Public Laws Problem Question
Part A
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
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