Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Page: 4628


Senator Cormann asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 20 May 2009:

(1)   How do secondment arrangements to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), including airport uniformed police officers, differ between the various states and territories.

(2)   Do different rates of pay apply to seconded officers from different jurisdictions; if so, what are the standard rates of pay for each jurisdiction, that apply to officers seconded to the AFP.

(3)   In regard to (1) above, are there any differences, financial or otherwise, in arrangements between the Commonwealth and individual state and territory jurisdictions at government to government level.

(4)   Has any consideration been given to standardising secondment pay and other arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories; if not, why not.

(5)   How do pay rates vary between seconded and non-seconded sworn officers.

(6)   How are the components of the remuneration package of seconded officers divided between the Commonwealth and the states and territories (i.e. including accrued leave, long-service, personal leave, wages, superannuation and any other non-financial benefits) for sworn offices from each state and territory jurisdiction.


Senator Wong (Minister for Climate Change and Water) —The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

(1)   There are two current models of employment under the Airport Uniformed Policing (AUP).

(a)   The first arrangement is the Secondment Model where members from state and territory police services are appointed as special members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) under section 40E of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (the AFP Act) to assist the AFP in the performance of its functions under the Unified Policing Model. These special members remain employed under their home jurisdiction’s terms and conditions of employment. Currently the police services under this employment model consist of Tasmania Police, Northern Territory Police and the New South Wales Police Force.

(b)   The second arrangement is the Leave Without Pay (LWOP) model where members are appointed as AFP special members under section 40E of the AFP Act. These special members are governed by a Determination made under subsection 40E(1) of the AFP Act, which sets out the terms and conditions of employment similar to those in the AFP Collective Agreement 2007-2011. Currently the state and territories on the LWOP model consist of Victoria Police, South Australia Police, Western Australia Police and Queensland Police.

(2)   Yes, different rates of pay apply to AUP members depending on their mode of employment.

(a)   Rates of pay for members under the Secondment Model are individually governed by their home jurisdiction terms and conditions of employment and pay.

(b)   The special members on the LWOP model are governed in accordance with the AFP Collective Agreement pay scales.

(3)   Financial arrangements between the AFP and the respective state and territory police services are governed by individual Memoranda of Understanding between the agencies, rather than at the government level. Under these arrangements, there are differences in administrative and on-costs. The differences are based upon what is individually agreed between the AFP and each state/territory jurisdiction. The variances between jurisdictions are largely based on whether administrative and on-costs are based on a nominal amount or an agreed base wage percentage. With respect to base salary expenses for seconded state and territory police under the LWOP model, a no-disadvantage test is applied in translating the officers’ base salary from their home jurisdiction to the AFP salary scale.

(4)   Yes, the AFP has commenced activities including negotiation with respective state and territory police jurisdictions to standardise overall terms and conditions of seconded officers, where this is cost-effective and achievable.

(5)   Non-seconded AFP personnel and seconded state police under the LWOP model are remunerated consistently in accordance with the pay rates contained in the AFP Collective Agreement 2007-2011. Seconded state and territory police under the Secondment Model are remunerated in accordance with the distinct arrangements made by their home jurisdiction police force.

(6)   Components of the remuneration package of the seconded officers vary according to the model they are seconded under. For example, if the special member remains under their home jurisdiction they would maintain their accrued leave, wages, personal leave and superannuation as they would have they remained working in their home jurisdiction.