For the following, it is assumed the preliminary considerations of date and jurisdiction (including extra-territorial) with respect to the Corporate Corruption Act 2013 (NSW) ('the Act') and the $10,000 payment from Country Bank to Remember the Bush coalition are met. As a for-profit organisation formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities)i Country Bank meets the requirement of being a 'corporation' for the purposes of the Act, as provision of banking services indeed constitutes an undertaking of business. 'Expenditure' connotes a benefit to be received, a cost arising from a payment with which no direct benefit which can be foreseen may indeed be more accurately labelled a donation. The objective of Country Bank in making said payment was clearly rural community betterment. This was evidenced by the public announcement on their website and a strict textual approach would incorporate philanthropy, particularly with the reasonable forethought of a tax deduction establishing a motive. There is little doubt then, that the payment in question satisfies the meaning of 'expenditure' as in section 4 of the Act. In determining whether the payment in question was indeed directed to a 'political matter', the objective intention of parliament must be ascertained as legislatively mandated by s 33 of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) and preferred jus commune in Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214ii. "[C]ontext, the general purpose and policy of a provision... are surer guides to its meaning than the logic with which it is constructed"iii, which is clearly to prevent the political mechanism being perverted for commercial advantage. Section 3 of the Act solidifies this, though there may be some subjectivity in determining what constitutes integrity and at what point it is considered lost. For the purposes of the Act, 'political matter' must be interpreted with specificity; non ejusdem generis. A 'political matter' in which there is direct connection with business activities may better serve to separate charitable from corrupt conductiv. Provision of banking services has no direct correlation with promotion of mental health services and as such, a preferred construction of the Act would define the actions of Country Bank not satisfying the definition of a relevant 'political matter'. The Act states 'obtaining [any] advantage' would breach section 4, obscuring parliamentary intention which was to prohibit obtaining strictly commercial advantage for corporations. Being independent organisations, Country Bank has no significant power over the political agenda of Remember the Bush, nor any direct influence in how said funding is appropriated. As such, Country Bank cannot control the commercial advantage that the relevant political persuasion may provide and in departure from a strict literalist viewv, cannot offend section 4 of the Act. Examination of individual elements of the Act highlight the central issues of difficulty in defining a 'political matter' and obscurity of what constitutes a relevant, controllable 'advantage' for the corporation. A stringent textual interpretation would find Country Bank's payment to Remember the Bush in breach of section 4 of the Act, repugnant to parliamentary intention of securing corporate and political integrity, not restricting efforts of community betterment. Noscitur a sociis; a word known by its friends, then brings clarity to interpretation through intrinsic context and warrants a purposive approach in constructing the dichotomy between charitable and corrupt conduct as is the objective intention of the legislature. Part B
Section 2C(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) establishes the definition of person to include Dennis, being an individualvi. Given the material fact of being an owner-occupier, this element of section 3 of the Transport Infrastructure (Financial Loss) Act 2013 (NSW) ('the Act') is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document