Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00172:body:0:p100
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00172
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 264058–267172

whole of government level.

Main changes from the Exposure Draft
BC40 The main changes made by the Board to the implementation guidance proposed in ED 238 following consideration of respondents' comments are noted in the following paragraphs.
BC41 Some respondents considered that the major examples emphasised substantive and protective rights of various investors without adequately identifying the relevant activities of the investee and in some cases did not clearly apply the three criteria for control in coming to their conclusions.  The Board agreed that the relevant activities of the investee should be addressed clearly, since an investor can have power over an investee only when it has substantive rights that give it the current ability to direct the relevant activities of the investee.  The examples were amended accordingly, including addressing the control criteria more directly.  Nevertheless, the Board retained the substantive and protective rights details in the examples, albeit with some reclassification, as part of the background information for the examples.
BC42 Of the four major examples proposed in the ED, three related specifically to public sector entities (local governments, universities, and government departments and authorities) and one to not-for-profit private sector entities (a religious organisation and an association).  Some respondents requested additional not-for-profit private sector examples.  The Board added a further major example (Example IG2) based on not-for-profit private sector entities (a charity and a company) and illustrating four scenarios.  As stated in paragraph BC16, the Board also decided to note in the implementation guidance that the illustrative examples apply by analogy to types of not-for-profit entities other than those specifically identified in the examples and similar circumstances, as relevant (see paragraph IG3).
BC43 The ED proposed that rights specified in substantively enacted legislation could not give an investor the current ability to direct the relevant activities of an investee.  This was questioned by some respondents, who compared substantive enactment of substantive rights with substantive rights that were exercisable only in the future.  The Board reconsidered the issue and decided to change the guidance to acknowledge that in limited circumstances rights under substantively enacted legislation could become exercisable in time for making decisions about an investee's relevant activities.  For example, the progression from substantively enacted legislation to enacted legislation may be merely a matter of the formal approval of the legislation by the Governor in Council within a limited timeframe.
BC44 Several respondents questioned whether the notion of delegation in the not-for-profit public sector was adequately reflected in the proposed example illustrating whether a government department controlled a statutory authority.  The Board revised the example and paragraph IG24 to clarify that a delegate in the not-for-profit public sector is not an agent of the delegator.  The Board also deleted