Interesting flowchart. So:
(1) If BIG applies to check the background of a director, that application is to a Commonwealth authority (police) so it would be illegal for that agency to notify BIG of any prior convictions that is "spent" under the legislation.
(2) If BIG releases a statement through ASX, that statement is to a Commonwealth authority so it is illegal for BIG to make any statement about a prior conviction that is spent, even if they knew about it (and how would they know? Does an ASX company have to check every Court paper of every Court action in every jurisdiction, in Australia and overseas?).
(3) Since ASX or ASIC are Commonwealth authorities, it is illegal for them to take any action or to publicise any prior convictions that is spent, even if they know about it.
(4) Since the AFR is not a Commonwealth authority, they are free to publish and publicise any prior convictions, spent or not. So the AFR can complain that BIG, ASX and ASIC have all allowed a director with a prior conviction to serve, safe in the knowledge that it is illegal for any of these parties to be notified of such convictions, or take any action even if they are notified.
What a wonderful double standard for the AFR. They are free to beat their drum against their chosen targets even though they know that legislation prevents any action being taken.
Perhaps the real culprit here is the legislation. If a conviction is considered to be spent then it probably shouldn't be legal to raise it in a national newspaper, for instance. OTOH, there may be grounds for saying that certain crimes should not be considered spent for those serving as company directors or in senior company positions on the ASX. Either way, it is really up to Parliament to make amendments.
BIG's responsibility begins and ends with their requirements to notify ASX about suitability of company senior personnel. They can only do so in accordance with the legislation.
I see considerable hypocrisy in the relentless coverage of BIG by the AFR over matters they must know are not BIG's responsibility. It's almost as if they know that there is not much to criticise BIG about, because if there was the the AFR would surely write about that. Instead, the AFR focusses on trivialities or matters that have nothing to do with BIG.
I can't wait to read the next AFR article about: "BIG linked to " because one of the victims owned a small number of BIG shares, or perhaps their father suicided or something.
Expand
