Will identifier reduce multiple directorship conflicts?
People serving on multiple boards within the financial services industry, including as trustee directors on superannuation funds, will be more readily identifiable as a result of a bipartisan move to introduce Director Identification Numbers (DINs).
While having gone largely uncommented in the financial services industry, the move to introduce the DINs has been welcomed by the building and construction industry because it was something first canvassed in 2001 by the Cole Royal Commission.
The legislation to impose the DINs was introduced in the closing hours of the Parliament last week, within the Treasury Laws Amendment (Registries Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2019.
Importantly, the legislation is regarded as having bipartisan support with the building industry commenting on the level of activity on the part of the Shadow Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones and the Shadow Minister for Employment and Industry, Brendan O’Connor.
While the legislation is aimed at preventing phoenixing and other anti-commercial activity, it is also expected to give regulators greater visibility with respect to related party activity.
A number of people have come in for criticism over their presence on multiple boards in the superannuation industry, with claims that such situations give rise to conflicts of interest.
Under the new legislation, directors will have an identifier which can be tracked by the relevant regulators, particularly the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
Recommended for you
The central bank has announced its latest rate decision amid stubborn inflation and increasing geopolitical tension.
Government has introduced a bill to Parliament to legislate the first stream of the QAR reforms.
ASIC now has a 1:1 ratio when it comes to court success in the enforcement of crypto activities and more action is expected as Treasury seeks to introduce a regulatory framework.
A leading governance body has hit out at “specialist interest groups proposing ad hoc law reform” when it comes to reforms of financial services legislation and believes an independent body is needed.
