Name
What industry sector do you represent?
Which state/territory do you represent or live in?
What is or has been your interaction with the personal insolvency system?
In which capacity are you making your submission?
What area do you represent or reside in?
Do you believe that any of the current economic circumstances have the capacity to inform policy for increasing the default bankruptcy threshold to $20,000?
Please expand on your response
Yes, the current high cost of living, macroeconomic issues relating to wages, economic impacts, and compensating for inflation generally. The increase would help greatly in preventing the use of bankruptcy proceedings to pursue small debts and also reduce the overall number of bankrupts.
Endnotes
AFSA monthly Statistics Highlights, March 2023; AFSA state of the Personal Insolvency System Report, January 2023.
AFSA Summary Statistics on Liability of Debtors, May 2023 as requested by the Attorney-General’s Department.
AFSA Summary Statistics on Liability of Debtors, May 2023 as requested by the Attorney-General’s Department.
AFSA Summary Statistics on Liability of Debtors, May 2023 as requested by the Attorney-General’s Department.
If you do believe that any of the current economic circumstances have the capacity to inform the policy setting for increasing the default bankruptcy threshold to $20,000, should there be a transition period before any reforms take effect?
Yes
Do you believe that the period for a debtor to respond to a bankruptcy notice should be increased from 21 days to 28 days?
Please expand on your answer and consider any potential impacts.
. It would afford some debtors the ability to seek means to resolve debts and relieve pressure because a short time span in most life events increases pressure.
If you do believe that the period for a debtor to respond to a bankruptcy notice should be increased from 21 days to 28 days, should there be a transition period before any reform takes effect? Please expand on your answer.
I do not believe there should be a transition period.
Do you believe that any of the current economic circumstances have the capacity to inform the policy setting for a reduced record period of 7 years on the NPII for bankruptcies?
Please expand on your response.
I believe a permanent record on the NPII stigmatises a bankrupt person even after they have been discharged from bankruptcy and has resulted in many people using bankruptcy as a retaliatory tool to silence others. It has also been used for malicious purposes. The permanent record seems punitive, which raises privacy concerns, and is not in line with other public policies.
Would a reduced record period of 7 years on the NPII for bankruptcies benefit debtors?
Please expand on your response.
It would result in more confidence in the system and reduce people's overall attitude toward bankruptcy, especially the stigma attached to it. A similar flow-on effect resulted when spent conviction Acts were first enacted, I merely used it as an example in terms of public perception.
Do you believe that there may be any adverse impacts from reducing the permanent record period on the NPII to 7 years for bankruptcies?
Please expand on your response.
The reduction would be in line with community standards, which is to make life better for everyone and not to use bankruptcy as a punitive measure as it is currently perceived.
Do you believe that any circumstances should be exempt from a reduced record period on the NPII for bankruptcies?
If you support the proposed reform to reduce the NPII permanent record to 7 years for bankruptcies, should there be a transition period before any reforms take effect?
Please expand on your response.
It should happen immediately so that many people can benefit from it.
Do you believe that any current economic circumstances have the capacity to inform policy for repealing paragraphs 40(1)(ha) and 40(1)(hb) of the Bankruptcy Act?
Please expand on your response.
It will minimise the consequences of a debtor committing an act of bankruptcy under subsection 40(1) of the Bankruptcy Act especially when an unexpected financial circumstance occurs unexpectedly that is beyond a debtor's control.
Do you believe that there may be any adverse impacts from repealing paragraphs 40(1)(ha) and 40(1)(hb) of the Bankruptcy Act?
Please expand on your response.
But it would enhance the original legislative intention.
Do you believe any circumstances should be exempt from repealing the acts of bankruptcy provided for under paragraphs 40(1)(ha) and 40(1)(hb) of the Bankruptcy Act?
If you support a reform to repeal paragraphs 40(1)(ha) and 40(1)(hb) of the Bankruptcy Act, should there be a transition period before any reforms take effect?
Please expand on your response.
People should benefit from it immediately I believe rather wait through a transition time.
