Introduction / Questions about you
What is your name?
Name
Richard Moretti
If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, please name your organisation.
Organisation
Revive Financial
Making your survey responses public
Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button:
Ticked
I agree to my survey responses being made public under my name
Radio button:
Unticked
I agree to my survey responses being made public anonymously
Radio button:
Unticked
I do not want my survey responses to be made public
Reduce Bankruptcy to one year and strengthen objection to discharge provisions and offence provisions.
Please provide any views you have about reducing the default bankruptcy period from 3 years to one year.
Please enter your response here
Reduction in the term would assist many individuals to recover sooner and move on with a fresh start however it could also lead to an abuse of the process as some people would incur debt and then go bankrupt as 1 year is not a long term to endure.
Exclusions to the one year would assist to ensure the abuse is minimal or eliminated so I believe criteria should be met to qualify for a 1 year bankruptcy.
One disadvantage of a 1 year over a 3 year term is that it will make it harder for creditors to collect debts as debtors may decide that a 1 year bankruptcy is a better option for them rather than pay the debt whereas a 3 year term may not be that better option.
Exclusions to the one year would assist to ensure the abuse is minimal or eliminated so I believe criteria should be met to qualify for a 1 year bankruptcy.
One disadvantage of a 1 year over a 3 year term is that it will make it harder for creditors to collect debts as debtors may decide that a 1 year bankruptcy is a better option for them rather than pay the debt whereas a 3 year term may not be that better option.
If the default period for bankruptcy is reduced to one year, which of the following reasons should exclude someone from a one-year bankruptcy? You may select more than one.
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Ticked
They have been bankrupt before
Checkbox:
Ticked
They have been banned as a director
Checkbox:
Ticked
They had a bankruptcy extended through an objection to discharge, or
Checkbox:
Ticked
They have been convicted of certain offences.
Checkbox:
Unticked
None of the above, anyone should be able to access a one-year bankruptcy
Here you may elaborate on your response to the above question.
Actions of the debtor should be taken into account to consider whether they qualify for a 1 year term. This can assist to ensure the process is not abused and as such, I agree with all the suggested reasons to exclude someone form a 1 year term.
Key purpose for bankruptcy is to provide those struggling with debts a fresh start. If they co-operate and honestly fell into a situation beyond their control they should not be punished and a 1 year term would be beneficial. However, If the debtor' s behaviour shows a trend of incurring debts or utilising a company to build debts with no intentions to pay then this behaviour needs to be stopped as is not in the public interest. Any action that shows the debtor is not honest and is abusing a system should eliminate that debtor from a 1 year term.
Key purpose for bankruptcy is to provide those struggling with debts a fresh start. If they co-operate and honestly fell into a situation beyond their control they should not be punished and a 1 year term would be beneficial. However, If the debtor' s behaviour shows a trend of incurring debts or utilising a company to build debts with no intentions to pay then this behaviour needs to be stopped as is not in the public interest. Any action that shows the debtor is not honest and is abusing a system should eliminate that debtor from a 1 year term.
Are there any other reasons that someone should be excluded from a one-year bankruptcy?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Please list other reasons that should exclude someone from a one-year bankruptcy and why.
Please enter your response here:
A failure to communicate with their creditors and/or deal with their debts should be considered as a reason to not qualify for a 1 year term. If the debtor has not provided a reasonable reason why the debt cannot be paid and refuses to pay, shows a dishonest approach and this cannot be encouraged with a 1 year term.
I believe the actions of the debtor on how they attempted to pay their debts should form part of the Creditors petition (a statutory Declaration by the creditor on attempts made by the debtor to settle the debts and why it could not be paid) or the Debtor Petition (a statutory Declaration by the debtor on attempts made by the debtor to settle the debts and why it could not be paid). These reasons should be considered on deciding on a 1 or 3 year term.
I believe the actions of the debtor on how they attempted to pay their debts should form part of the Creditors petition (a statutory Declaration by the creditor on attempts made by the debtor to settle the debts and why it could not be paid) or the Debtor Petition (a statutory Declaration by the debtor on attempts made by the debtor to settle the debts and why it could not be paid). These reasons should be considered on deciding on a 1 or 3 year term.
If the default period of bankruptcy is reduced to one year, do you think someone who has been bankrupt in the preceding 10 years should be able to apply for an early discharge from a 2-year or 3-year bankruptcy if they meet certain eligibility criteria (e.g. the person has satisfied all their tax obligations, has not engaged in voidable transactions, has been cooperative throughout the bankruptcy process etc)?
Please enter your response here:
The debtor should be required to submit his grounds as to why he/she should be considered for a 1 year term noting his behaviour since discharge from prior bankruptcy, steps taken to pay new debts and prior trustee review of behavious of debtor whilst a bankrupt as consideration to be eligible for a 1 year term.
Please provide any views you have about proposed new grounds for objection to discharge, as listed below and in the options paper.
Please enter your response here:
Agree with the proposed new objection provisions. Often debtors refuse to provide new address and other required details so those sections as an objectable ground would assist in compliance.
Are there certain Bankruptcy Act offences which could have penalties strengthened to target abuse of a one-year bankruptcy?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Please list any offences provisions that could have penalties strengthened and why.
Please enter your response:
Penalties should be increased for offences committed under sections 263, 263A, 265, 267, 269, 271, 272
These offences are mainly for the failure to assist trustee or to hind and/or avoid payment to creditors (surrendering assets). Harsher penalties will assist in recovering better returns for creditors
These offences are mainly for the failure to assist trustee or to hind and/or avoid payment to creditors (surrendering assets). Harsher penalties will assist in recovering better returns for creditors
Promote debt agreements
Should the default term limit for debt agreements be extended to 5 years?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
Here you may elaborate on your answer to the above question.
Most people simply get themselves into alot of debt they cannot pay in a period of 3 years but could manage over 5 years. This would mean a better return for creditors without any strain on the debtor.
A 3 year term is not viable in alot of cases which means the debtor is forced into a bankruptcy situation which means creditors are likely to receive no dividend (compared to a reasonable amount over a 5 year debt agreement period)
A 3 year term is not viable in alot of cases which means the debtor is forced into a bankruptcy situation which means creditors are likely to receive no dividend (compared to a reasonable amount over a 5 year debt agreement period)
If the default debt agreement term is extended to 5 years, should the home ownership exception remain, to allow a debtor with a real interest in property to propose a longer debt agreement beyond a 5 year default term?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Here you may elaborate on your answer to the above question.
If the debt cannot be resolved over 5 years, it would not be viable to extend the period past 5 years where a bankruptcy could realise the property earlier with a more beneficial outcome for creditors
Section 185M of the Bankruptcy Act gives debtors the flexibility to vary their debt agreement to up to 5 years if they suffer a substantial and unforeseen change in circumstances. What form should this variation exception take if the default term for debt agreements is extended to 5 years?
Please enter your response here:
Extend to a further 1 year only and if this is not viable bankruptcy option.
Should the exclusion period for lodging a debt agreement proposal be reduced from 10 years to 7 years?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Unticked
Yes
Radio button:
Ticked
No
Here you may elaborate on your answer to the above question.
Remain the same as per 1 year bankruptcy proposal.
Should debtors that have previously been party to only a debt agreement be provided with a specific exclusion period of 5 years (rather than the proposed 7 years)?
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Yes
Radio button:
Unticked
No
The lodgement of a debt agreement should no longer be considered an ‘act of bankruptcy’.
Please select one item
Radio button:
Ticked
Agree
Radio button:
Unticked
Disagree
Here you may elaborate on your answer to the above question.
Should only be an act of bankruptcy on default of the agreement. The agreement is essentially an agreement to creditors on payment of the debts rather than a declaration of an inability to pay teh debt. Therefore, the act should form upon a default of the arrangement.
Targeting untrustworthy advisors
Please provide any views you have about the proposed requirements to provide and collect information about pre-insolvency advisors and advice, as detailed below and in the options paper.
Please enter your response here:
This task should be performed by AFSA's regulation and enforcement team and not be burdened on private trustees.
AFSA receives details of pre-insolvency advisors in the bankruptcy form of the debtor and therefor are able to commence there own enquires.
Private Trustees should only be required to pass on any records that could assist AFSA in their investigations.
AFSA receives details of pre-insolvency advisors in the bankruptcy form of the debtor and therefor are able to commence there own enquires.
Private Trustees should only be required to pass on any records that could assist AFSA in their investigations.
In an effort to target untrustworthy advisor activity, which of the following Bankruptcy Act offences should include an offence to advise, instruct, assist or counsel any person to commit, or attempt to commit, that offence? You may select more than one.
Please select all that apply
Checkbox:
Ticked
subsection 263(1) – concealing a bankrupt’s property with the intent to defraud creditors
Checkbox:
Ticked
subsection 267(2) – making a false declaration or statement which the person knows to be false
Checkbox:
Ticked
subsection 268(3) – making a false representation or committing any fraud when executing a personal insolvency agreement with the intention of obtaining the consent of creditors