Monitoring and inspection of bankruptcy trustees and debt agreement administrators

Inspector-General Practice Statement 11 explains the monitoring and inspection of bankruptcy trustees and debt agreement administrators.

On this page

  1. Introduction

    1. The regulatory responsibilities of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy are aimed at ensuring high national standards of personal insolvency practice and procedure.  These functions are undertaken by officers in AFSA’s Enforcement and Practitioner Surveillance division, who act independently from the Official Trustee and who report directly to the Chief Executive and Inspector-General, who oversee:
      • registered trustees in private practice
      • AFSA’s trustee function (the Official Trustee)
      • registered debt agreement administrators
      • solicitors who act as trustees in personal insolvency agreements.
    2. AFSA monitors the standard of bankruptcy trustees and debt agreement administrators and their administrations through an annual compliance program.  This may include:
      1. inspecting administrations, systems and practices
      2. attending creditor meetings
      3. reviewing the quality of trustee decisions
      4. targeted or strategic compliance monitoring
      5. reviewing complaints made against a practitioner
      6. surveying debtors and creditors.
    3. This practice document articulates the Inspector-General’s practices and expectations when monitoring practitioners through the program of inspection of administrations, systems and practices and attending meetings of creditors.

  2. Inspection of administrations and systems

    1. AFSA’s inspection program examines the quality of administration by practitioners with particular emphasis on:
      1. compliance with legislation and common law requirements
      2. proper performance of statutory and fiduciary duties and functions in accordance with legislation and standards
      3. financial records, billing and money handling practices
      4. control and system weaknesses and other areas of risk.
    2. This is a proactive process aimed at providing constructive feedback to practitioners to improve compliance and practice.  However, it should be recognised that on occasion issues may be identified that warrant further investigation and the adoption of more reactive strategies, including disciplinary proceedings, to obtain compliance and remedial action.
    3. Inspections are undertaken by AFSA as follows:
      • onsite at a practitioner’s office
      • remotely from the AFSA office
      • via targeted Compliance Information Requests.
    4. To reflect the way that risks are distributed across the personal insolvency system, AFSA uses a harms-based approach that best reflects the fact that system-wide influence is concentrated with a small number of practitioners. As part of this approach, we have also tiered practitioners to allow us to better determine the level of supervisory attention that needs to be given.

    5. Compliance Information Request (“CIR”)

    6. Each year AFSA publishes a compliance program that sets out our key focus areas.  These are also identified following an evaluation of information and data available to AFSA, as well as through environmental scanning and close engagement with stakeholders and the profession.
    7. The compliance approach occurs through our various business-as-usual activities or through targeted CIRs.  In deciding which approach is most appropriate, we consider:
      • outcomes and any recommendations from key focus areas undertaken in previous years
      • risk factors for non-compliance by practitioners in key focus areas
      • desired outcomes from a targeted approach to the key focus areas
      • how best to minimise the regulatory burden on practitioners.
    8. A CIR is a targeted written request for information.  It may also be referred to as a targeted inspection and through this activity, we may require practitioners to provide information about their compliance with the Bankruptcy Act.
    9. In determining the sample of administrations or practitioners, we use a mix of random selection and targeted sampling through analysis of data held by AFSA.
    10. CIR inspections are different to traditional inspections, with specific requirements and do not generally require practitioners to provide full administration records.  Depending on the outcome, each of these may lead to a full inspection.

    11. Fraud control issues

    12. An important benefit of this program is that, while an inspection of a sample of administrations cannot be expected to identify all compliance issues, it is a valid preventative control to minimise the risk of fraud.
    13. We have built into our inspection program tests of the systems and controls of practitioners.  The following aspects of the inspection program should be noted:
      1. The administration sample is selected on the basis of risk and types of estates.  At least one administration is randomly selected.
      2. The random sample can include estates where no property was shown as realised and no money recorded and could include estates where there may have been deliberate omissions.
      3. Estates with property, contributions or dividends are closely examined and the transactions followed through the course of the administration to final payments/dividend.  This may well include tracing a series of cheques to the accounts to which they are presented.
      4. On a sample basis, contributions may be reconciled with the bankrupt’s payment records.
      5. We may contact both creditors and bankrupts/debtors on a sample basis (and in some cases may contact banking institutions) to verify transactions and that claims are properly recorded and authentic.
      6. Practitioners will be required to reconstruct any files unable to be located and we will treat the inability to do so within a reasonable time frame as a serious breach of duty.
    14. As an added deterrent to possible employee fraud it is the Inspector-General’s expectation that practitioners will inform their employees of these aspects of the inspection program.

    15. Arranging the inspection

    16. AFSA aims to provide practitioners with at least 7 days’ notice of the date of its attendance for inspection.  A mutually convenient date and time to inspect will be coordinated with the practitioner.  At this time, the practitioner will be asked to complete and provide documents evidencing their systems and controls or an update of changes since the last inspection.
    17. As a control to minimise the risk of fraud, we will provide 24 hours’ notice of an inspection.  If we identify older files that may be archived, 48 hours’ notice will be provided to allow for file retrieval.
    18. This practice is used with all practitioners including the Official Trustee.  AFSA has previously identified fraud where the provision of a longer notice period provided a trustee’s employee the time to remove, alter and forge records prior to the inspection.
    19. AFSA is required to comply with workplace health and safety legislation in providing its employees with a healthy and safe work environment.  With this in mind and to ensure both privacy and efficiency in undertaking inspections, practitioners are requested to provide an office with a workstation and office chair or a workstation and office chair with access to a power point and some level of privacy.

    20. Determining the scope of the inspection

    21. AFSA generally inspect a standard number of administrations to ensure a minimum number of administrations are included in the sample size.
    22. An evaluation is undertaken of a practitioner’s systems and controls during the first inspection or after obtaining this information from the practitioner via a questionnaire, and details are maintained as part of the practitioner risk profile.  This is updated as new data is made available and specifically after each inspection.  This data will form part of information used to select the areas to examine during an inspection.
    23. The second element of the sampling is the targeted selection of the files to inspect.  Our methodology is based on a number of risk attributes.  For example, attributes in a Part X personal insolvency agreement or a Part IV bankruptcy might include:
      1. estates where the extent of assets realised is greater than a certain amount
      2. estates where the percentage of remuneration is greater than a certain amount
      3. estates where dividends have been paid
      4. estates with high amounts of liabilities
      5. Part X administrations with a low percentage dividend.
    24. While the Part IX sample is largely random in nature, some attributes may be examined.  For example, administrations may be selected where:
      • the debt agreement proposal (“DAP”) has been rejected or cancelled by the Official Receiver
      • variations and terminations in the first 6-12 months have occurred
      • the fees charged are outside the normal range.
    25. It should be noted that, in relation to the administrations that are randomly selected for inspection, these may display no identifiable attributes and may include administrations previously examined.

    26. Undertaking the inspection

    27. The inspection commences with an entrance interview with the registered practitioner.  This interview is an opportunity for the practitioner to discuss matters or technical areas of interest with the AFSA inspector, particularly if there is an area where the practitioner seeks additional feedback.  The practitioner’s response and documents provided from the systems and controls questionnaire will also be discussed at the entrance interview.  It is important that the practitioner is present at this interview (video conference or face to face).
    28. It is preferable that queries identified during the inspection be informally discussed and, where possible, clarified with the practitioners or their nominee during the inspection.  To minimise any disruption to workflow, the practitioner should outline the protocols they require of our staff, including which inspectors can be contacted for clarification of issues during the inspection.  If the practitioner feels that this may be too disruptive, arrangements can be made to collate queries for discussion at the exit interview or for response at a later time.
    29. Our inspectors are required to maintain a professional, independent and courteous approach.  If during the inspection a practitioner is concerned about the conduct of the officer or the inspection process they should raise these concerns directly either with the AFSA officer, the Director Practitioner Surveillance or the National Manager Enforcement and Practitioner Surveillance.
    30. If a possible error is found (see reporting non-compliance below) further testing may be carried out to determine whether the error is a one-off occurrence, a systemic problem or if it identifies a weakness in supervision or training.
    31. We will inspect each selected estate or administration for compliance.  We will then analyse and compile the results to assess whether there are systemic issues or control weaknesses.
    32. The inspection will be completed by an exit interview.  Feedback will be given about the quality of the administrations inspected.  Any preliminary errors and/or observations noted and discussed throughout the inspection will be raised at the exit interview and the practitioner will be given the opportunity to comment.  We will also provide comments about any issues identified by the practitioner at the entrance interview as well as any issues of best practice where greater efficiencies could be achieved.
    33. Records are made and retained of discussions and comments made both at the entrance and exit interviews.

    34. Reporting non-compliance

    35. In providing feedback and to make overall conclusions about the standard of practice, any identified areas of non-compliance (referred to as errors) are compiled and reported.  Errors are classified by the level of seriousness (the category) and by a descriptor e.g. conflict of interest.
    36. If any breach or non-compliance with the law is identified, we will consider when determining the category of error:
      1. the nature and circumstances of the breach
      2. the seriousness of the effect of a failure to comply, including the impact on a particular estate or individual
      3. the relevant prior conduct of the practitioner.
    37. The majority of practitioners are willing to comply and view the inspection program as an opportunity to obtain feedback about the quality of their administrations.  However, there is an expectation that practitioners who regularly fail to comply with the Bankruptcy Act and Regulations without a reasonable explanation, who regularly diverge from acceptable practice or whose behaviour/conduct brings the integrity of the profession into disrepute, will be subject to disciplinary action.
    38. To assist in assessing the seriousness and relevant regulatory response and to alert practitioners of the issues and possible repercussions, non-compliances are classified as category A, B or C depending on the level of seriousness.
      1. Category A These are very serious errors or breaches requiring immediate attention and include fundamental breaches and lack of controls that are likely to bring into question the integrity of the system.  These include any repeat occurrences of serious breaches identified in previous inspections as category B errors.  These matters will generally give rise to legal action, referral to fraud investigators, consideration about whether the practitioner should have their registration cancelled under Division 40 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule, sections 186K or 186L of the Bankruptcy Act or at least have their registration suspended or conditions placed on it.  In the case of a solicitor controlling trustee, this would result in action which could result in that person being declared ineligible to act.
        Category B These are serious or systemic errors that will have a material impact on the administration and require timely remedial action.  The practitioner should be counselled and timely remedial action taken.  These include where in prior inspections breaches were identified and either not remedied or repeated errors are made in the same area.
        Category C These are one-off practice or procedural errors and non-compliance errors that are not systemic or don’t have a significant impact on the administration, dividends, creditors, debtors’ rights or system integrity but should be brought to the attention of the practitioner and monitored.

    39. Finalising the inspection

    40. After undertaking the inspection (on site or remotely), inspectors may write to a sample of creditors in administrations identified during the inspection where the practitioner’s records show a dividend has been paid to creditors.  This verification is to ensure that the creditors are bona fide and that they received and banked dividend cheques or payments.  Inspectors may also sample and seek verification from debtors about the amount paid.
    41. Once our analysis and review is complete the practitioner will be provided with an initial inspection report seeking comments about any identified issues.  The report will outline the overall results of the inspection, any provisional errors or systemic issues or observations of significance as discussed either at or after the exit interview, and any remedial action that may be required.  In cases where serious or systemic issues appear to have been identified, the report will be reviewed and issued by the responsible Director.
    42. The practitioner’s response is generally expected within 14 days.  The inspection report is finalised once the practitioner responds to the inspection report or elects to not respond.  The response will be taken into account in determining the final errors or observations to be made in the final report.  This report is then issued to the practitioner to finalise the inspection.  This report may require certain remedial action to be undertaken.
    43. The practitioner’s risk profile is then updated and AFSA will monitor any specific administrations requiring remedial action.
    44. The Inspector-General is bound by the Privacy Act 1988 and will maintain the confidentiality of individual inspection results unless Privacy Act exceptions apply.  Exceptions allowed for under privacy legislation or where AFSA is able to provide specific details to others include:
      • where there has been consent by the practitioner
      • information required by a law enforcement agency
      • where the information has become public knowledge, for example through publishing of a Court or Administrative Appeals Tribunal judgment.

    45. Possible actions when breaches are identified

    46. There are a range of options available to AFSA if a breach of legislation or duty or other non-compliance has occurred.  These options relate to all practitioners and include:
      1. individual feedback – by far the most effective means to achieve timely remedial action
      2. guidance – making practitioners aware of systemic problem areas and the correct practice that is expected under law – either individually or to all
      3. counselling the practitioner
      4. changing the risk profile of a practitioner
      5. formal investigation and reporting under section 12, for example to creditors, police or professional bodies such as ARITA, CAANZ, CPA or Law Council
      6. special audit of accounts
      7. imposing penalties for realisations and interest charge breaches
      8. litigation
      9. involuntary cancellation of registration proceedings (or illegibility proceedings in the case of solicitors who act as controlling trustees).  See also Involuntary cancellation of trustee registration and Involuntary cancellation of debt agreement administrator registration.

  3. Attending meetings of creditors

    1. AFSA officers, as delegates of the Inspector-General, attend a sample of meetings of creditors in both Part X matters and section 73 proposals.
    2. Attendance at a sample of meetings provides AFSA with an opportunity to monitor and report on the standard of controlling trustees in Part X administrations and trustee meeting practices.  It also provides an effective and efficient method of monitoring debtors’ Part X and section 73 proposals and addressing creditor queries and concerns.
    3. In addition, we examine reports sent to creditors under section 189A of the Bankruptcy Act and section 75-175 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Bankruptcy) 2016.  If any queries or concerns are identified, we will discuss matters with the trustee and may attend the meeting, taking an active role if needed.  Often issues are clarified or problem areas rectified before creditors are asked to vote at the meeting.
    4. The following information documents the criteria that we use in determining which creditors’ meetings are attended and the protocols and processes to be used.
    5. The term “trustee” is used in this practice document to represent registered trustees, the Official Trustee and solicitor controlling trustees.

    6. The legislative framework

    7. Section 75-30 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule provides authority for the Inspector-General to attend and participate in meetings of creditors.  This section states:

    8. Criteria for attending: general

    9. AFSA may attend meetings where there appears to be an inherent risk to the credibility of the personal insolvency system posed by the administration for which the meeting is being held.  This would be the case where:
      1. it is suspected that creditors have not been properly informed, either because the debtor has not provided complete or accurate information or the trustee’s report is deficient
      2. the debtor is high profile with sizeable debts and there is public interest in the matter
      3. AFSA has concerns about the validity of a creditor’s claim and the creditor can affect the outcome of the meeting
      4. AFSA has concerns about the independence of the controlling trustee or trustee or suspected involvement of an untrustworthy pre-insolvency advisor.

    10. Criteria for attending: trustee-specific

    11. Meetings may also be attended when:
      1. the trustee has a history of poor-quality reports and meeting practices
      2. the trustee is inexperienced or does not regularly conduct meetings of creditors
      3. the bankrupt’s/debtor’s statement of affairs[1] or information from some other source indicates:
        • the debtor may have been involved in a high income occupation such as doctor or barrister, but displays little in the way of assets or income, and the offer to creditors is relatively small
        • antecedent transactions
        • the debtor may have recently possessed substantial income, assets or they control trusts or private companies,
        1. and the trustee has been requested to provide further advice but a satisfactory response has not been provided and/or the section 189A report or report on the section 73 proposal contains no or inadequate discussion of those issues

    12. Criteria for attending: creditor-specific

    13. Meetings may also be attended when:
      1. a creditor lodges a complaint before the meeting
      2. there are related-party creditors whose vote can affect the outcome or there is a high number of creditors who may vote but don’t wish to participate in a dividend, particularly where there is a substantial creditor likely to be affected.
      3. a creditor requests AFSA to attend the meeting of creditors and the reasons based on our preliminary assessment appear to be valid
      4. a creditor of the estate may also be a pre-insolvency advisor and there may be a threat to independence of the controlling trustee or trustee
      5. a creditor has raised concerns about the conduct of the controlling trustee or trustee relating to meetings of creditors
      6. one or more creditors’ claims are significant and disputed.

    14. Criteria for attending: debtor-specific

    15. Meetings may also be attended when:
      1. the debtor has been bankrupt or entered into a Part IX or Part X twice or more in the 10 years preceding the current section 188 authority
      2. the debtor’s creditors exceed $1million and their proposal would provide an insignificant return
      3. AFSA has reason to suspect that full and true disclosure of information was not made.
    16. In adopting a harms-based approach to the way we regulate, it may not be possible to attend all meetings exhibiting one or more of the above criteria.  In these circumstances we will exercise judgment as to which meetings are attended.

    17. Prior to the meeting

    18. AFSA will inform the controlling trustee or trustee of the meetings it will be attending prior to these meetings.  Where possible at least 24 hours’ notice will be given.
    19. AFSA may require the controlling trustee or trustee to provide further information or documentation before the meeting, if queries are raised about the content of the report to creditors or statements of claim.  These requests may include:
      1. previous reports to creditors in the matter
      2. copies of the statements of claim filed by creditors and documentary evidence relied upon in adjudicating the claims for the purposes of a meeting
      3. investigations undertaken in the matter including evidence relating to decisions made.
    20. If issues are identified by AFSA, the controlling trustee or trustee may be advised to send a supplementary report to creditors outlining the issues that need to be rectified or explained more thoroughly to allow creditors to make an informed decision.  The Inspector-General does not consider it appropriate for practitioners to charge for remedial work.
    21. We will consider whether the issues identified warrant attendance at the meeting or can be resolved through prior discussion (telephone, email or face to face) and action.  We will consult with the trustee and raise queries and concerns privately before the meeting if possible.  Every attempt will be made to resolve these issues before the meeting.  Intervention may lead to a supplementary report or clarification of contentious issues at meeting.

    22. At the meeting

    23. Usually two AFSA representatives will attend the meeting although each case will be treated on its merits.
    24. Attendance may be in person, video conference or teleconference.
    25. Should matters not be addressed to our satisfaction, the inspectors may intervene in meetings, raise issues and seek clarification from the debtor, creditors or the trustee.  AFSA may intervene in a meeting as considered appropriate and some of these instances may include:
      • addressing procedural deficiencies in relation to the meeting of creditors or to provide guidance to the controlling trustee or trustee as required
      • raise issues identified with proxies or statements of claim lodged by creditors
      • responding to questions posed towards AFSA staff by anyone at the meeting, if considered appropriate.
    26. The attendance of a debtor at a meeting of creditors for a Part X matter is considered to be mandatory “unless prevented by illness or another sufficient cause”.  The trustee can excuse the debtor from attending if they believe there is a valid reason.  For a meeting to consider an s73 proposal, it is best practice for the bankrupt to attend the meeting.  If the bankrupt does not attend the meeting and no valid reason is provided, AFSA will require the trustee to provide an explanation.
    27. Confrontational and/or adversarial behaviour by parties at the meeting will not result in any reaction from our staff at the time of the meeting.  However, where appropriate, feedback will be provided at a later opportunity.
    28. If our staff ask questions at the meeting, every effort will be made to provide a list of those questions to the trustee before the meeting.  The aim is not to ambush the trustee at the meeting although issues may arise that require immediate intervention.  This would be the case with non-compliance with the law where immediate remedial action is necessary by the trustee.
    29. A record will be made of those cases where the trustee or their staff has attempted to hinder our proper involvement at the meeting.  Consideration will be given after the meeting about whether further action is warranted.

    30. Post-meeting

    31. As part of AFSA’s guidance role, where appropriate, feedback will be provided to the trustee on the quality of the meeting processes.
    32. AFSA may request a copy of the minutes of the meeting to ensure the required procedures have been followed and all events of the meeting have been accurately recorded.
    33. Any specific patterns of inappropriate meeting processes will be recorded and any requirement for remedial action communicated to the trustee.

  4. Conclusion

    1. To contribute to the transparency of decision-making in the Australian Public Service, this practice document has outlined the proactive compliance and inspection strategies used by AFSA to monitor the quality of administrations under the Bankruptcy Act.  It has set out what AFSA undertakes to do, the basis of related decisions and what AFSA expects of practitioners in these areas.

Footnotes

[1] From 1 January 2020, the bankruptcy debtor’s petition and statement of affairs were combined into the Bankruptcy Form.  The Bankruptcy Form is also used by a person made bankrupt via sequestration order, in place of the former statement of affairs.  References in this guidance document to a statement of affairs can be taken to also refer to the Bankruptcy Form.  The Form 3 – Statement of affairs is still used for Part X administrations