Category: Volume 16 Issue 1

The principle of work protection or labour defence has traditionally informed welfare policy in Australasia. By promoting full employment and ensuring employees earn a living wage, government could foster economic security for the unionised workingman and his family. Nordic-style social insurance schemes, which were designed to shelter citizens from market uncertainties, were, in the main, unnecessary. In this patriarchal set up, protected and adequately paid workers could support their families, but could also afford to pay income tax and thereby contribute to the support of superannuated workers. Despite the dominance of neoliberalism, vestiges of labour defence, which privileges the status of employment over a broader conception of inclusive citizenship, continue to inform welfare. Responses to global mega trends, including technologically induced job retrenchment, may require a change in cultural attitudes to work and welfare. This article, which has a specific jurisdictional focus on New Zealand but has wider relevance, argues the tradition of labour defence presents a barrier to inclusive, citizenship-based welfare. In particular, cultural attitudes may militate against a universal basic income, which many believe will become a necessity in the face of potential mass retrenchment caused by robotics.

This article explains and investigates fraudulent phoenix activities in Australia, the nature of the problem and its size. Phoenix activity is prevalent in the area of unremitted employees’ superannuation guarantee contributions. The Commonwealth Government has increased its efforts to combat fraudulent phoenix activities however this article proposes new measures to combat fraudulent phoenix activities, specifically in relation to unremitted superannuation contributions and through improved online reporting relationships between the Australia Tax office and compliance of companies. This article also highlights the consequences of fraudulent phoenix activities whereby employees can lose their superannuation entitlements, creditors cannot recover their money and the government loses on non-payment of taxes, superannuation, workers’ compensation premiums and long service leave contributions. The effect of phoenix activity has further implications on the broader community, as more of these people will need to seek government assistance in the form of aged pensions when they retire.

This paper draws on findings from a research project examining dissent in High Court revenue law cases. The paper initially outlines the findings in relation to the differences in the incidence of dissent that can be identified between different High Courts led by different Chief Justices. Drawing upon research relating to the changing jurisprudence of the High Court, particularly during the latter part of the 20th Century, the paper then further explores whether this changing jurisprudence can be said to be reflected in a changed incidence of dissent in revenue cases before the High Court, concluding that there is arguably some evidence that when the Court adopts excessively narrow jurisprudence, or alternatively an activist jurisprudence, this may be reflected in an increased incidence of dissent in revenue cases.