feedSubscribe to our news feeds
Archived Posts Lists

Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre

Resources

Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links

November 2, 2006

Privatising Medibank Private: is it a mutual?

The proposed sale of Medibank Private has raised an interesting legal issue: who ‘owns’ or enjoys rights in the Medibank Private fund? Is it a mutual fund?

In other words, is there a difference between ownership of Medibank Private Limited (the
managing organisation of the Medibank Private fund) and the fund
itself and, if so, do members of the fund have certain rights to the benefit
of the fund and associated assets which need to be considered
in any scheme for the sale of Medibank Private?

This issue was considered in Parliamentary Library Research Brief no. 2 2006–07 which concluded that the fund was not a mutual fund and "members could not, in the event of a sale, claim entitlement to compensation on the basis that they were the owners of the fund. They would not, for instance, have an entitlement to share in any premium or goodwill paid by a purchaser for the organisation. That does not mean, however, that members could not claim compensation for loss of certain statutory rights over the fund and associated assets."

The Finance Minister has responded by releasing the advice of Blake Dawson Waldron which considers the matters raised in the Research Brief.

The BDW advice rejects the Research Brief’s conclusion that "Medibank Private fund (as opposed to Medibank Private Limited) is best characterised as a government-controlled not-for-profit entity".

The advice considers the nature of "membership" and the interests of "contributors": "“The Fund” is simply a shorthand expression for a set of certain assets and liabilities of MPL. The Fund is not a separate entity. It has none of the hallmarks of a legal entity—it is not able to contract, to own property or to be sued. A person becomes a contributor (a member of the Fund) by entering into a contract with MPL, not the Fund."

It concludes that "Contrary to what is stated in the Brief, contributors have no interests or property rights in assets comprising the Fund, or enforceable rights to the benefit of Fund assets. For this reason, the Commonwealth will not be liable to pay compensation as suggested in the Brief."

UPDATE 21 December 2007: the Rudd Labor Government will not privatise Medibank Private

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 2nd November 2006 by David Jacobson in Business Planning, Compliance, Financial Services, Insurance

November 1, 2006

Anti-Money Laundering Bills introduced

The Government has introduced the first tranche of the Anti-money laundering/Counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) legislation into Commonwealth Parliament:

The 282-page AML/CTF bill has staggered operative dates. Specific operative dates include:
   

  • Identification procedures: 12 months after the bill receives assent.
  • Reporting obligations: 24 months after the bill receives assent.
  • AML/CTF reports: 6 months after the bill receives assent.
  • Cross-border currency transactions: when the bill receives assent.
  • Electronic funds transfer instructions: when the bill receives assent.
  • AML/CTF programs: 12 months after the bill receives assent.
  • Record-keeping requirements: 6 months after the bill receives assent

The Attorney-General’s Department AML website

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 1st November 2006 by David Jacobson in Anti-money laundering, Compliance, Financial Services

How do you know your software is compliant?

I constantly hear stories from businesses about software that needs to be modified (or adapted or
customised) before it will perform the functions it was purchased to perform. In addition to the direct cost of purchasing or licensing the software, businesses must allow for customisation costs (including conversion from your existing system) as well as the costs of training and annual maintenance.

When you are in a regulated industry not only must
software perform its intended function, it must do
so in a legally compliant way. Is your software
vendor able to map the software processes to your
relevant industry regulations and certify compliance? Does it perform all
the required functions or just some?

If you
choose a software "package" in which the software
processes do not match your required processes or
performs them in a  non-compliant manner, then your
business is at risk.

If, for example, the software needs to calculate interest or classify income in a certain way, then satisfy yourself that the calculations are compliant. Failure to do so could affect either your customers or your shareholders or both.

Recent disclosures by companies such as Westpac and NAB indicate that this is not as simple as it seems.

Buying software that is never
installed, improperly implemented, or under-utilized because of non-compliant features could also be costly.

Print This Post Print This Post

Posted 1st November 2006 by David Jacobson in Business Planning, Compliance
« Newer Posts