9 August 2016
30 Cannon Street
LONDON EC 4M 6 XH
Trustees Review of Structure and Effectiveness
The Group of 100 (G100) is the pre-eminent voice for CFOs in Australia with the purpose of creating better businesses for tomorrow. We are pleased to respond to the Proposal Paper.
Proposal 1: Geographical distribution of trustees
The G100 supports the changes to the geographical distribution of trustees which are consistent with views expressed in our previous submission.
Proposal 2: Professional background of the Trustees
The G100 supports the proposed changes. We believe that the emphasis should be on attracting and appointing the best available people to the position.
Proposal 3: Remuneration of the Trustees
Recent experience is that executives and directors setting their own remuneration is within approved constraints.
Proposal 4: Focus and frequency of reviews of structure and effectiveness
The G100 supports the proposed change to undertake reviews no more than five years after the conclusion of the previous review.
Proposal 5: The size of the Board
The G100 supports a reduction in the number of IASB Board members. However, we are not aware of any particular reason why thirteen is an appropriate number other than, say, twelve.
Proposal 6: Professional background of the Board
The G100 supports the proposed change which broadens the mix of professional backgrounds from which members may be drawn.– 2 –
Proposal 7: Geographical distribution of the Board
The G100 supports the change in the geographical distribution of Board members.
Proposal 8: Terms of reappointment of the Board
The G100 considers that a potential ten year term for an ordinary member is too long especially where relevant practical experience is an ongoing consideration. In addition, an initial fixed term of five years may discourage potential candidates with relevant practical experience from applying.
Proposal 9: Voting requirements for the Board
The G100 supports the proposed amendment.
Proposal 10: Meeting of IFRS Advisory Council
The G100 supports the proposed amendment. However, we suggest the word “twice” replace “two times”.
Group of 100 Inc