Research & Sources

How we source and verify our work

Evidence before opinion isn't just a value statement — it's a method. Here's the hierarchy we weigh sources against, and how we separate fact from our own analysis.

Source Hierarchy

What we weigh most heavily

01LegislationThe Acts and instruments themselves — the starting point for any claim about what the law requires.

02Treasury consultation papersThe proposal as officially described, including Treasury's own stated objectives and data.

03Parliamentary documentsBills, explanatory memoranda, and committee reports.

04Court decisionsJudicial interpretation of how the law actually applies — e.g. Guardian AIT, Bendel.

05Government agenciesATO guidance, State revenue office material, and other administrative sources.

06Professional bodiesCPA Australia, CA ANZ, NTAA, IPA, the Law Council, and similar organisations.

07Academic researchPeer-reviewed and institutional analysis of trust and tax policy.

08Reputable mediaUsed for context and current developments, not as a substitute for primary sources.

Opinion alone isn't relied on where authoritative material already exists on a point.

Method

Fact, analysis, assumption, recommendation — kept separate

Every substantive claim in a Fair Trust Reform publication falls into one of four categories, and we try to make clear which one applies.

Fact

Directly sourced — a figure from a Treasury paper, the text of a provision, the holding in a case.

Analysis

Our interpretation of what sourced facts mean for a specific policy question.

Assumption

Something we've had to estimate or infer, flagged explicitly as such rather than presented as established.

Recommendation

What we think Parliament or Treasury should do — clearly a position, not a finding.

Every published submission includes a full reference list citing the legislation, case law, and consultation papers it relies on — see, for example, the references in FTR-003-AN.