Originally Posted by
framer
They don’t.
They use the ‘anti avoidance ‘ provisions so that they are wielding their power solely within their jurisdiction.
Basically host companies ( in this case Qantas) can’t enter into arrangements that specifically avoid the intent of the legislation.
Could you construct an argument to convince a commissioner that Jetconnect exists for reasons other than to provide cheap labour? If not then two out of three commissioners may decide that by owning and using Jetconnect, Qantas is engaging in behaviour designed to avoid the intent of the new legislation. ie they are using a loophole when we are trying to close loopholes.
If anti- avoidance provisions weren’t built into the legislation it would take lawyers and accountants about four minutes to design work-arounds that would look a lot like……..Jetconnect.
Have you had that conversation with AIPA?