Nature Of The Transaction Accounting Essay

No, for the intents of this Standard, a dealing with an employee or other party in his/her capacity as a holder of equity instrument of the entity is non a share-based payment dealing. For illustration, if an entity grants all holders of a peculiar category of its equity instruments the right to get farther equity instrument of the entity at a monetary value that is less than the just value of those equity instruments, and an employee receives such a right because he/she is a holder of equity instrument of that peculiar category, the granting or exercising of that right is non capable affair to the necessities of this Standard ( AASB 2, Page 14, Para 12 ) . Besides portion based payments are those payments which are given on the footing of company ‘s equity or portions, nevertheless it does non merely relates to employers but besides to other stakeholders such as providers when they are counted as the receiver of the cost of goods and services. Answer 2-B Harmonizing to AASB2 ( p.11, para 4 ) â€Å" A share-based payment dealing may be settled by another group entity ( or a stockholder of any group entity ) on behalf of the entity receiving or geting the goods or services † . It alsoapplies to an entity that: ( a ) receives goods or services when another entity in the same group ( or a stockholder of any group entity ) has the duty to settlethe share-based payment dealing ; or ( B ) has an demand to settle a share-based payment dealing when another entity in the same group receives the goods or services, unless the dealing is doubtless for a ground other than recompense for goods or services supplied to the entity being paid them. Answer 2 C Harmonizing to AASB2 ( 119 ) employee fillips may be counted as a portion based payments. However it may be portion based or employee benefited. Share options or other equity instruments are granted to employees as portion of their wage bundle, in add-on to hard currency wage and other employment benefits. Normally, it is non possible to mensurate straight the services received for peculiar constituents of the employee ‘s wage bundle. It might besides non be possible to mensurate the just value of the entire wage bundle independently, without mensurating straight the just value of the equity instruments granted. Furthermore, portions or portion options are sometimes granted as portion of a fillip agreement, instead than as a portion of basic wage, for illustration, as an inducement to the employees to stay in the entity ‘s employ or to honor them for their attempts inimproving the entity ‘s public presentation. By allowing portions or portion options, in add-on to other wage, the entity is paying extra wage to obtain extra benefits. It is really hard to gauge the just value of those benefits. Because of the trouble of mensurating straight the just value of the servicesreceived, the entity shall mensurate the just value of the employee services established by mention to the just value of the equity instrument arranged ( AASB2, P.14, Para 12 ) . Share based payments chiefly includes all executive option instead than merely employee benefits or employee fillips. Answer 2D- AASB2, P.13, Recognition 7 explains that â€Å" An entity shall recognize the goods or services established or get in a share-based payment dealing when it obtain the goods or the services are received † . The entity shall recognize a attendant addition in equity if the goods or services were established in an equity-settled share-based payment dealing or a answerability if the goods or services were get in a cash-settled share-based payment dealing. Answer 3- A corporate company when placing the portion based payments or portion options chiefly focus on complexness or the contentions which are at that place in acknowledging the disbursals portion options which involves issue of portion, portion options or other equity which can impact both employees and supplies ( other stakeholder in the company )For-Typically, an disbursal arises from the ingestion of goods or services. For illustration, services are typically consumed instantly, in which instance an disbursal is recognised as the counterparty renders service. Goods might be consumed over a period of clip or, in the instance of stock lists, sold at a ulterior day of the month, in which instance an disbursal is recognised when the goods are consumed or sold.Against-However, sometimes it is necessary to recognize an disbursal before the goods or services are consumed or sold, because they do non measure up for acknowledgment as assets. For illustration, an entity might get goods as portio n of the research stage of a undertaking to develop a new merchandise. Although those goods have non been consumed, they might non measure up for acknowledgment as assets under the applicable Standard. ( AASB, P.13, Recognition 9 ) . Most companies argue against a portion option disbursal acknowledgment and argument on whether the dealing is between the stockholders and the employers or it is between the entity and employees. Question arises whether employees really provide them services for the portion options that are given by the company or non. It may good be argued that the acknowledgment of the disbursals is inconsistent. Answer 4- The attack AASB usage for the rating of portion options is Fair Value attack. ( Deegan 2012, p.16, p.17, p.21 )Nature of the dealingSum at which the disbursal ( or plus ) and equity history are recognizedMinutess where the just value of the goods or services can be measured faithfully At the just value of the goods or services received Minutess with employees ( where there is a kept up premise that the just value of the services can non be measured faithfully ) At the just value of the equity instruments being granted In those ‘rare state of affairss ‘ where the just value of goods and services provided by non-employees can non be measured faithfully At the just value of the equity instruments being grantedPart B01/01 2012 Dr Salaries Expense ( 100000 * $ 0.90 ) $ 90000 Cr Share Options $ 90000 two 30/06/2012 Dr Employee benefits disbursals $ 15000 Cr Share Capital $ 15000 three 01/01/2015 Dr Share Options ( 100000 * $ 3.50 ) $ 350000 Cr Share Capital $ 350000 ( B ) 31st March 2012 Dr Goodwill/ Patents $ 40000 Cr Share Capital $ 40000 Justifying the above entry- Harmonizing to AASB ( explained in Para 12 ) â€Å" Transactions where the just value of the goods and services can be measured faithfully is the sum at the just value of the goods and services received, whereas minutess with the employees and where there is a kept up premise that the just value of the services can non be measured faithfully is the just value of the equity instruments being granted † .

Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Essay

Introduction During the 2010 Federal election, both major political parties campaigned on indigenous affairs. Following the ALP’s victory, Prime Minister Gillard established an independent Expert Panel to â€Å"to investigate how to give effect to constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. † Two schools of thought have dominated the national conversation of how this should be achieved. One view is that an amendment to the preamble of the constitution will provide safe and symbolic recognition. The alternative view is that more substantive reform is required to secure equality before the law. On January 16 2012, the Panel presented the Prime Minister their report and proposed five amendments to the Commonwealth Constitution. This paper will evaluate the five proposals and the reasons offered by the Panel. Each amendment will be analysed on its symbolic significance and potential legal ramifications. Finally this paper will conclude on how to best give Indigenous Australians recognition within the constitution. Constitutional Recognition For the panel, constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians means removing provisions in the Constitution that contemplate racial discrimination. Whether intended or not, the five proposals address the broader issues of racial discrimination and equality before the law within the Commonwealth Constitution. Repealing section 25 In its report, the Panel indicates that 97. 5% of all submissions approve of repealing section 25. Section 25 reads: For the purposes of the last section, if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections for the more numerous House of the Parliament of the State, then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted. On face value, section 25 appears racist as it contemplates States excluding voters on the grounds of race. This interpretation has been affirmed by Chief Justice Gibbs in McKinlays’s case (1975). Section 25 must be read with section 24 to ascertain the real intention of the framers. Section 24 specifies that the number of lower house representatives is determined by dividing the total number of people of the Commonwealth by twice the number of senators and then dividing the population of each state by that quota. Therefore, by racially excluding voters the numerical input of the State’s population is reduced; the State’s federal representation decreases and discriminatory states forgo greater federal representation. Although section 25 was intended to penalise racially discriminatory states, a State was able to enact discriminatory legislation by drafting laws that did not disenfranchise ‘all’ members of a racial group. For instance, New South Wales denied certain classes of indigenous people the right to vote. The panel states that this proposal is ‘technically and legally sound’. Many constitutional commentators agree but there is a small minority who have identified possible legal consequences. In 1980, Justice Dean included section 25 as a provision guaranteeing the right to vote. The right to vote is not constitutionally entrenched. Parliament has authority to determine the electoral process pursuant to section 30. It is unclear whether the High Court would find legislation that disqualified people of certain races from voting invalid because of the section 7 words ‘directly chosen by the people’ and section 24. Theoretically, it may be argued that section 25 should not be removed until the right to vote is constitutionally entrenched. However, this view is highly unorthodox and section 25 should be repealed. Repealing section 51 (XXIV) Section 51(xxvi) authorises the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to â€Å"the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws†. The Panel recommends removing section 51(xxvi) as it contemplates discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen, the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was denied purchasing Pastoral property from the Crown. The Queensland Minister for Lands reasoned that ‘the government did not view favourable proposals to acquire large areas of land for development by Aborigines in isolation’. Koowarta argued that the Minister was in breach of sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Joh Bjelke-Petersen challenged the constitutional validity of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). The Premier argued that s51(xxvi) ‘does not confer power to make laws which apply to all races’. A majority of the High Court found that sections 9 and 12 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 were invalid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). The Hindmarsh Island Bridge case illustrates parliament’s ability to enact adversely discriminatory laws in relation to race. The case concerned whether the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) could remove rights which the plaintiffs enjoyed under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). The Ngarrindjeri women argued that the races power only allowed parliament to pass laws that are for the benefit of a particular race. The Commonwealth argued that there were no limits to the power. The High Court found that as the Heritage Protection Act was validly enacted under s 51(xxvi), the same head of power could support a whole or partial repeal. The High Court was divided on whether S 51(xxvi) could only be used for the advancement or benefit of a racial group. In his judgement, Justice Kirby found that section 51 (xxvi) ‘does not extend to the enactment of laws detrimental to or discriminatory against, the people of any race (including the Aboriginal race) by reference to their race’. Justices Gummow and Hayne said that there was no basis for reading s51(xxvi) as not permitting adverse discrimination. In summary, Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth did not confirm that laws enacted under section 51 (xxvi) must be beneficial. Since then, it has generally been accepted that s 51 (xxvi) gives the Commonwealth power to discriminate either in favour or against members of a particular race. The removal of S51 (xxvi) would be a significant symbolic gesture to Indigenous Australians as they are the only group to whom section 51(xxvi) laws have been enacted. Not all laws passed under s 51 (xxvi) have been adversely discriminatory. In Commonwealth v Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case), sections 8 and 11 of The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) were held to be constitutionally valid pursuant to s 51 (xxvi). As a result, the Franklin River Hydroelectric Dam could not be constructed in a place considered spiritually significant by Aboriginal people. A repeal of section 51 (xxvi) might not invalidate the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. Other powers, specifically the external affairs power in s51 (xxix), would support this legislation under the principle of dual characterisation. Other beneficial legislation may not be supported under the same principle. In Western Australia v The Commonwealth, the court found The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) constitutionally valid pursuant to section 51 (xxvi). The court did not find it necessary to consider any other heads of power. Australia’s endorsement of the UN Deceleration on the Rights of Indigenous People may provide scope to support the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) under the external affairs power. However, it seems reckless to gamble with legislation that establishes a framework for the protection and recognition of native title. Repealing section 51 (xxvi) will also limit the Commonwealth’s ability to pass new laws for the advancement of Indigenous Australians. For these reasons, the Panel proposes that the repeal of section 51 (xxvi) must be accompanied by a new head of power with respect to Indigenous Australians. Inserting section 51A The preamble to S51A is the first recommendation which actually addresses the important contributions of Indigenous Australians. Section 51A also allows the Commonwealth to makes laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Similar to section 51(xxvi), the power contained within section 51A is not subject to any conditions. This is somewhat of a double edged sword. All laws currently passed under section 51 (xxvi) have only been enacted with respect to Indigenous Australians. As the power is not subject to any restriction, all legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) would most likely be supported by section 51A. Alternatively, section 51A could be used to enact legislation that is adversely discriminatory. The Panel states that the preamble which acknowledges ‘the need to secure the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ will mitigate this risk. However, a preamble is only used to resolve an ambiguity within a text. The power to make laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is not particularly ambiguous. The Panel’s predicts laws passed pursuant to s 51A would be assessed on whether they broadly benefit the group concerned. The actual word used is ‘advancement’ which would be interpreted differently to ‘benefit’. Furthermore, the High Court is not always ready to embrace a value judgement such as one based ‘benefit’. Credit should be given to the Panel for this proposal. The preamble to Section 51A constitutionally recognises the history, culture and contributions of Indigenous Australians. The new head of power will likely ensure that current legislation pursuant to section 51 (xxvi) will continue to operate. Section 51A also removes parliament’s power to enact laws with regards to a person’s race. This proposal addresses the apartheid nature of our constitution. However, Section 51A is not the white knight which was hoped for. It will be the courts who decide whether this new power is ambiguous. If Section 51A is found to be ambiguous, the courts will have significant discretion in interpreting the meaning of â€Å"advancement†. To overcome these issues, the panel has recommended that a racial non-discrimination provision (S116A) be added to the constitution. Inserting section 116A There are both policy and legal issues concerning section 116A. Firstly, Australia has a history of avoiding constitutional entrenchments of rights. The proposed anti-discrimination provision only protects racial groups. Section 116A may be viewed as privileging anti-racial discrimination over anti-sex discrimination or anti-homophobic discrimination. The first legal consideration is which groups will be protected by section 116A. Jewish people are recognized as an ethnic group but Muslims are not. It is uncertain whether Muslims would receive the same protection as Jews. Furthermore, would a person who converted to Judaism receive identical protection as a person who was born Jewish? The second legal issue is how Section 116A will affect existing state and commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. For example, Anti-discrimination state law authorise discrimination in the employment of actors for reasons of ‘authenticity’. In addition, sections 12 and 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) permits people to discriminate when they are searching for someone to share or work with in their home. Once again, it will be for the court to decide if these provisions are constitutionally invalid. The panel has affirmed that S116A (2) will support laws enacted under s 51 (xxvi) and section 51A. Like section 51A, section 116A could be interpreted by the courts in ways that were not intended. The courts will have significant discretion in determining what â€Å"is for the purpose of overcoming disadvantage†. An important issue for the Indigenous community is the Northern Territory Intervention. In Wurridjal v Commonwealth, the high court upheld the government’s partial repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act under the race powers. The court also upheld the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act pursuant to section 51 (xxix). Due to the principle of dual characterisation, it is unlikely that S116A will provide an avenue for Indigenous people to contest the intervention. S116A is probably the most controversial recommendation as it concerns equality before the law. This issue is probably better dealt with by an expert panel assessing a Bill of Rights. To achieve a similar result, the panel could propose that section 51A has an accompanying provision similar to 116A(2). Insert section 127A. Section 127A is a provision which recognises Indigenous languages as the original language of Australia. A separate language provision is necessary to capture the importance of traditional languages within Indigenous culture. Section 127A also acknowledges that English is the national language of Australia. The Panel rejected a submission suggesting ‘all Australian citizens shall have the freedom to speak, maintain and transmit the language of their choice’. The Panel did not want to give rise to legal challenges regarding the right to deal with government in languages other than English. It is unclear what practical consequence would flow from s127A. Section 127A could be used to secure funding for Indigenous languages on the grounds of ‘national heritage’. Nonetheless, the Panel does not intend for this provision to give rise to new legal rights. S127A is symbolically important and is an appropriate way of constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians. Summary of analysis This analysis concludes that the five proposals put forward by the panel appropriately balance substantive reform and symbolic significance. As a result, the Panel should be congratulated. If the Panel’s goal was to remove overtly racist tones within the Australian Constitution then they have succeeded. If the panels objective was to definitively correct the wrongs of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Intervention then they have failed. The amendments proposed do not sufficiently address racial discriminatory acts passed under other heads of power. Section 116A(2) has been perceived as a tasteful reformulation of the races power. Furthermore, the proposals provides the courts substantial discretion in interpreting terms such as â€Å"overcoming disadvantage†, â€Å"advancement† and â€Å"group†. In essence, the most important issue does not concern symbolic change or substantive reform. It is simply a question of which proposals will gain bipartisan support. Conclusion The panel’s proposals could succeed at referendum. Firstly, Australians are more likely to support something substantive than purely symbolic. Secondly, this is not an issue which would be perceived as a ‘politicians’ proposal. Australians are hesitant to support proposals perceived as self-serving. Thirdly, the Panel indicates that its proposals are capable of being supported by an overwhelming majority of Australians. Nonetheless, to succeed at referendum, the support from the Federal opposition government and all State governments is essential. It is very easy, and sometimes attractive, for the federal Opposition to oppose a referendum. It can be a useful way of generating a negative public reaction to the government and its agenda. Since 2010, the Coalition has fought the government on nearly every political issue. Even when the parties agree in principle, they have different ways of solving the issue. For example, both parties are for off-shore processing of illegal immigrants but disagree on where and how it should be done. Both parties are committed to recognising Indigenous Australians within the constitution. So far, the LNP has said it will consider substantive reform but has only committed to preambular recognition. The Panel not only recommends substantive reform but also addresses racial equality before the law. It is very uncertain whether the LNP will support a policy so different to their 2010 election promise. The next federal election is only 18 months away. If the referendum and election are held concurrently, there is more incentive for the Coalition to oppose the Panel’s recommendation. It would be disastrous for the nation if the referendum fails. The ‘gap’ will swell and the international community will view Australia as a nation of racists. It could be argued that the Government should have appointed a bipartisan panel rather than an independent panel. A bipartisan panel may not have produced ‘better’ recommendations to those of the Panel. They would, however, have generated proposals that both parties would stand behind. Bibliography * ABC Television, ‘Asylum seeker stand-off intensifies’, The Midday Report, 20 December 2011. < http://www.abc. net. au/news/2011-12-20/bowen-seeks-bipartisan-meeting-on-offshore-processing/3739984> at 29 April 2012. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, ‘Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Australian Human Rights Commission’, . * Kerr, Christian, ‘Libs baulk on referendum support’, The Australian, 30 January 2012 < http://www. theaustralian. com. au/national-affairs/indigenous/libs-baulk-on-referendum-support/story-fn9hm1pm-1226256684571>. * Keyzer, Patrick, Principles of Australian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis Butterworths, Australia: 3rd ed, 2010). * Kildea, Paul, ‘More than mere symbolism’, Australian Financial Review, 10 February 2012. * Kirby, Michael, Constitutional Law and Indigenous Australians: Challenge for a Parched Continent, Law Council of Australia, Old Parliament House, Canberra, Friday 22 July 2011 Discussion Forum ‘Constitutional Change: Recognition or Substantive Rights? ’. * Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians Discussion Paper, 19 March 2011. * LexisNexis AU, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’90 Constitutional Law’ [90. 1620]. * McHugh, Michael, Australian Constitutional Landmarks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003). * McQuire, Amy, ‘Constitutional reform report sparks mixed reviews’, Tracker, 19 January 2012. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Agreement-making: the need for democratic principles, individual rights and equal opportunities in Indigenous Australia’ (2011) 36 Alternative Law Journal 3. * Morris, Shireen, ‘Indigenous constitutional recognition, non-discrimination and equality before the law: why reform is necessary’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 26. * Morse, Bradford, â€Å"Indigenous Provisions in Constitutions Around the World† 2011 Paper located at . * Pengelley, Nicholas, ‘Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act – Must Laws Based on the Race Power be for the Benefit of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders- and What has Bridge Building got to do with the Race Power Anyway’ (1998) 20 Sydney Law Review 144. * Prior, Flip, ‘Recognition poll unlikely, days Dodson’, The West Australian, 11 April 2012. * Rintoul, Stuart, ‘Race power opens Pandora’s box’, The Australian, 22 December 2011 * Rowse, Tim, ‘The practice and symbolism of the ‘race power’: rethinking the 1967 referendum’ (2008) 19 Australian Journal of Anthropology 1. * Sawer, G, ‘The Australian Constitution and the Australian Aborigine’ (1966) 2 FL Rev 17. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 280]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 300]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 430]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 450]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 460]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 1 Constitutional Status’ [1. 1. 480]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 190]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 6 Civil Justice Issues’ [1. 6. 240]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’1. 7 International Law’ [1. 7. 180]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 1 Constitutional Law’ [19. 1. 230]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’19. 5 Federal constitutional system’ [19. 5. 157. 1]. * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 160] * Thomson Reuters, The Laws of Australia, (at April 2012), ’21. 10 Equality and the Rule of Law’ [21. 10. 350]. * Twomey, Ann, Indigenous Constitutional Recognition Explained (University of Sydney Law School Constitutional Reform Unit, 26 January 2012). * Ward, Alexander, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does true recognition require substantive reform? ’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Review 25. * Watson, Nicole, ‘The Northern Territory Emergency Response – Has It Really Improved the Lives of Aboriginal Women and Children? ’ (2011) 35 Australian Feminist Law Journal 147. * Williams, George, ‘Recognising Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution: what the Constitution should say and how the referendum can be won’ (2011) 5 Land, Rights, Laws: Issues of Native Title 1. * Winckel, Anne, ‘Recognising Indigenous Peoples in the Preamble: Implications, Issues and Interpretation’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 22. Case List * Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 * Commonwealth v Tasmania (Tasmanian Dams Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1 * Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150 [69]. * Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (1988) 195 CLR 337 * Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168 * Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1 * Leak v Commonwealth (1997) 187 CLR 579. * Miller v Wertheim [2002] FCAFC 156 [14]; * Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case) (1995) 183 CLR 373 * Wurridjal v The Cth (2009) 237 CLR 309 Legislation List. * Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth) * Australian Constitution Act 1975 (Cth) * Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) * Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) * Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth) * Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) * Native Title (Queensland) Act 1993 (Qld) * Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007 (Cth) * Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) * Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (Nsw) ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Law Council of Australia, Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians: Discussion Paper March 2011 part 1. 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 2 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 3 ]. Alexander Ward, ‘At the Risk of Rights: Does True Recognition Require Substantive Reform’ (2011) 7 Indigenous Law Bulletin 3, 3. [ 4 ]. Ibid. [ 5 ]. Ibid. [ 6 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 1 at 23 April 2012. [ 7 ]. Ibid [4]. [ 8 ]. Ibid [5. 3]. [ 9 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 25. [ 10 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 11 ]. Attorney-General (Cth); Ex Rel Mckinlay v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1, [36], [44]. [ 12 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 1 at 25 April 2012. [ 13 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 24. [ 14 ]. Ibid. [ 15 ]. Convention Debates, Melbourne, 1898, pages 665-714. [ 16 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 4 at 25 April 2012. [ 17 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 3 at 23 April 2012. [ 18 ]. B Costa, ‘Odious and Outmoded’? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution (2011) The Swinburne Institute for Social Research page 6 at 25 April 2012. [ 19 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 20 ]. Ibid [6]. [ 21 ]. Ibid [5]. [ 22 ]. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Cth) s 51 (xxvi). [ 23 ]. Australia, Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution page 5. 4 at 23 April 2012. [ 24 ]. Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982) 153 CLR 168. [ 25 ]. Ibid [169-170]. [ 26 ]. Ibid. [ 27 ]. Ibid. [ 28 ]. Ibid [174]. [ 29 ]. Kartinyeri v Commonwealth (the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case) (1998) 195 CLR 337. [ 30 ]. Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act 1997 (Cth). [ 31 ]. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1986 (Cth). [ 32 ]. Ibid. [ 33 ]. Ibid [416-7]. [ 34 ]. Ibid [379-381]. [ 35 ]. Thomson Reuters Legal Online, Halsbury’s Laws of Australia (at 15 January 1998) 19 Government, ’19. 5 Federal Constitutional System’ [19. 5 – 157. 1] [ 36 ]. Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth). [ 37 ]. (1983) 158 CLR 1. [ 38 ]. Ibid. [ 39 ]. Ibid [5 – 8]. [ 40 ]. Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) [ 41 ]. Western Australia v The Commonwealth (1995) 183 CLR 373. [ 42 ]. Ibid.

My Travel Experience in Sri Lanka Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

My Travel Experience in Sri Lanka - Essay Example I was feeling really excited about the days ahead of me and could barely wait for the plane to touch down. Finally, the plane landed. It was hot and humid in June. It was almost a 3 hour long drive from the air port to Galle where my host family lived. Mr. Smith, a plump and pleasant man was my host and he welcomed me .After a short introduction I was led to what was considered the biggest room in his house. I entered the room and felt a bit ill at ease since the room was very narrow with only two beds. Everything in the room was dark brown in colour. The full length mirror was stained to the extent that one could not see anything on it. I felt suffocated but rested on my bed while talking to other volunteers. Soon it was time for the meal and I inquired about the menu to which I received a very strange smile from my friend. Laid on the table were four yellow dishes and I immediately recognized that they were all curries. The water spinach was chopped up and cooked in curry, the tuna fish was cooked in curry, the potato and carrots were cooked in curry. I filled up my plate with boiled white rice and tried each curry. The curry on the table tasted very different from Indian, Thai or Japanese curry. It has its own special herb smell and was very salty as well as spicy. What surprised me was that the rice was also salty and spicy. Suddenly, I saw some little ants and spiders walking on the table. I was startled for a second and looked around. I saw everyone enjoying their meal and hence I kept quite. I finished off my meal with lots of water and went back to the small room quickly. The next day was my first day of volunteering at an orphanage. Our responsibility was to take care, feed and play with the babies at the orphanage. We hired a â€Å"tu-tu† the motor pedicab to reach our destination and paid only rupees 80(about 0.6 USD) for

Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 270

Assignment Example Various parts of the world have different cultural practices and food preferences, the MacDonald in its establishment in each country, has paid attention to the cultural believes and the taste of the different countries. For instance in India, the country took into consideration the fact that the Hindu culture does not advocate beef consumption (Keegan, 2014). To curb the issue, the company provided a similar product but without beef in it – maharaja chicken-.The Company strategically places itself in abuse place that can attract more customers. For instance in India New Delhi initial branch, the company places itself in a busy street that saw soaring queue in the evenings hence drawing large revenue to the company. Moreover, for acceptability in the local areas, the company purchases over 90 percent of its raw materials from the locals (Keegan, 2014). As much as MacDonald’s might want to standardize its products in its entire chains world over, it has to pay attention to the local culture and preferences. To the MacDonald and its acceptability world over, the company has resulted to developing a similar product but using different ingredients that are acceptable in the local market. It is evidently displayed in

Reason, Faith and Logos Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Reason, Faith and Logos - Essay Example Introduction Foundational to spiritual and philosophical investigations are the notions of reason and faith. Adherents to faith argue that true recognition of god or the divine cannot be grasped through the implementation of modern notions of reason. These views are contrasted with the perspective of humanist philosophers who advance notions of reason and science as necessary foundations of knowledge. In The Gay Science section 125 Nietzsche proclaims that God is dead – adding that we have killed him. Bearing in mind the long history of philosophical reflection on the interrelation of reason and faith, this essay considers whether religious faith has anything very significant to fear, or to gain, from the arguments of philosophers. Analysis There exists considerable exploration into concerns specifically related to the interaction of faith and reason, with many philosophers and theologians contending that faith is not necessarily removed from reason. Indeed, religious theologi ans and philosophers to justify religious belief have used both of these concepts. Some contentious have argued that when reason is properly implemented it affirms faith; in this sense reason and faith implement essentially the same methodological means of grasping reality or the divine (Wolterstoff 1998). Still, other perspectives that are less stringent than these understandings indicate that while reason and faith adopt different processes of understanding the world, the use of reason will never be able to contradict faith, as faith is the ‘true’ grasp of this divine order (Wolterstoff 1998). However, other thinkers have argued that the very existence of a notion of ‘faith’ necessitates that it be in-direct contention with notions of reason (Alston 1998). Essentially, this argument considers that there would be no use for a faith concept if faith truly aligned itself with reason. Understandably there is a significant history of thought devoted to the not ions of reason and faith and their interaction. One of the earliest recorded such philosophical considerations can be attributed to Greek antiquity. This period of philosophy, known as the classic period, witnessed an explosion of intellectual growth, as a variety of thinkers wrote and debated questions that ran to the essence of the universe and humanity’s place within it. While Judaic traditions were developed during this period, to a large degree their focus was on human existence; conversely, the Greek’s considered notions of faith in regards to larger cosmological concerns (Melchert 2002). To a degree it appears that two separate traditions of thought developed in Greek society, with one embracing religious beliefs and the other more philosophically based notions of reason (Melchert 2002). Still, these Greek belief patterns were not entirely exclusive. Some theorists contend that faith and reason interacted in Greek society through the mythmaking system that devel oped (Melchert 2002). In these regards, Greek gods emerged that also embodied some civic virtues. These virtues would then be dispersed down to daily life, as individuals would attempt to incorporate them into their value system and regular interactions. It was only later that

Japan Foreign Direct Investment Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Japan Foreign Direct Investment - Research Paper Example The behavior of exchange rates on the international capital market has a significant bearing on the quantity of capital resources that can be marshaled by multinational corporations to enable them carry out investments in the host countries. A country's currency is said to have undergone depreciation if there is a general fall in the value of the country's currency relative to the main value of another country's currency. Within the context of this essay, the Japanese Yen can undergo a depreciation against one of the leading currencies such as the US Dollar or the Euro if its value falls in relative terms to any of them. Suffice to cite a hypothetical illustration to buttress the foregoing point. Should the Japanese Yen fall against the United States Dollar by say 25 percentage points then the most likely impact is that cost of production by another hypothetical corporation will be significantly lower by 25%. The resulting low cost of the Yen can serve as an incentive for investment because a would be corporation will have to pay low cost for wages in addition to the prevailing low cost of production relative to what it will be in the United States. This phenomenon of attractiveness due to exchange rate differences amon g countries is known as the relative wage concept (Froot & Stein, 1991). However, this latter assertion ought... llel between the significant changes in the relative costs of production across both the United States and Japan and above all this should not in any way be altered by any overt or covert changes in either the cost of production or the wages in Japan where this investment will be taken place. In addition, the overall relevance of the relative wage factor will become negligible in the event of an advent of an anticipated movement in exchange rate. This has to do with either a direct or indirect rise in the cost of carrying out an investment in the host nation in this case which is Japan. The point that should be noted here is that in the most conventional form the factors that fulfill the interest rate parity are consistent with risk-adjusted rates of return in both the United States and Japan. Any shift in any of the above mentioned factors can change the entire course of a foreign direct investment stream. In a deeper sense the effects of changes on the foreign exchange market on investments are more profound on multinational corporations. Citing again the instance of a decline in the value of the currency of the host country relative to the investing source country, it is worth stating that should this situation of depreciation in the value of the host country's currency then the potential impact can be a significant rise in the wealth of the multinational corporation in relation to the host country. By this leverage the investing multinational corporation is better placed to engage in robust bidding for assets in the home country in view of the fact that it has relatively stronger capital base to engage in these activities. Of course saying this is an extension of illustrations presented in the preceding chapter with regards to wages and cost of production and how

Extra Credit Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 2

Extra Credit - Essay Example On researching the ecological and agricultural characteristics in the Denver area it is found that the peculiar climatic condition experiencing there is between desert climate and humid climate. Hence the climatic condition prevailing there is considered as mild evapotranspiration climate. Since this city is at high altitude this peculiar climatic condition provide the quality of the Mediterranean weather such as dry summer and wetter winter. It is considered that the city has 79 official neighborhoods. Hence the residents of this metropolitan area are mainly the neighborhood communities. The features of these neighborhoods vary each other and they include large skyscrapers, twentieth century houses and modern styled twenty first century buildings. The neighborhoods which are closer to the Denver city comprises of denser buildings which are old styled. The developments of the neighborhoods which are not closer to the concerned city had taken place immediately after Second World War. The buildings at these areas were constructed with modern materials and hence they appeared in high style. Still farther neighborhoods were with suburban characteristics and the people in that area could be recognized by means of their features. Majority of the neighborhoods have parks and other modern facilities and these are considered as the key peculiarities of these neighborhoods. The important neighborhoods of Denver city are Lower Down Town, Union Station Neighborhood, Washington Park, Capitol Hill, Highland Cherry etc. All these neighborhoods have very important roles in the metropolitan developments of the Denver city. Parks are the main peculiarities of the Denver city. As per the survey conducted in 2006 this metropolitan city has more than 200 parks in its credit which vary from mini parks to giant ones. All these parks are with beautiful landscape architects. Since the Denver city is situated at high altitude these are no scarcity for mountain