Search

Financial disengagement of Indigenous Australians stems from external and internal sources. External factors include geographical location, unemployment, lower income, and lower financial literacy. Internal factors relate to Indigenous cultural norms of sharing which influence money management practices. The High Court of Australia’s decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v. Kobelt highlights the cultural practice of ‘demand sharing’ and the use of the ‘book-up’ system within remote Indigenous communities. The majority 4:3 decision that Mr. Kobelt did not engage in unconscionable conduct with his practice of the book-up system with Indigenous customers indicates the relevance of cultural lenses in evaluating unconscionable conduct in Indigenous context. Applying an Indigenous Standpoint Theory and using a mixed methodology of statistical and reflective analytical approaches with Indigenous oral testimonies, this article demonstrates that culture matters and that connection to culture and community is key to Indigenous Peoples’ identity and strength. It provides resilience and is foundational to well-being, including financial wellbeing. Thus, effective design and implementation of financial literacy and capabilities programs worked by, or in consultation and collaboration with, Indigenous Peoples will contribute to financial engagement of Indigenous Australians. The lessons learned could also apply broadly to promoting financial engagement of Indigenous Peoples in the CANZUS nations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information regarding the enforcement of Singapore's competition act 2004. It stated about the guidelines on enforcement, appropriate amount of penalty and leniency programme. It mentions about the decision represented in the development of competition law in Singapore including first infringement decision on 9 January 2008 and decision against electrical and building works companies for bid-rigging.

This article offers information on the significance of competition and government regulation for the development of the electricity industry in Malaysia. It states that the country has no competition law, which is necessary on trading, and consumers could not cover all the problems regarding competition. It cites that the country has introduced privatization through independent power producers (IPPs) in the electricity supply industry, because it believed that efficiency and cost effectivity can only be achieved through competition.