Non-medical prescribing in Australia

The announcement in the 2009 federal budget to allow nurse practitioners and midwives access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Medicare Benefits Scheme,1and the subsequent announcement of a November 2010 start date,2has brought non-medical prescribing into the public arena. Non-medical prescribing is not a new concept in Australia as nurse practitioners, podiatrists and optometrists have been authorised to prescribe under various state legislations for some time. However, state legislation is not uniform in relation to authorisation or formulary. Midwives are currently seeking prescribing rights,3and other groups such as physiotherapists and pharmacists are likely to seek them in the future.

Not all corporate tax avoiders will be snared by new rules

Hockey’s budget announcement of two major tax integrity measures was flagged before the budget was handed down, but even that came as no surprise. Integrity, or lack thereof, in our tax system is a hot topic and an easy target for a Treasurer looking to sell a federal budget. The first of the proposed changes is to our GST regime. No-one likes hearing that they will be paying more tax. But, the charging of GST on supplies of digital products and services in Australia by an off-shore supplier will at least make sense to the general public. With the inherent unfairness in the current system and a revenue raising prediction of A$350 million over the next four years, most are likely to accept the logic of such a measure. The second of the proposed changes are new laws to be included in Australia’s general anti-avoidance provision. New laws, which will apply from 1 January 2016, are aimed at multinational companies engaged in aggressive tax practices. The proposed anti-avoidance law is designed to stop multinationals that artificially avoid a taxable presence in Australia. It is difficult to see how this strategy of addressing specific behaviour through what is considered a general provision will work. And, it is these changes that are already causing confusion.

Assessing taxpayer response to legislative changes: A case study of ‘in-house’ fringe benefits rules

On 22 October 2012, the Australian Federal Government announced the removal of the $1,000 in-house fringe benefits concession when used as part of a salary packaging arrangement. At the time of the announcement, the Federal Government predicted that the removal of the concession would contribute additional tax revenue of $445 million over the following four years as well as an increase of GST payments to the States and Territories. However, anecdotal evidence at the same time indicated that the Australian employer response was to immediately stop providing employees with such in-house fringe benefits via salary sacrificing arrangements. Data presented in this article, collected from a combination of interviews with tax managers of four Australian entities as well as a review of the published archival data, confirms that the abolition of the $1,000 in-house fringe benefits concession was perceived as a negative change, whereby employees were considered the ‘big losers’ despite assertions by the Federal Government to the contrary. Using a conceptual map of tax rule change developed by Oats and Sadler, this article seeks to understand the reasons for this fringe benefits tax change and taxpayer response. In particular, the economic and political factors, and the responses of the relevant taxpayers (employers) are explored. Drawing on behavioural economic concepts, the actions, attitudes and response of employers to the rule change are also examined. The research findings suggest that the decision by Australian employers to cease providing the in-house fringe benefits as part of a salary-packaging arrangement after the legislative amendment was impacted by more than simple rational behaviour.

The channels of monetary policy triggered by central bank actions and statements in the Australian equity market

Owing to the discrete disclosure practices of the Reserve Bank of Australia, this paper provides new evidence on the channels of monetary policy triggered by central bank actions (monetary policy announcements) and statements (explanatory minutes releases), in the Australian equity market. Both monetary policy announcements and explanatory minutes releases are shown to have a significant and comparable impact on the returns and volatility of the Australian equity market. Further, distinct from US and European studies that find strong evidence of the interest rate, bank loan and balance sheet channels and no evidence of the exchange rate channel following central bank actions, this paper finds that monetary policy impacts the Australian equity market via the exchange rate, interest rate and bank loan channels of monetary policy, with only weak evidence of the balance sheet channel of monetary policy. These channels are found to be operating irrespective of the trigger (monetary policy announcements or explanatory minutes releases), though results are somewhat weaker when examining the explanatory minutes releases. These results have important implications for central bank officials and financial market participants alike: by confirming a comparable avenue to affect monetary policy; and providing an explication of its impact on the Australian equity market.