The bankruptcy system recommendations need to be adopted responsibly. The culture, the way of working, the American ideals and support system for people are different from the Australian system and could hence pose problems. Therefore, even if the Australia law seems ideas, it should be adopted responsibly.
It is interesting how the author chooses to present a comparative analysis of both bankruptcy systems to highlight recommendations. In American Bankruptcy law, the Title 11 of the United States code holds provision for both personal bankruptcy and corporate insolvency. Of the different code chapters, Chapter 7 is used by debtors to obtain a bankruptcy discharge in a simple manner. The debtor only has to relinquish of all their non-exempt assets for paying back creditors. Chapter 13 on the other hand gives the debtor some options as to reorganize his affairs and then repay by portions over a time period of three years. This would allow them to retain their non-exempt properties as well. At first glance, this seems like an ideal system, however, one cannot help but notice that the value to creditors are not presented in detail here. They would lose more, if more of their properties are classified as non-exempt.
In the case of Australia, however, as authors present it, the bankruptcy law is federal and the statutes for personal bankruptcy and corporate bankruptcy are different. There are some similarities in the way each allow the debtor or the creditor to start proceedings. In terms of debt obligation divisions, definition of debts and more, both are the same. However, a critical difference lies in the way the creditor can bring about a bankruptcy suite, wherein they must show their petition is founded on some act of bankruptcy such as an intentional act to delay payment to creditors etc. In a way, the power of the creditor to get back their money appears to be increased here. In addition, it is not only the non-exempt assets that would go towards paying the creditors, it is necessary for the debtors with sufficient income to use part of their income for repayment of debt. Homes are not exempt in Australia. In a way, this argument by author shows how there seems to be more balance between creditor and the debtor. It seems like a fairer system and therefore I agree with the analysis and recommendations made by the author.