The importance of grammar

One of the four FY26 regulatory priorities for AFSA is repeated in full below:

“Practices manipulating the outcomes of personal insolvency proposals and creditor meetings to avoid bankruptcy, defeat creditors and protect wealth”

It appears from the sentence that there are three criteria constituting “manipulation”: 1. Avoid bankruptcy, 2. Defeat creditors, 3. Protect wealth.

The use of the comma and “and” imply all three criteria must be present to constitute “manipulation”. On the other hand, common sense says any one of those criteria might constitute “manipulation”, however the absence of ‘or’ in the sentence indicates otherwise. 

The elephant in the room (sentence) is of course “avoid bankruptcy” as everyone knows a certain outcome of a personal insolvency agreement (PIA) is to avoid bankruptcy which makes a nonsense if AFSA intended ‘or’ to apply.

Having recently shown the sentence to a number of legal professionals, I am none the wiser, with the most common response being “that’s what PIAs are for”.