Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2023C00381:reg:25:p39
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2023C00381
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 25 (pt 39/47)
Character Range: 132366–135646

findings in AASB Research Reports and commissioned academic research;

          (c)                    the level of voluntary compliance with ASIC RG 85;

          (d)                   the low number of entities moving from SPFS to RDR;

          (e)                    the results of user and preparer surveys;

          (f)                    the decision by Treasury to revise the large proprietary thresholds (and therefore answering the 'who' should report question) (see paragraph BC35); and

          (g)                   the views of other regulators noted above, in particular the views expressed by ASIC in RG85 that, to provide a true and fair view of a company's financial position and performance, all of the R&M requirements in AAS should be complied with (see paragraphs BC28-BC29).

     The accumulated body of evidence indicates there are users of publicly lodged SPFS and there is widespread acknowledgement, particularly from users, that the current financial reporting framework does not provide consistent, comparable, comprehensible, transparent and enforceable financial statements.

     BC61            As such, the Board developed an Exposure Draft of proposals to address the issues, as set out in the next section.

Issue of ED 297

     BC62            The Board's proposals to implement its chosen option were exposed for public comment between August and November 2019 in two Exposure Drafts:

          (a)                    ED 297 Removal of Special Purpose Financial Statements for Certain For-Profit Private Sector Entities, which proposed the matters set out in this Standard, including the scope of the removal of SPFS and applicable transitional relief; and

          (b)                   ED 295 General Purpose Financial Statements – Simplified Disclosures for For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Tier 2 Entities, which proposed the revised Tier 2 GPFS framework. The proposals of ED 295 are addressed in detail in AASB 1060 and its Basis for Conclusions.

     BC63            Extensive outreach was conducted on the proposals, including roundtables in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide, attended by 73 stakeholders.

     BC64            The Board received 19 formal submissions on ED 297 from stakeholders representing professional service firms, regulators, professional bodies, academics, preparers, software providers and others.

     BC65            All submissions to the Board, summaries of outreach and deliberations by the Board were made available to the public on the AASB website.

     BC66            The Board did not undertake field testing of the proposals, for reasons including the time-sensitive nature of the project and that transition from SPFS to GPFS is not a new requirement. The Board noted that many SGE entities would have transitioned shortly prior to the development of the proposals, and those entities had not shared any issues in that process with the Board.

     BC67            The next section details the matters considered by the Board in developing those proposals and this Standard, including where relevant the Board's decisions on how to address stakeholder feedback as part of the exposure process.

Scope

     BC68            For-profit private sector entities preparing