Notice given 2 April 2012

1794  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—With reference to the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Act 1992 and related legislation, as amended in 2011:

(1) What is the current coverage of this legislation.

(2) Has the passage of the 2011 amendments led to more claims for coverage than initially indicated.

(3) How much back pay has been requested since the passage of the 2011 amendments.

1796  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—With reference to the media release issued by the General Manager of Fair Work Australia (FWA) on 14 March 2012, relating to the Health Services Union Victoria No. 1 Branch investigation:

(1) For which of the stated twenty-five contraventions will FWA be seeking Federal Court penalties.

(2) Which two contraventions of civil penalty provisions identified by the delegate were not made out according to the General Manager.

1797  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—With reference to the answer to Question no. 142, taken on notice during the 2011-12 Additional Estimates hearing of Senate Community Affairs Committee, and noting that the question was premised on ‘the technical advice that the 2014 timeframe was not possible’:

(1) Was this or similar advice received by the department; if so, when was that advice received.

(2) Was the advice shared at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting held on 8 July 2011.

(3) Which departments were represented at the Interdepartmental Committee.

 (4) What were the alleged risks associated with meeting the implementation timeline of 2014 discussed at the Interdepartmental Committee.

1798  Senator Abetz: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—With reference to Clause 22 of the formal agreements made between Australia Post and Licensed Post Offices (LPO):

(1) When Clause 22 is invoked in order to terminate an LPO agreement:

(a) is it the intention of Australia Post that compensation paid is ‘fair and reasonable’; if not, what are the intentions of Australia Post; and

(b) is the market value of an LPO considered when determining the rate of compensation where market value is in excess of three times business revenue; if not, why not.

(2) Can details be provided of the formal policy of Australia Post in regard to the use of Clause 22, including:

(a) in what circumstances termination without cause can be implemented;

(b) what is the compensation policy in circumstances where termination without cause is implemented, including whether full compensation is required to be paid, and if it is not paid, why not; and

(c) does Australia Post have a policy with regard to the use of Clause 22; if so, can a copy be provided; if not, why not and on what basis is the clause exercised.

(3) Can details be provided of the policy work undertaken by Mr Gary Ward in relation to the use of Clause 22 by Australia Post, including whether that work is available; if so, can a copy be provided.

(4) Does Australia Post intend to invoke Clause 22 as a bargaining tool against licensees who request fair payment under their LPO agreement.

(5) Does Australia Post acknowledge that it would be fair and reasonable that any decision to terminate an LPO agreement under Clause 22 be required to pass through an independent public review, thereby enabling licensee representation prior to termination; if not, why not.

(6) In regard to the Vaucluse LPO and Campbell Town LPO, detailed separately:

(a) which Australia Post official was responsible for invoking Clause 22;

(b) who is responsible for determining the licensee compensation payments;

(c) what were the market values of each LPO at the time of termination;

(d) was the market value greater than three times the business revenue; and

(e) has an offer of three times business revenue been made to the licensees by way of compensation; if not, why not.