Re disclosure and codes of conduct and the 457 VISA rort...blame Tony Abbott and

liberal backers.  Abbott is the KING of Watering down laws put in place by Labor to

protect the people and the economy.

Four stories in this email...banking code of practice...ministers can keep shares...tax disclosure rules wound back...457 VISA rort

Banks that have adopted versions of the Code of Banking Practice

http://www.bankers.asn.au/Industry-Standards/ABAs-Code-of-Banking-Practice/Banks-that-have-adopted-versions-of-the-Code-of-Banking-Practice

Dates of adoption

*Please note this list was copied from the website of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)

on August 13, 2003 as it reported on compliance with this Code. The Australian Bankers’ Association does not have

a list of the dates of adoption of the 1993 Code.

Last updated 31 January 2014

 Tony Abbott winds back code of conduct to let ministers keep shares

16 December 2013

Rules to avoid conflicts of interest allow shareholdings in public companies that were banned under Rudd and Gillard

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/tony-abbott-winds-back-code-of-conduct-to-let-ministers-to-keep-shares-in-public-companies

Tony Abbott has wound back the ministerial code of conduct to allow federal ministers to keep shares in public companies they would have been forced to sell under the Gillard and Rudd governments.

The code outlines rules and procedures ministers must follow to avoid conflicts of interest. The new standards leave it open for ministers to hold shares in public companies that do not relate to their portfolios, at odds with the standards set out by the previous government.

Under the code of conduct created by the Gillard government, ministers were required to get rid of all public and private shareholdings other than some forms of managed funds.

“In recognition of the collective responsibility that ministers bear in relation to cabinet decisions, these standards require that ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements,” the 2010 guidelines read.

This language is removed from Abbott’s code, and is replaced by the phrase: “In recognition of the responsibilities that ministers bear, these standards require that ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.”

Ministers are still required to resolve any conflicts if the company operates in an area affected by their portfolio.

The prime minister’s office has not responded to questions about the changes to the code of conduct.

Peter Timmins, a freedom of information consultant, says the Abbott government needs to address some concerns about the way it is approaching governing.

“There are a range of issues that have surfaced since the election that suggest transparency and accountability really don't seem to be at the centre of the Abbott government.”

Under the previous government, the only potential course of action if a conflict of interest arose was the liquidation of shareholdings. But a new provision in the code gives ministers who want to keep their shares the option to refer decisions in which a conflict arises to a senior minister nominated by the prime minister.

“The minister shall make appropriate arrangements to ensure that any conflict of interest is avoided. Those arrangements may include referral of the decision-making responsibility is passed to the senior minister or a minister nominated by the prime minister.”

The new code retains the ban on directorships of public and private companies but allows ministers to keep directorships in some private companies they own.

“Where the minister is the director of a private company and the assets of the private company are beneficially owned (in whole or in part) by the minister then the directorship will not be considered to constitute a conflict of interest where, were the assets to be owned directly by the minister, that fact would not constitute a conflict of interest.”

The Howard government was the first to introduce a code of ministerial standards in 1996, and the Abbott government’s code appear to be similar to this one.

“Ministers are required to divest themselves, or relinquish control, of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities,” the Howard government’s 1998 guidelines read.

The Abbott, Gillard and Howard governments’ codes of conduct for ministers on shareholdings

Abbott code

2.11. In recognition of the responsibilities that Ministers bear, these Standards require that Ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.

2.12. Where the Minister is a shareholder of a private company and the assets of the private company are beneficially owned (in whole or in part) by the Minister then the shareholding will not be considered to constitute a conflict of interest where, were the assets to be owned directly by the Minister, that fact would not constitute a conflict of interest. Ministers may hold public superannuation funds or publically listed managed funds or trust arrangements where:

(i) the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust; and

(ii) the fund or trust does not invest to a significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister’s public duty.

2.13. If an enterprise in which a Minister has a shareholding (see paragraph 2.12 above) subsequently begins to operate in an area potentially affected by decisions which are likely to be made by the Minister it is the responsibility of the Minister concerned to declare any conflict of interests involved and to resolve the matter immediately to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister on the advice of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

2.14. Where a situation arises of the kind referred to in paragraph 2.13, the Minister shall make appropriate arrangements to ensure that any conflict of interest is avoided. Those arrangements may include:

(i) referral of the decision making responsibility is passed to the senior Minister or a Minister nominated by the Prime Minister;

(ii) divestment of the shareholding;

(iii) establishment of a Blind Trust; or

(iv) such other arrangement which to the satisfaction of the Prime Minister, on the advice of the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, avoids the possibility of a conflict of interest.

2.15. For the purposes of paragraph 2.14 a Blind Trust will require appropriate legal and accounting certification. In cases where a reasonable apprehension of a conflict of interest arises based on the initial composition of the assets held by the trust, a Minister must:

(i) declare any interests to the Cabinet and to the Prime Minister as necessary; and

(ii) absent themselves from Cabinet consideration or make arrangements for decision‑making to be passed to another Minister selected by the Prime Minister.

2.16. If, for instance, a Minister is required by these Standards to dispose of an interest, the simple transfer of the interest to a family member via a nominee or private trust under their control is not an acceptable form of divestment.

Gillard code

2.9. In recognition of the collective responsibility that Ministers bear in relation to Cabinet decisions, these Standards require that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business, other than public superannuation funds or publicly listed managed funds or trust arrangements where:

• the investments are broadly diversified and the Minister has no influence over investment decisions of the fund or trust; and

• the fund or trust does not invest to any significant extent in a business sector that could give rise to a conflict of interest with the Minister’s public duty.

2.10. If a Minister becomes aware that a fund or trust has invested in a company that might give rise to a perception of a conflict of interest, the Minister should inform the Prime Minister immediately and liquidate the investment in the fund or trust if required to do so.

2.11. If a Minister is required by these Standards to dispose of an interest of any kind, the transfer of the interest to a family member or to a nominee or private trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.

Howard code

Ministers are required to divest themselves, or relinquish control, of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. The transfer of interests to a spouse or dependent family member, or to a nominee or trust, is not an acceptable form of divestment. Ministers may transfer control to an outside professional nominee or trust providing the minister or immediate family exercises no control on the operation of the nominee or trust.

Coalition to wind back tax disclosure laws over 'kidnap' fears

Nassim Khadem and Gareth Hutchins

17 March 2015

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/coalition-to-wind-back-tax-disclosure-laws-over-kidnap-fears-20150317-1m1a0k.html

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told Coalition party room members that the government would wind back tax disclosure laws after complaints by private business owners that they could be kidnapped when people realised

how wealthy they were from tax information that was made public.

Fairfax Media first reported the concerns raised with the government by private business owners who think they may be held at held at ransom because of the laws that will require the Tax Office to publish the tax details of about 1600 private and public companies with more than $100 million turnover on the data.gov.au website.

The government now wants to remove about 700 private companies, which it believes should be exempted.

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said there were real concerns about the implications of the publication of the tax data of private companies.

Mr Frydenberg said there were safety concerns because it made those individuals potential kidnap targets.

Another Coalition colleague said that access to the financial statements of the 700 companies meant that they were at a commercial disadvantage when, for example, they happened to be suppliers to the big supermarket chains, or negotiating with them.

After listening to Mr Frydenberg argue his case, Mr Abbott agreed to advance the proposed changes to exempt private companies. That could mean the nation's top public companies will still have their tax information published.

The laws, which Coalition ministers, including Treasurer Joe Hockey,  voted against when in opposition, will from this year allow Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan to publish information,  including total income, taxable income and tax paid.

The decision to wind back the laws comes amid intense lobbying by business groups for the laws to be scrapped, with suggestions that publishing such information may be "misleading".

On Friday the Tax Office revealed it would allow Australia's biggest companies to review their tax information before it is published in the public domain in December.

This would include tax information on private companies controlled by billionaire mining magnate Gina Rinehart, and could also expose other wealthy individuals who do not appear on rich lists such as the BRW Rich 200.

Shadow assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh said the Liberal Party had opposed better transparency on the tax affairs of big multinationals since the day Labor first proposed it.

"This would be yet another example of the Abbott government siding with the big end of town against the interests of the Australian community," he said.

Mr Leigh said Mr Hockey was "full of big talk about cracking down on tax avoidance, but when it counts in the party

room and the parliament, his government consistently lets companies off the hook."

"Rolling back these transparency laws means shielding big multinationals from public scrutiny," he said. "Without transparent tax reporting, it will be easier for some big firms to continue to avoid paying their fair share of tax."

When the laws were being pushed by the former Labor government through parliament, Mr Hockey said he had "deep concerns" and the Coalition would not support publishing information that could be "reasonably attributed to a single person".

Despite the government pledge to look into the privacy concerns, Australia's biggest public companies are gearing up to unveil public reports detailing how they are good taxpayers.

Australia's big four banks are among a raft of companies working with their communications staff to voluntarily launch reports about taxes paid. A number of companies have already made submissions to the federal inquiry on corporate tax avoidance about the taxes they pay and their "good working" relationship with the Australian Tax Office.

Greens Leader Christine Milne said: "The kidnapping argument is laughable.  This is just yet another example of the Abbott government doing everything it can to protect the people it governs for – the rich

Abbott Government Loosens 457 Visa Rules

https://www.457visacompared.com.au/457-visa-blog/abbott-loosens-457-regulation/

Tony Abbott and his Luiberal Government have made adjustments to the 457 Visa regulation, allowing employers to

again hire an unlimited amount of foreign workers with a temporary working visa.

The reopening of this controversial is in stark contrast to the previous Labour government who tightened regulation to prevent employees from being hiring more workers than they originally advertised to the market.

When elected to power late in 2013 Tony Abbott declared Australia open for business, vowing to remove all red

tape and temporary working visas is the latest area where federal legislation has tapered off.

Under these more lenient laws, employers will not be face fines for hiring more foreign employees on skilled 457 migrant visas than they applied for.

The major reason behind ALP government changes to these laws in 2013 was due to a number of companies in construction, mining and IT hiring many more foreign workers than they had applied for.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was one company allegedly bringing in 800 workers under the 457 visa in an

18 month period when they were only granted approval for 100 visas over three years.

Unions such as the Australian Workers Union say that this new legislation destabilises Australian job security; in the past it has also lead to the mistreatment of foreign workers.

The latest change in 457 visa regulation has coincided with a number of job losses in the automotive and manufacturing industry and Australian Workers Union assistant national secretary Scott McDine says that “its deeply concerning that in a jobs crisis, the government is sneaking through changes that undermine local jobs and conditions.”

In March 2013 then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said that the temporary working visa scheme needed a shake up and during an election campaign visit to Sydney’s west vowed to tighten laws, ensuring foreign workers did not get any preferential treatment at the expense of Australian workers.

Around the same time last year, mining magnate and the world’s wealthiest woman Gina Rinehart warned that

Australians needed to work harder to compete with workers in foreign countries who are willing to work for less

money.

However, later that year Barry Fitzgerald, boss of one of Rinehart’s iron ore projects, distanced himself from those claims and said that he was confident he could find competent staff locally.

Before the cap was brought in in 2013 the number of temporary visitors on 457 visas was increasing rapidly. In fact in fiscal year 2009/10 67,980 visas were granted. This grew to 126,350 visas granted in 2012/13 according to the Department of Immigration.

Government spokesman for Immigration and Border Protection ‘Michaelia Cash’ said that “while the Coalition is committed to deregulation and the removal of unnecessary red tape, we are equally committed to ensuring the integrity of the 457 program.”

A review into the overall purpose of the 457 visa led by the Coalition is already underway with findings to be made available later in the year.