Commonwealth Parliament is in recess and will resume on Tuesday 13 May for the Budget.
Print This Post
Posted 24th March 2008 by David Jacobson in Business Planning
Australian Regulatory Compliance Review
Australian Technology and IP Business
Credit Union and Mutual Law
National Consumer Credit Reform
Personal Property Securities Australia
Longview Business Insights
Australian Private Health Insurers
Wills, Trusts, Super
Mutuals Resource Centre
Commonwealth legislation
Corporate Governance
Not-for-Profit links
Regulator Links
Commonwealth Parliament is in recess and will resume on Tuesday 13 May for the Budget.
Print This Post
According to satirists Clarke and Dawe, there’s no case for more regulation to deal with the current problems. Watch the video.
PS On a more serious note academics Christine Brown and Kevin Davis analyse the effect of the sub-prime epidemic on Australia in this article in Business Spectator.
Print This Post
The Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Act 2008 was passed by Parliament on 19 March. Date of Assent: 20 March 2008. (consolidated Workplace Relations Act available here).
The
Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee delivered its report on the Bill on 17 March.
The Act, once it receives Assent (possibly on 27 March), will prohibit new Australian Workplace Agreements.
Any Workplace Agreements in force as at 1 December 2007 can be replaced by Individual Transitional Employment Agreements which will be effective until 1 January 2010.
Employers can continue to make collective agreements with employees provided they satisfy the "no disadvantage" test.
The process of modernising awards will commence (although there is doubt about the length of time this will take).
Pattern bargaining will be outlawed.
What will the Act not change?
The law dealing with unfair dismissals will not change until 1 January 2010.
The Act will not change anti-strike laws.
The Act will not change the right of employees who earn more than $100,000 to make individual common law agreements.
Pay equity for women will not be covered.
Print This Post
I gave a presentation on HR policies at a seminar in Sydney last week.
Essentially the talk was a case study on the Full Court of the Federal Court decision In Goldman Sachs JBWere Services Pty Limited
v Nikolich [2007] FCAFC 120 which upheld the original decision that Goldman Sachs J B Were Services Pty Ltd pay $515,869 in damages to a former employee, Peter Nikolich, for breach of contract as a result of Goldman Sachs not complying with certain of its policies.
The case prompted interesting debate about the purpose of HR policies, whether they are intended to be contractual, whether they are binding on employers as well as employees and how they are created, monitored and managed.
In Nikolich’s case, it appeared that Goldman Sachs’ 119 page policy document had developed over many years (and a merger with JBWere) without a clear understanding of its role in the organisation’s policy framework.
Print This Post
Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Ken Henry’s Ian Little Memorial Lecture pays tribute to the former Secretary of the Victorian Department for Treasury and Finance for a number of reasons including his involvement with the National Competition Policy which lead to a new National Reform Agenda that embraces competition, regulatory reform and human capital streams.
Dr Henry ‘s speech discusses the 3 streams of the National Reform Agenda and their results to date in detail:
In the regulation stream, COAG committed to addressing ten priority cross-jurisdictional regulation ‘hotspots’: rail safety regulation; occupational health and safety; national trade measurement; chemicals and plastics; development assessment arrangements; building regulation; environmental assessment and approvals processes; business name, Australian Business Number and related business registration processes; personal property securities; and product safety. In these areas (and many others), jurisdictions apply quite different regulatory regimes. As a consequence, businesses operating across state borders must comply with multiple regulations…
The NRA competition stream promises further reforms in the areas of energy, transport, infrastructure regulation and planning and climate change innovation and mitigation strategies.
The area of the NRA with the greatest potential benefits for the Australian economy, and the one that Ian Little pressed the hardest, is the human capital stream. In February 2006, COAG agreed a comprehensive framework of objectives for the human capital agenda, focused on improving health, education and training outcomes and encouraging and supporting work…
The failure of the NRA to achieve more meaningful reform in the human capital stream and the disappointing pace of implementation of the substantial and worthwhile reforms endorsed two years ago in the competition and regulatory reform streams can be attributed, in large part, to funding issues.
The absence of financial incentives and effective sanctions for failing to meet agreed timeframes and milestones probably explains most of the disappointing implementation progress to date. The aversion to the logic of markets to which I referred earlier can be managed only by financial flows.
Today, however, there is cause for optimism.
Less than a month after the November 2007 federal election, the Council of Australian Governments met here in Melbourne to reinvigorate the National Reform Agenda.
Heads of government recognised they had a unique opportunity to put behind them the tensions of the past, and deliver a substantial national reform effort.
At that meeting, COAG identified seven areas for its 2008 work program: health and ageing; education and training; climate change and water; infrastructure; business regulation and competition; housing; and indigenous reform. A set of working groups, headed by Commonwealth ministers, has been established to identify reforms for COAG’s consideration, and to drive their delivery.
Print This Post
The Prime Minister has announced the National Rental Affordability Scheme which is designed to create a new ‘asset class’ of affordable rental
properties.
Under the Scheme, the Commonwealth will provide private investors
with tax credits of $6,000 a year for ten years for new properties that
are rented at 20 per cent below the prevailing market level.
States and Territories have agreed to provide $2,000 per home
either through cash payments or in kind, such as via the provision of
cut price land or concessions on stamp duty.
The initiative would mean, for example, that rent on a new average
three bedroom unit would fall for $350 a week to $280 a week – a $70
saving.
Print This Post
On Thursday 13 March 2008 in Sydney, a seminar will be held at which Ron McCallum, Professor of Law at Sydney University, former Dean of Sydney Law School and leading authority on employment law, will guide you through and provide an overview of the important parts of the new Workplace Relations legislation.
I’ll be presenting on drafting HR policies.
The seminar topics are:
Contact Narelle Ryan at nryan@langes.com.au or (02) 9299 7577 by 11 March 2008 to register.
Print This Post
The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator
Kim Carr, has announced a review of Australia’s national
innovation system.
The Review Panel will identify gaps and weaknesses in the innovation system
and develop proposals to address them. In particular, it will:
Print This Post
Federal Cabinet has formally approved the establishment of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission.
The Commission will provide an interim
report on a long-term health reform plan to the Commonwealth Government
by the end of 2008, and a final plan in mid 2009.
Issues for the Commission include:
The Commission will focus on health financing, maximising a
productive relationship between public and private sectors, and
improving rural health.
Print This Post
In Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (ACN 004 551 473) v Amcor Limited (ACN 000 017 372)[2008] FCA
88 the Federal Court rejected the ACCC’s claim for legal
professional privilege and public interest immunity privilege in relation to 111 witness statements drafted by ACCC investigators in connection
with the ACCC proceedings against Visy .
Cadbury sued Amcor following the judgment in ACCC v Visy (and Amcor joined Visy) but the ACCC sought to prevent Amcor and Visy from producing those documents to Cadbury on discovery. Its claim failed.
However, Visy’s implied undertaking, an obligation distinct from legal
professional privilege, to use the documents
only for a
purpose relating to the ACCC proceedings may or may not still prevent production
of those documents to Cadbury in these
proceedings.
Privilege was upheld in respect of Amcor witness statements held by Amcor’s external solicitors.
Print This Post