listed on a stock
exchange or of equivalent private stature. Start-up businesses, without revenue
and resources, could not have been further from the minds of those who wrote
the legislation.[99]
The Australian Small Scale Offerings Board (ASSOB) took a
contrary view, and insisted that ‘issuer companies convert to public companies
prior to listing ... to learn to be compliant and accountable to investors from
the start’.[100]
However, ASSOB expressed concern about the compliance and regulatory burden on
intermediaries, especially for fundraising efforts below $500,000.[101]
In its submission to the inquiry on the 2016 Bill, ASSOB supported both
increasing the turnover and revenue limits to $25 million, and reducing the
cooling-off period to 48 hours.[102]
ASSOB’s position regarding public companies was echoed by
Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, which expressed a view that CSF
framework concessions may have a negative impact on investor rights and may
also not achieve the desired result of reducing the regulatory burden.[103]
With regards to the inquiry on the 2016 Bill, the submission of Chartered
Accountants Australia and New Zealand supported the proposed amendment of the
turnover cap to $25 million, but recommended that the asset threshold should
only be $12.5 million. This would bring the turnover and asset thresholds
in line with the corresponding small company reporting thresholds.[104]
It also recommended retaining the five-day cooling-off period, since
crowd-sourced funding is a new form of investment for many Australian
investors. This cooling-off period should accordingly be reviewed and revised
as appropriate once this form of funding becomes more established.[105]
The Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital
Association Ltd (AVCAL), while generally supporting the Bill, raised concerns
about some specific provisions relating to the exclusion of investment
companies from CSF.[106]
Additionally, restrictions on the revenue and assets limits (of $5 million
each), and the prohibition of eligible CSF companies and related parties having
more than one concurrent offer were also objected to. The underlying argument
was that these restrictions would potentially hinder promising start-up
companies and exclude them from the crowd-funding pool.[107]
Financial
implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the measure has
the following financial impact on the Budget (see Table 1).[108]
Table 1: financial
impact
2015–16 |
2016–17 |
2017–18 |
2018–19 |
-$1.2m |
-$3.1m |
-$1.7m |
-$1.6m |
Source: Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, p. 4.
This includes a movement of funds from 2015–16 to 2016–17
as part of the 2015–16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.[109]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the compliance
costs associated with this Bill are $50.3 million for the CSF model, and a
further $0.6 million for the changes to the AML regime. This has been fully
offset from within the Treasury portfolio.[110]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[111]
The Government identifies only one potential impact on
human rights, which arises from the provisions in the Bill that seek to protect
retail clients from advertisements that could induce them to make investment
decisions without having all the necessary information.[112]
The Government considers that, to the extent that the Bill thereby restricts
the freedom of expression, this is justified because it is a reasonable,
necessary and proportionate consequence of protecting investors by ensuring
that they can access sufficient information about the CSF offer.[113]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers
that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[114]
Key issues
and provisions
The legislative and regulatory frameworks for crowdfunding
in Australia are quite new, while several other advanced countries have had a
lead time of several years in this area. While this means that Australia has
some catching up to do, it gives Australia the chance to cherry-pick the best
aspects of different plans and introduce additional modifications/features.
The key theme that comes through in the proposed
legislation is that the CSF provisions should be carefully targeted to those
who would gain the most benefit from them, and who would otherwise struggle to
obtain the necessary financing.
Item 14 of Schedule 1 to the Bill inserts a proposed
Part 6D.3A into the Corporations Act to create a framework to
facilitate CSF in Australia. A brief explanation of the major elements of this
framework is provided under ‘Overview of features of the proposed CSF regime’,
above. Very basically, without proposed Part 6D.3A, companies seeking to
raise funds by issuing securities would need to comply with the more stringent
information disclosure requirements set out at Part 6D.2 of the Corporations
Act and the prohibitions, liabilities and remedies relating to offers of
securities, set out at Part 6D.3 of that Act.
The Bill includes provisions governing:
- the
eligibility of companies to crowd-fund (proposed section 738H)
- the
role and eligibility of a CSF intermediary, defined at proposed section 738C
as a financial services licensee who is authorised to provide a crowd funding
service
- investor
protections (Division 6 of proposed Part 6D.3A)[115]
and
- regulatory
obligations for issuers and intermediaries.
Eligible
CSF company
One of the requirements that must be fulfilled before an
offer of securities may be made under proposed Part 6D.3A of the Corporations
Act (referred to as a ‘CSF offer’—proposed section 738B) is that the
company seeking to issue the securities is an ‘eligible CSF company’. ‘Eligible
CSF company’ is defined at proposed section 738H as a company:
- is
an unlisted public company limited by shares that does not have a
substantial purpose of investing in securities or interests in other entities
or schemes[116]
- has
its principal place of business in Australia and a majority of its directors ordinarily
reside in Australia[117]
- satisfies
the ‘assets and turnover test’.[118]
Proprietary companies cannot come within this definition,
as they are explicitly excluded from the definition of ‘public company’ at
section 9 of the Corporations Act.
Key issue:
change from 2015 Bill—increase in assets and turnover thresholds
The ‘assets and turnover test’ limits the size of
companies that can access CSF. This restriction is to limit the CSF regime to
companies that would most benefit from it, and which would otherwise struggle
to raise the needed capital. The 2015 Bill imposed a cap of $5 million each for
annual turnover and total assets, but the 2016 Bill proposes caps of $25
million each. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that this change
was made following the 2016 Senate Economics Committee inquiry into the 2015
Bill, and the Government’s consultations with its FinTech Advisory Group and ‘will
increase the range of small and early-stage companies able to use the
lower-cost fundraising option available through CSEF and increase CSEF
investment options for investors’.[119]
As set out above, Labor’s Dissenting Report on the 2015 Bill recommended
increasing the caps to $10 million each.[120]
As set out under ‘Position of major interest groups’ the
increase in the caps from $5 million to $25 million is supported by the
Australian Small Scale Offerings Board.[121]
Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand supports increasing the
turnover cap to $25 million, but considers that the asset threshold should be
$12.5 million, to ensure the thresholds are aligned with the corresponding
small company reporting thresholds.[122]
Key
concern: limiting access to CSF to public companies
As noted earlier, given that the majority of companies in
Australia are proprietary companies[123],
a key concern of some stakeholders, the Opposition and Greens is the exclusion
of proprietary companies from the regime proposed by the Bill.
Whilst the Bill does not address these concerns, the
Government has indicated its intention to develop and introduce a framework
allowing proprietary companies to access CSF ‘as a priority’ and expects that
the framework proposed by the Bill will be extended by another Bill in the
‘near future’.[124]
CSF
intermediary
Under the proposed CSF regime, all CSF offers must be made
through a ‘CSF intermediary’ (proposed section 738L). As a result,
CSF intermediaries occupy ‘a central role in the CSF regime’ and are required
to comply with a number of obligations.[125]
One key requirement is that a person or company wanting to act as a CSF
intermediary must acquire an appropriate Australian Financial Services Licence
(AFSL) that authorises them to provide a crowd funding service (proposed
section 738C). Other obligations and requirements include:
- to
ensure that a prominent risk warning appears on all CSF offer platforms (proposed
subsection 738ZA(1))
- to
ensure that, at all times, while the offer is open, the ‘application facility’
allows for the making of applications pursuant to the CSF offer (proposed
paragraph 738ZA(3)(a))
- to
ensure that, at all times, whilst the offer is open or suspended, provide a
communication facility that allows people who access the CSF offer document to:
- make
posts relating to the offer
- see
posts relating to the offer made by others
- ask
the company making the offer, or the intermediary, questions relating to the
offer and
- see
responses from the company or the intermediary to such posts or questions (proposed
subsection 738ZA(5)).
- to
ensure that the specified cooling-off rights warning appears prominently on the
offer platform at all times while the offer is open or suspended (proposed
subsection 738ZA(8))
- to
ensure that the fees the intermediary charges the company making the offer,
along with any direct or indirect pecuniary interest that the intermediary, or
an associate of the intermediary, has or expects to acquire in the company or a
related party of the company are disclosed and prominently displayed (proposed
subsection 738ZA(9)).
Key issue:
change from 2015 Bill—decrease in cooling-off period
As discussed under ‘Overview of features of the
proposed CSF regime’, above, the current Bill would allow retail investors
to withdraw an application for the issue of securities pursuant to the CSF
offer, within 48 hours of making the application.[126] In contrast, the 2015 Bill
proposed a cooling-off period of five business days.[127] The Explanatory Memorandum
to the Bill states that the reduced cooling-off period ‘will provide issuers
and intermediaries with greater certainty about the amount raised via a CSEF
offer while retaining a reasonable period for investors to withdraw after making
an investment’.[128]
As set out under ‘Position of major interest groups’ the reduction
in the cooling-off period is supported by the Australian Small Scale Offerings
Board and opposed by Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand.[129]
Conclusion
The Bill can be reasonably expected to meet its intended
goals. However, there are other, broader issues and problems that may be
regarded as inadequately dealt with:
1. The limited information that is available from other countries indicates
that equity crowd-funding has been successful, if measured in terms of the
total amounts raised. In fact, most of the published information focusses
only on how many fund raising campaigns take place, the money actually raised
per year through this, and the growth in this. The absence of alternative data,
for example on successful outcomes, prevents a more thorough analysis.
However, the available
information does not indicate what the success rate is: that is, how many
companies would like to raise funds and how many are actually achieving their
fund-raising goals, and how beneficial these ventures are for their investors.
Related to this, it is difficult to ascertain what other constraints may exist
for other firms.
2. In addition to the performance in raising money, there is also the issue
of the sustained operational success of the firm. Unlike the former, this would
require effective management, marketing, and governance capabilities, which are
quite independent of the initial need for funds.
It is also too early to
determine the overall, long-term success or profitability of firms that used
CSF in their formative years, how many of these would actually survive over a five-year
period, or how effectively the interests of individual investors can be
safeguarded against fraud or poor governance. This in turn would make it
difficult to determine the average rate of return for investors or how this
would compare with the returns from traditional stock-market indices like ASX,
FTSE or the Dow. Another unresolved issue appears to be the level of
representation or feedback that individual investors can expect from the
companies that they invest in.
A more significant problem
appears to be the role played by crowdsourcing intermediaries. As illustrated
by a UK example[130]
of a company purporting to manufacture palm-sized
drones, this can lead to problems when crowdfunding platforms fail to do
proper due diligence on the companies seeking to raise funds, or inadvertently
give an impression to retail investors that they are involved in the
development of the project/product itself. In this case, the company raised 20
times the amount that was initially targeted, but failed to manufacture the
advertised product. It eventually went into voluntary liquidation, and
investors effectively lost their entire investment.[131]
The Bill seeks to impose certain
obligations and restrictions on intermediaries. This would seem appropriate,
since in more traditional areas like bank lending or stock markets, the banks
and stock exchanges would be expected to conduct due diligence and act with an
appropriate duty of care towards those whose funds they administer.
3. Finally, as alluded to by Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital
Association Limited (AVCAL) in its submission to the Financial Services
Inquiry, [132] the funds
raised by CSF are likely to be limited to small amounts only. This is
consistent with the pattern observed internationally. What this effectively
means is that the funds raised through CSF are only a small part of what would
otherwise be needed over the longer term for the growth of firms. In other
words, it would help them ‘get off the ground but not fly’. It is to be
expected that the small firms or start-ups would use these funds to get to a
point where they could approach venture capital firms, stock markets or banks
for more substantial equity or debt-based funding. The position of CSF as
simply a step in a larger process is something that must be borne in mind when
contemplating the likely effects of the Bill.
While Australia, like many other countries, will have a
high failure rate for start-ups, it is not possible to say which of these
failed due to lack of financing (even though they deserved financing) and which
failed due to poor management and operations. It is also likely, as seen in the
UK example mentioned above, that firms may fail despite getting impressive
levels of funding through crowdsourcing.
So while the Bill would address some of the information
asymmetry problems that preclude the more established sources of finance, it will
not be addressing these broader and longer-term problems associated with
start-up ventures, including the financial constraints they face.
[1]. N
Gupta, Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015, Bills digest, 114,
2015–16, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2016.
[2]. The
term ‘crowd-sourced funding’ also refers to public appeals for financial
support for a wide range of activities and mechanisms. This Bill is confined to
equity funding only.
[3]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, p. 3.
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. Ibid.
[6]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[7]. S
Morrison (Treasurer), ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 24 November 2016,
p. 4305.
[8]. Corporations
and Market Advisory Committee (CAMAC), Crowd
sourced equity funding report, CAMAC, Sydney, 21 May 2014.
[9]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., especially pp. 110–121.
[10]. In
New Zealand, crowd funding is covered by the Financial
Markets Conduct Act 2013 (NZ).
[11]. R Powell, ‘Malcolm
Turnbull says Australia could follow New Zealand crowdfunding laws’, The
Australian Financial Review, (online edition), 19 May 2015.
[12]. A
Hawke, ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 3 December 2015,
p. 14633.
[13]. Morrison
(Treasurer), ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016’, op.
cit., p. 4307.
[14]. Proposed
subsections 738J(2) and 738L(1) at item 14 of Schedule 1 to
the Bill.
[15]. Proposed
subsection 738L(2).
[16]. Proposed
subsection 738L(3).
[17]. Proposed
subsection 738L(4).
[18]. Proposed
section 738Y.
[19]. Proposed
subsection 738H(1).
[20]. Proposed
subsection 738H(2).
[21]. See
proposed subsection 738H(2) of the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015.
[22]. Proposed
subsection 738H(1). This means that the company’s shares will not be
included on the official list of a securities exchange.
[23]. Proposed
subsection 738G(2).
[24]. Proposed
paragraph 738G(1)(e).
[25]. Proposed
subsection 738H(1).
[26]. Proposed section 738ZI at item 30 of Schedule
1, and Schedule 2 of the Bill. According to the Australian
Institute of Company Directors website,
a small proprietary company is one where two out of the following three
criteria are met: consolidated revenue for the financial year is less than $25
million, value of consolidated gross assets at the end of the financial year is
less than $12.5 million, and the company has less than 50 employees.
[27]. Items
3 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
[28]. Proposed
section 738ZI.
[29]. Proposed
section 738C and Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001.
Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 120.
[30]. Proposed
sections 738Q and 738X.
[31]. Proposed
subsection 738ZA (9) at item 14 of Schedule 1. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 120.
[32]. A
penalty unit is currently equivalent to $180. See section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914
(Cth).
[33]. See
item 34 of Schedule 1 to the Bill and proposed sections
738L(3), 738M(1) to (3), 738N(4), 738P(1), 738Q(1),
(5) and (7), 738R, 738V, 738X, 738ZA, 738ZB,
738ZC, 738ZE, 738ZF and 738ZG.
[34]. Proposed
section 738ZC.
[35]. Proposed
section 738ZD.
[36]. See
proposed section 738ZD of the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015.
[37]. Proposed
paragraph 738ZA(3)(b).
[38]. T
Abbott (Prime Minister) and I McFarlane (Minister for Industry), Transcript
of joint press conference, Parliament House, Canberra: Industry Innovation and
Competitiveness Agenda; medicinal marijuana; G20, joint media release,
14 October 2014.
[39]. J
Hockey (Treasurer), Release
of the Financial System Inquiry report, media release,
7 December 2014.
[40]. Australian
Government, Improving
Australia’s financial system: Government response to the Financial System
Inquiry, Treasury, Canberra, 2015.
[41]. Productivity
Commission (PC), Business
Set-up, Transfer and Closure, Draft report, PC, Canberra,
May 2015.
[42]. National
Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA), ‘Welcome
to the ideas boom’, NISA, [3 December 2015].
[43]. S
Morrison (Treasurer), Supporting
Australia’s FinTech future, media release, 21 March 2016.
[44]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., pp. 7–8.
[45]. Treasury,
Crowd-sourced
equity funding, discussion paper, Treasury, Canberra, December 2014.
[46]. CAMAC,
Crowd
sourced equity funding report, op. cit.
[47]. Treasury,
Facilitating
crowd-sourced equity funding and reducing compliance costs for small businesses,
consultation paper, Treasury, Canberra, 4 August 2015.
[48]. K
O’Dwyer, ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 10 February 2016,
p. 1290.
[49]. A
Hawke, ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015’, op. cit.
[50]. CAMAC, Crowd
sourced equity funding report, op. cit., p. 5.
[51]. The
policy rationale refers to the importance of addressing this issue, and the
follow-on consequences or problems that might arise if this does not happen.
[52]. G Withers, N Gupta, L Curtis and N
Larkins, Securing
Australia's future: Australia’s comparative advantage: final report,
Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne, August 2015, p. 121.
[53]. Firms
that are innovation-active and those that are not actively engaged in
innovation.
[54]. G
Withers et al, Securing
Australia's future: Australia’s comparative advantage: final report, op.
cit., p. 121.
[55]. CAMAC,
Crowd
sourced equity funding report, op. cit., p. 6.
[56]. S
Morrison, ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 24 November 2016,
p. 4305.
[57]. The
economic rationale refers to the underlying causes of the problem.
[58]. Externalities
refer to the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur
that cost or benefit. In other words, this refers to the impact of one party’s
actions on another, even though the latter did not have anything to do with the
original action.
[59]. G
Akerlof, ‘The market for
“lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism’, The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 84(3), August 1970, pp. 488–500.
[60]. CAMAC, Crowd
sourced equity funding report, op. cit., pp. 11–12.
[61]. CAMAC,
Crowd
sourced equity funding: discussion paper, CAMAC, Sydney, September 2013.
[62]. CAMAC,
‘The
crowd sourced equity funding: submissions received’, CAMAC website.
[63]. Inquiry
homepage, Senate Standing Committees on Economics, ‘Corporations Amendment
(Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016’.
[64]. Selection
of Bills Committee, Report,
16, 2015, The Senate, 3 December 2015, p. 7.
[65]. Economics
Legislation Committee, Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, February 2016.
[66]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[67]. Ibid.,
p. 14.
[68]. Ibid.,
p. 40.
[69]. Ibid.,
pp. 39–40.
[70]. Ibid.,
pp. 42–43.
[71]. Ibid.,
p. 43.
[72]. Ibid.
[73]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 1, 2016, The Senate, 3 February 2016, pp. 9–11.
[74]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Report,
2, 2016, The Senate, 24 February 2016, pp. 64–72.
[75]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 10, 2016, 30 November 2016, pp. 2–3.
[76]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 1, 2016, op. cit., p. 9.
[77]. Ibid.,
pp. 9–10.
[78]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Report,
2, 2016, op. cit., pp. 65–66.
[79]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 41.
[80]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 1, 2016, op. cit., p. 10.
[81]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Report,
2, 2016, op. cit., p. 67.
[82]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 10, 2016, The Senate, 30 November 2016, pp. 2–3. See paragraphs
2.32 to 2.33 at page 16 of the Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016.
[83]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 10, 2016, op. cit., p. 3.
[84]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Alert
digest, 10, 2016, op. cit., pp. 10–11.
[85]. Senate
Scrutiny of Bills Committee, Report,
2, 2016, op. cit., pp. 68–71.
[86]. Ibid.,
pp. 69–72.
[87]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 65.
[88]. Labor
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Standing Committees on Economics, Corporations Amendment
(Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 1
March 2016, p. 43.
[89]. Ibid.,
p. 43.
[90]. Ibid.,
p. 43.
[91]. P
Wong, ‘Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016—amendments to be moved by the
Opposition’, Senate, sheet 7865, 29 February 2016.
[92]. A
Bandt, ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 10 February 2016, p. 1281.
[93]. E
Husic, ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 30 November 2016,
p. 4995.
[94]. Ibid.
[95]. Senate
Standing Committee on Economics, Submissions,
Inquiry into the Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill
2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra.
[96]. Australian
Stock Exchange (ASX), Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], submission no.
11, 5 February 2016, pp. 1–2.
[97]. Senate
Standing Committee on Economics, Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], op. cit.,
p. 14.
[98]. VentureCrowd,
Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], submission no. 5,
4 February 2016, p. 2.
[99]. Ibid.,
pp. 2–3.
[100]. Australian
Small Scale Offerings Board (ASSOB), Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], submission no. 9,
5 February 2016, p. 14.
[101]. Ibid.,
p. 1.
[102]. Australian
Small Scale Offerings Board (ASSOB), Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, submission no. 9, 9 January
2017, p. 1.
[103]. Chartered
Accountants Australia and New Zealand, Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], submission no.
14, 5 February 2016, p. 1.
[104]. Chartered
Accountants Australia and New Zealand, Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, submission no. 3, 21 December
2016, p. 1.
[105]. Ibid.
[106]. Australian
Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Limited, Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], submission no. 3,
2 February 2016, p. 2.
[107]. Ibid.,
pp. 2–3.
[108]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 4.
[109]. Ibid.
[110]. Ibid.
[111]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 153 of
the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[112]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., pp. 153–54.
[113]. Ibid.,
p. 154.
[114]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report
10 of 2016, The Senate, Canberra, 30 November 2016, p. 8.
[115]. Proposed
sections 738ZC to 738ZE.
[116]. Proposed
paragraph 738H(1)(a) and (f).
[117]. Proposed
paragraph 738H(1)(b) and (c).
[118]. Proposed
paragraph 738H(2).
[119]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., pp. 116 and 131.
[120]. Senate
Standing Committee on Economics, Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced funding) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate,
February 2016, p. 43.
[121]. Australian
Small Scale Offerings Board (ASSOB), Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, submission no. 9, 9 January
2017, p. 1.
[122]. Chartered
Accountants Australia and New Zealand, Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, submission no. 3, 21 December
2016, p. 1.
[123]. Australian
Institute of Company Directors (AICD), ‘Organisation
definitions’, AICD website.
[124]. S
Morrison (Treasurer), ‘Second
reading speech: Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 24 November 2016, p. 4305.
[125]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 24.
[126]. Proposed
section 738ZD.
[127]. See
proposed section 738ZD of the Corporations
Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015.
[128]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding)
Bill 2016, op. cit., p. 132.
[129]. Australian
Small Scale Offerings Board (ASSOB), Submission to Senate Economics
Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Corporations Amendment
(Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2016, op. cit.; Chartered Accountants
Australia and New Zealand, Submission
to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, op. cit.
[130]. K
Lachance Shandrow, ‘Crowdfunding
platforms need to be better watchdogs, says journalist who investigated
Kickstarter’s biggest European failure’, Entrepreneur website, 21 January
2016.
[131]. M
Harris, ‘How
Zano raised millions on Kickstarter and left backers with almost nothing’, Medium
website, 18 January 2016.
[132]. Australian
Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Limited, Submission to
the Financial System Inquiry (FSI), Financial System Inquiry, Sydney, March 2014.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.