THE World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt are organizing the 5th Global Summit on City Tourism: “Cities: Local Culture for Global Travellers” on November 1-2 2016 in Luxor. During the summit, UNWTO will launch the Mayors for Tourism Initiative.

THE Credit and Investments Ombudsman (CIO) has slammed Australia’s big banks and their dispute resolution scheme, the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), for calling for the creation of a single industry Ombudsman scheme in the financial services sector.

Financial services businesses are required by law to join an Ombudsman scheme approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). CIO and FOS are the only two Ombudsman schemes currently approved by ASIC. Neither are statutory schemes.

“A single Ombudsman scheme would mean that about 37,000 licensed businesses would be forced by law to join and pay membership and service fees to a single private sector provider. No other provider would be allowed to operate in the sector," said Mr Raj Venga, CEO and Ombudsman, CIO.

“This would be a bizarre outcome. It’s like legislating that compulsory superannuation contributions should only be made to a named industry super fund. Or that a person can receive the Government’s private health insurance rebate only if they take out private health insurance with a named mutual health fund (both of these are not-for-profits, like CIO and FOS).

“It would be extraordinary for any government to mandate that its citizens and businesses financially contribute to, and comply with the requirements imposed by, a private sector provider operating to the exclusion of all other providers," Mr Venga said.

"Apart from being completely unacceptable and offensive to Australian norms, one wonders what its legal and constitutional basis is.

"And a single Ombudsman scheme like that being proposed by the big banks, FOS and, oddly enough, some consumer advocates, would essentially be a non-statutory private sector monopoly capable of dictating terms to businesses. It would not be subject to efficiency and cost disciplines. It could set any price it wanted. There would be little or no incentive to improve its services or performance, or to respond to the legitimate interests of its stakeholders”, Mr Venga continued.

“CIO’s 23,000 members, 97% of whom are sole traders and small businesses, would be forced to join a single Ombudsman scheme that would be beholden to the big end of town which generates the most number complaints and pays the most fees. Who’s looking out for the small guy?  It tends to be forgotten that these small businesses are also consumers.

“The paradox in all this is that the proposed solution to address the sins of the major banks is a measure which will do nothing more than entrench their dominant position to the detriment of consumers, businesses and the economy.

"A single Ombudsman scheme proposed by, and beholden to, the major banks will serve their interests in maintaining the status quo in the Australian financial sector. Imposing a ‘big end of town’ solution on smaller and more innovative financial services providers will damage their ability to compete with the major banks and will continue to leave Australian consumers and businesses with an uncompetitive financial system.

“A statutory scheme or tribunal is not the answer either because a large bureaucracy would be legalistic, less flexible and substantially less consumer-friendly, and this would have a negative effect on turnaround times, service levels and innovation.

“We believe that the present two Ombudsman scheme model has served both consumers and financial services providers exceptionally well.  The existence of two separate Ombudsman schemes has allowed each scheme to benchmark its performance against the other. This has produced better outcomes for businesses and consumers alike, and can’t be achieved under a single Ombudsman monopoly.

“Any consolidation of CIO and FOS would mean that businesses, particularly small businesses, who are dissatisfied with service levels or costs, will have absolutely nowhere else to go,” Mr Venga concluded.

The Credit and Investments Ombudsman (CIO) is an alternative dispute resolution scheme approved by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to provide consumers with an alternative to legal proceedings for resolving disputes with financial services providers who are members of CIO. These include finance brokers, non-bank lenders, building societies, mutual banks, credit unions, financial planners, finance companies, debt purchasers, small amount short term lenders and mortgage managers.

ends

THEHouse of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities will tomorrow hold a public hearing on new technologies in mass transit, including Hyperloop.

Committee Chair John Alexander MP says the hearing will include presentations from Hyperloop One, Bishop Austrans, Newhaven Wealth, the Korean Government and Consolidated Land and Rail Australia (CLARA), who will present their vision of how value capture could transform rail travel in Australia.

“Investment in new technology is vital to improving transport connectivity in our cities and regions,” Mr Alexander says.

“There are concepts coming on line now which have the capacity to completely transform the way we move about.

“High Speed Rail has the capacity to create opportunities for urban and regional development that do not currently exist. In addition, concepts like Hyperloop and Austrans offer completely new visions of the future.”

Hyperloop uses electric propulsion to accelerate a passenger or cargo vehicle through a tube in a low-pressure environment at speeds of up to 1,200 km/h using magnetic levitation. Austrans is a small vehicle, automated transit system developed in Australia.

Further information on the committee’s inquiry into transport connectivity, including the full terms of reference, is available on the Committee website. The Committee is expected to report by the end of the year.

Public Hearing: 9:30am Friday 28 October 2016, Macquarie Room, Parliament House, Sydney

The hearing will be broadcast live (audio only) at aph.gov.au/live.

Further information about the inquiry can be accessed via the Committee’s website. 

ends

AMMA has today released a detailed record of the dysfunction and political in-fighting plaguing Australia’s so-called independent workplace relations tribunal, in a letter urging Minister for Employment Michaelia Cash to launch a full investigation into the Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) structure and approach to administering Australia’s workplace laws.

The resource industry employer group’s correspondence to Minister Cash raises a number of serious issues which are seeing the national tribunal ‘failing to support the interests of employers and employees in contemporary Australian workplaces’.
 
“All evidence points to the FWC being highly dysfunctional, not serving users well and appearing to pursue political agendas rather than assisting constructive workplace relations outcomes for employers and employees,” says AMMA chief executive Steve Knott.
 
“We are seeing FWC members, many with trade union backgrounds, operate outside of long-standing conventions and issue decisions at odds with long-standing industrial principles.
 
“The dysfunction is becoming personal with senior members of the tribunal attacking the decision making of their peers when reviewing controversial or contentious decisions.
 
“AMMA's analysis of several significant FWC decisions reveals a toxic culture of conflict between key FWC members, on open display for all to see in competing judgements. This comes at significant cost to users of the FWC, namely employers, employees and the taxpayer.”
 
AMMA’s concerns about the operation of the FWC, highlighted to Minister Cash, include:

• Entrenched dysfunction that is blurring the line between respectful, constructive, collegiate differences of opinion and outright denigration and hostility.
• The propensity of the FWC’s President to intervene in high profile industrial disputes which many believe is beyond the accepted precepts for the head of an industrial relations tribunal.
• The need for the Coalition Government to urgently redress the imbalance in FWC appointments following the former Labor Government’s six year bias towards trade union appointees with little to no business experience.
• Increasing incidences of individual FWC members handing down decisions which directly contradict established Full Bench principles and approaches.
• The growing number of successful appeals against some tribunal members who have a record of handing down contentious decisions, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

Mr Knott says the examples in AMMA’s letter ‘not only challenge the credibility of the tribunal in its role as independent umpire, but threaten to further diminish employer confidence in our workplace system’.
 
“A review of the FWC should examine the merits of having a specialist appeals body of industrial relations jurists; something found in other international employment systems such as the United Kingdom,” he says.
 
“These concerns are not solely for industrial relations specialists, but are at the heart of growing our economy through making Australia a more positive and rewarding place for employment.”
 
Replacing the Fair Work Commission with a set of ‘modern, balanced employment institutions’ is one of the 5 key workplace reforms identified by resource employers in a 2016 survey. Click here to learn more.

ends