Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Marketing – law and legislation – australia”

Micro-economic reform is a primary objective of modern Australian socio-economic policy. The key outcome targetted by this reform is increased efficiency, measured by a range of factors, including cost reduction, increased savings, and a more facilitative environment for business activity. These benefits are sought by the proponents of reform as part of a push to increase national prosperity, but concerns that social equity is undermined by it are expressed by opponents of that reform. The debate between efficiency and equity is raging in current Australian tax policy, a key site for micro-economic reform. As Government Budget restructuring occurs in Australia, demographic change (eg, the ageing population) undermines the ability of public funded welfare to provide retirement benefits. Responsibility for self-funded retirement is an important contributor to increasing private savings. Investment in growth assets such as corporate stock is increasing in Australia, however concerns about volatility of asset values and yield stimulate the importance of investment risk management techniques. Financial contract innovation utilising financial derivatives is a dominant mechanism for that risk management. Synthetic equity products which are characterised by capital protection and enhanced yield are popular and efficient equity risk management vehicles, and are observed globally, particularly in the North American market. Financial contract innovation, risk management using financial derivatives, and synthetic equity products suffer from an adverse tax regulatory response in Australia, which deprives Australian investors from access to important savings vehicles. The negative Australian tax response stems from anachronistic legislation and jurisprudence, which emphasises tax outcomes based on legal form. The pinnacle of this approach is the tax law insistence on characterisation of financial contracts as either debt or equity, despite some important financial similarities between these two asset types. Since derivatives produce transactions with novel legal forms this approach is unresponsive to innovation. The negative tax result also stems from a perception that the new products are tax arbitrage vehicles, offering tax benefits properly available to investment in stocks, which is thought to be inappropriate when the new products resemble debt positions (particularly when they are capital protected and yield enhanced). The negative tax response reflects administrative concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage. This approach seeks to impose tax linearity by proxy: rather than utilising systemic reform to align the tax treatment of debt and equity, the current strategy simply denies the equity tax benefits to a variety of innovative financial contracts. It deprives Australians of efficiency enhancing savings products, which because of an adverse tax result are unattractive to investors. The weakness of the current approach is illustrated by critical analysis of three key current and proposed tax laws: the ???debt dividend??? rules in sec. 46D Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (the ???Tax Act???); the 1997 Budget measures (which seek to integrate related stock and derivative positions); and the proposals in the Taxation of Financial Arrangements Issues Paper (which include a market value tax accounting treatment for ???traded equity,??? and propose a denial of the tax benefits for risk managed equity investments). The thesis develops a model for financial analysis of synthetic equity products to verify the efficiency claims made for them. The approach is described as the ???Tax ReValue??? model. The Tax ReValue approach isolates the enhanced investment returns possible for synthetic equity, and the model is tested by application to the leading Australian synthetic equity product, the converting preference share. The conclusions reached are that the converting preference share provides the key benefits of enhanced investment return and lower capital costs to its corporate issuer. This financial efficiency analysis is relied upon to support the assertion that a facilitative tax response to such products is appropriate. The facilitative response can be delivered by a reformulation of the existing tax rules, or by systemic reform. The reformulation of the existing tax rules is articulated by a Rule of Reason, which is proposed in the thesis as the basis for the allocation and retention of the equity tax benefits. To avoid concerns about taxpayer equity and revenue leakage the Rule of Reason proposes a Two Step approach to the allocation of the equity tax benefits to synthetics. The financial analysis is used to quantify non-tax benefits of synthetic equity products, and to predict whether and to what extent the security performs financially like debt or equity. This financial analysis is overlayed by a refined technical legal appraisal of whether the security contains the essential legal ???Badges of Equity.??? The resulting form and substance approach provides a fair and equitable control mechanism for perceived tax arbitrage, whilst facilitating efficient financial contract innovation. The ultimate source of non-linearity in the taxation of investment capital is the differential tax benefits provided to equity and debt. To promote tax linearity the differentiation needs to be removed, and the thesis makes recommendations for systemic reform, particularly concerning the introduction of a system of ???Franked Debt.??? The proposed system of ???Franked Debt??? would align the tax treatment of debt and equity by replacing the corporate interest deduction tax benefit with a lender credit in respect of corporate tax paid. This credit would operate mechanically like the existing shareholder imputation credit. The interface of this domestic tax credit scheme with the taxation of International investment capital, and the problems occasioned by constructive delivery of franking credits to Australian taxpayers via synthetics, are resolved by the design and costings of the new system, which has the potential to be revenue positive.

In this thesis I outline a view of primary legislation from a systems perspective. I suggest that systems theory and, in particular, autopoietic theory, as modified by field theory, is a mechanism for understanding how society operates. The description of primary legislation that I outline differs markedly from any conventional definition in that I argue that primary legislation is not, and indeed cannot be, either a law or any of the euphemisms that are usually accorded to an enactment by a parliament. I cite two reasons for such a conclusion. The primary reason for my conclusion is that I see primary legislation as being an output of a particular subsystem of society, while the law is the output of another subsystem of society. I argue that these outputs are the discrete products of separate subsystems of society. I argue that primary legislation should be viewed as a trinity. The first state of this trinity is that, upon enactment, primary legislation is a brute fact in that it is but a thing and the only property of this thing is that of being a text. The second state of this trinity is that following the act of enactment, the thing enacted will be reproduced and this reproduction is a separate thing that will sit in some repository until used. The third state of this trinity is that, upon use, this thing that is primary legislation will be transformed into an object and the user will attribute such functions and attributes to that object as are appropriate to the context within which the object is used. The thing has therefore become an object and an institutional fact. The second reason for my conclusion that primary legislation is not a law relates to the fact that the thing that is primary legislation is a text and the only function of a text is that it is available to be read. That is to say, of itself, a text is incapable of doing anything: it is the reader who defines the status of the text and attributes functions and attributes. Upon use, primary legislation thus becomes a censored input for future action and one of these actions may be some statement by a court of law. I assert that the view of primary legislation that has been accepted within the body politic is the product of the discourse of a particular subsystem of society that I have designated ?the legal practice?, and I outline why and how this has occurred. Outlining a view about primary legislation also necessitates outlining a view as to the nature of the law. I assert that the law is a myth and I see this myth as a product of the discourse of the legal practice. I have asserted that although it is the judges that state the law, such statements flow from the discourse of those who practise the law.

Taxpayer certainty is the most frequently cited argument against statutory General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAARs). However the vast literature criticising statutory GAARs fails to consider the extent of taxpayer uncertainty, and the potential for taxpayer uncertainty, in jurisdictions without a statutory GAAR. This thesis examines that gap in the literature. The thesis uses inductive reasoning to suggest that there is greater taxpayer certainty where a statutory GAAR exists and is appropriately administered. Specifically, it uses a case study to demonstrate that there is greater uncertainty for taxpayers where the administration, the judiciary and the legislature may use their vast powers to address perceived avoidance. The thesis then considers the form of a statutory GAAR that may best be expected to promote taxpayer certainty. Such analysis involves a comparison of Australia???s oldest statutory GAAR, Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (and its predecessor section 260), with the more recent GAARs in Australia???s indirect tax legislation (GST and state stamp duty), and the GAARs of other jurisdictions, including New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. In order to promote taxpayer certainty, a uniform statutory GAAR is ultimately proposed for all Australian taxation legislation, with safeguards to ensure the appropriate administration of the uniform GAAR.

This thesis seeks to contribute to solving the debate about the framework of rules and institutions applicable to public utility sectors, by adopting both economic theories, such as natural monopoly, network effects, and public goods, and practical analysis of the telecommunications sectors for both Australia and the United States. Governments must reevaluate the framework regulating public utility sectors whenever rapid technological advancements occur. This thesis argues that the antitrust authority better enforces competition rules, and that the sector-specific authority better enforces technical and universal service rules. The justification of the special competition rule concerning bottleneck facilities access should be limited. As for the universal service scheme, the enforcer should ensure competitive neutrality and adopt pro-competitive instruments. This framework would allow for a more market-oriented and economy-wide regulatory administration, as well as enforcement of the universal service scheme based on a more accurate reflection of the fundamental values of citizens.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.