Frank and the Developers get their way, Super returns look bleak but the Food Authority does the right thing. Just avoid Bombala.

Bad things always happen in the middle of the night

People get beaten up, there is more sexual assault and people tend to die of heart attacks more in the middle of the night. So it is no coincidence that when the rest of us are sound asleep, the NSW Parliament would adopt Planning Minister Frank Sartor's unpopular and pro-developer amendments to the EP&A Act.

The expanded role for private certifiers, despite the inherent conflict of interest in their relationship with the developers who pay them, will place considerable additional pressure on the Building Professionals Board and the Government. Our view is well known - we don't believe that the inherent conflicts of interest can be properly managed to provide the sort of assurances the community needs that the interests of developers are not going to take precedence over the community interest.

And it's hard not to be sceptical about the effects that will follow from the erosion of the community's role in consultation about the sort of community in which they want to live. And we will wait to see just how "independent" independent assessment panels will be.

There is little doubt that the initiatives rushed through Parliament in the middle of the night will have long-term effects on the quality of building and planning. But we all knew that.

And we all knew that the consultation which the Government claimed would accompany the proposed amendments was little more than a farce. The government's response to our FOI request in the February bulletin made it abundantly clear that Cabinet had adopted the proposals before they even went to public consultation.

All we can do is resign ourselves to watching how it all unfolds. depa will do it is an extremely interested and officious bystander, ready to point out the follies as they occur.

NSW Food Authority gets it right! (back)

We have been critical in the past of the way the Food Authority has gone about the processof categorising councils for the future food surveillance roles. We thought they mishandled the introduction of legislation that would see councils provided with the ability to make a choice about the level of the food surveillance role - ranging up from nothing much more than things like emergency Mars Bar recalls, through the intermediate category where most councils are at the moment and finally to a proactive food safety and educational role.

Our complaint was that without considerable encouragement from the Authority itself, far too many councils would decide to opt out of food surveillance entirely. And, consistent with our pessimism, Newcastle did exactly that almost as soon as they could.

But now, and in a dramatic contrast to the way the Minister for Planning goes about "consultation", we think they've done a great job. Over the past two or three years, the Food Authority has consulted through a Food Regulation Partnership with local government.

Comprised of the Authority, the Local Government and Shires Association, depa, the AIEH and even the Local Government Managers Association, the achievement of this group is that from 1 July 2008 councils will have, for the first time, the legislative endorsement to inspect and regulate food premises.

More importantly, the Authority has spent the time discouraging councils from taking the minimalist option and instead encouraging them to provide high levels of food surveillance.

Councils have now overwhelmingly opted to continue inspecting food premises (even Newcastle) with only one Council electing to abandon their responsibilities entirely and instead provide only base or emergency responses.

Be careful when you are eating next in Bombala. Even more danger in addition to the normal risks associated with all those hillbillies and loggers.

We are happy to acknowledge the Food Authority’s achievement.

Significantly, the Authority will now monitor the extent to which councils comply with their designated service levels. In January 2009 the first six monthly activities reports will be submitted to the Food Authority and we will be able to assess the exact level of food surveillance across the state.

Andrew Spooner from Campbelltown Council has been depa’s representative on the Food Regulation Partnership and we thank Andrew for his role here.

 

A new Code of Conduct will affect Council staff (back)

The Minister for Local Government has launched a revised Model Code of Conduct for councils. The Department had been reviewing the Model Code for the past 18 months or so and evidence before the ICAC in their Wollongong investigation has encouraged new rules about disclosure of non-pecuniary interests.

The new code is available on the DLG website at

http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Information/Model_Code_of_Conduct_June_2008.pdf

The introduction of the new Model Code does not mean that all existing Code is now obsolete. It means that each council will meet to review its Code of Conduct to ensure that it meets the minimum requirements of the new Model Code. And, once the Council has done this, the new Code will apply to staff.

One of the areas expanded in the new Model Code is advice about managing non-pecuniary conflicts of interest. These are the sorts of relationships where employees will often wonder whether they should disclose them or not. There can be many occasions where there is no pecuniary interest but where a relationship exists with people where there can be a perception of a conflict.

Our advice is straightforward. It's better to err on the side of caution and make a declaration than it is to be in two minds about whether it should declared and then not declare it. If you're wondering whether to declare it not, do so. The last place anyone wants to debate whether a conflict of interest should have been declared or not is in the ICAC or some other disciplinary process.

Lake Macquarie decides not to proceed with random drug and alcohol testing

(back)

Lake Macquarie City Council developed a proposal from their Occupational Health and Safety Committee to introduce random drug and alcohol testing. They consulted with the unions and we raised our concerns about the problems associated with such a course of action.

The three unions met with management at the Council and the unions made it clear that we had no objection to post-incident testing nor "reasonable cause" testing. But no one supported random testing.

The Council has now resolved not to proceed with the random aspect of the regime.

Members are reminded to keep us abreast of proposals to introduce systems like this at other councils. As far as we are aware at this stage, the only Council that persists with random testing is Upper Hunter and the random testing regime that has been in operation there (introduced without consultation with the unions) is currently under review.

 

Some good advice in a bad year for superannuation returns (back)

Don't worry, be happy.

Superannuation is a long-term investment. Apart from those looking at early retirement (even though they can be comforted by good returns in recent years) there is no immediate impact from the bad news about to hit us on superannuation returns at the end of June 2008.

This Bulletin leaves the office on the last trading day of the financial year. Today's Sydney Morning Herald predicts that at the end of the trading day the value of Australian shares will have gone down between 16% and 17% since 1 June 2007.

Surveys carried out by the superannuation industry show varying levels of knowledge and sophistication about superannuation. In the context of a compulsory superannuation arrangement and investment choice being made for you if you can't be bothered making it yourself, employees don't really need to know too much about superannuation. In general surveys of the community, sometimes 70% of people fall into the category of either not knowing or not caring about their superannuation. Some surveys show astonishing figures - like 25% of people don’t know that superannuation money is usually invested in financial markets.

It’s hard to remain immune to the news which bombards us about the economy. Whether we care or not, someone on the News will tell us what's happened to the Australian dollar, the price of a barrel of oil, the sharemarket during the day and which company's shares are up and which company's shares are down. Unless you are an individual speculator, this has limited impact. We’d be better off knowing how good the next vintage in the Hunter is going to be.

But the news tomorrow and in the next few weeks will show negative returns for the overwhelming majority of superannuation funds. Depending on which investment choice members take (and in the LGSS defined benefit scheme there is no investment choice anyway) nearly everyone is exposed to some extent or another to the Australian and international share markets. If shares go down, the returns of superannuation funds which invest in shares must go down as well. Sorry if that’s self-evident.

In 2002 the LGSS declared a negative figure and a year later no return at all. This is not unusual. To judge the success or otherwise of a superannuation scheme, it is the five and 10 year figures which are critical.

Most members’ money is invested in either the Defined Benefit Scheme or, for those in the accumulation scheme, the Diversified investment option.

The LGSS began with the separation from State Super in July 1997. Using the figures at the end of June 2007 (because obviously final figures for 2008 are not yet available) the average annual return over the 10 years, net of fees and charges, for the defined Benefit Scheme was 10.1%.

For the Diversified investment option, the average annual return over that decade was 8.3%.

The worst thing that a superannuation investor can do in a bad year is to change their investment choices without proper advice.

 

Ian Robertson

Secretary