Suchergebnisse

The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) was established by the former Howard government to regulate the building and construction sector. The establishment of the regulatory body followed damning reports by a Royal commission which alleged that building and construction workplaces were characterized by a widespread disregard for the law. An Interim Building Industry Taskforce was established subsequent to the release of the findings. The Royal commission's recommendations were then put before the federal parliament which led to the passage of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (BCII Act 2005). The office of the Australian Building and Construction Commission first began operations in October 2005. The Howard government had hoped the BCII Act (2005) would vastly improve the workplace relations framework for building and construction operations and ensure that all building work was carried out in a fair, efficient and productive manner. The Howard government had long been an advocate of industrial reform in the building and construction sector. It believed that the crucial economic role played by the building and construction industry in Australia was being undermined and had been hindered by a perceived trade union dominance of the workplace. The government also alleged that inefficient workplace production was occurring as a result of direct interference by unions in the workplace. Therefore, it was hoped that the establishment of the ABCC would promote respect for the law and lift the economic capacity of the industry. The ABCC is legislated with coercive information-gathering powers. These powers enable the agency to request information from industry participants that is believed to be of relevance to an investigation. The ABCC may also request building industry participants to attend secret meetings in which they are required to swear an oath or make an affirmation. The triggers for the use of coercive powers in most cases are based on a ' reasonable belief that an offence may have been committed. The government's agency has been criticized for the number of prosecutions it has made against trade unions. Led by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) Labour organizations accused the former Howard government's building and construction regulator of being a political mouthpiece for the Coalition and of having an ideological 'union busting' agenda, rather than adhering to the role of a genuine industrial regulator. Where as, prominent industry groups such as the Masters Builders Australia (MBA) and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) have come out strongly in support of the ABCC citing a steady on-going decline in industrial disputation in the building and construction industry since the ABCC began operations as evidence that the ABCC is functioning effectively in its regulatory role. The role of the ABCC as an active industrial regulator has always been controvers ial within the building and construction industry. However, the ABCC gained national attention following the agencies decision to take legal action against 107 individual workers employed on the Perth- Mandurah Rail project in Western Australia whom allegedly took part in illegal industrial activity. Despite the high profile of this individual case and others similar, the ABCC has managed to remain in relative national anonymity. Regardless of public perceptions, the ABCC's extensive coercive information-gathering powers and the trigger's for their usage has been a controversial subject amongst participants in the industry and this remains true today. Critics of the ABCC suggest that the BCII Act (2005) has not achieved its desired purpose of restoring a respect for the law within the industry as the Royal commission intended. They argue that the ABCC has instead provoked hostility between employee's and employers and their representative bodies which had a detrimental impact on the long-term growth of the industry. The election of a new federal Labor government in November 2007 has provided a real opportunity for the new government to develop a fairer and more balanced regulatory role for the ABCC. The new Rudd government has pledged to retain the ABCC until January 2010 when the governments new industrial relations body 'Fair Work Australia' will take control of regulating the building and construction industry. In order for the transition between the current regulator and the future body to be successful, reforms will need to take place in the operating structure of the ABCC to ensure the industrial regulator is representative of the new government's commitment to achieving a fair and balanced workplace. Division between employers and employees must be resolved as such barriers prevent the industry from performing at its maximum capacity which is pivotal to the success of the Australian economy. This report will examine the active role that has been played by the ABCC, and provide a critique of government intervention into the building and construction industry. To improve industrial relations for building and construction work a fresh approach is needed to ensure a productive, efficient and more balanced industrial workplace. A fair and balanced ombudsman for the building and construction industry is of vital importance to both the future of the national economy and the social fabric of our society.

The aims of this study are to analyze and describe National Regulatory Body in the context of Indonesian Law after the Amendment of Formulation of Laws and Legislation Act. The method used is a qualitative research method that is normative legal research with a focus of research that is discussing the politics of law of forming a national regulatory body. The study revealed that the substance in Law number 15 of 2019 is the existence of a new institution that organizes government affairs in the field of the formation of legislation. The agency in the Amendment to the PPP Act, among others, has the function or task of coordinating the preparation of legislation program within the Government, coordinating the planning of the drafting of Presidential Decree coordinating the harmonization, rounding up, and consolidating the conception of a draft bill originating from the President, coordinating the preparation of deliberations for the Draft Bill with the Parliament, coordinating the harmonization, rounding up, and consolidating the conception of the bill originating from the President and strengthening the conception of the draft of Decree, coordinating the harmonization, rounding and consolidation of the draft Decree, enacting legislation in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia or the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia.

Abstract
This article examines the nature of, and reasons for, the disproportionately high rates of fitness to practise referrals of social workers in England to the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), compared with other professions regulated by HCPC during 2014–2016. In 2014–2015, the rate of referrals for social workers was 1.42 per cent of registrants, compared with an average for the sixteen professions regulated by HCPC of 0.66 per cent. Drawing on published statistics and unique analysis of a sample of 232 case files undertaken as part of a research project in 2016–2017, the article highlights relatively high rates of inappropriate referrals from 'members of the public' (mainly service users) particularly in relation to child placements and contact. A detailed picture is offered of the variety of referrals dealt with at each stage of the fitness to practise process (from initial triage to final hearings), with recommendations for how to prevent inappropriate referrals, whilst focusing concern on the most serious cases of incompetence and misconduct. This research is of significance at a time of increasing pressure for social workers, social services and service users under conditions of austerity and managerialism; on-going concerns about standards in social work; and recent changes in social work regulation.

Space exploration is about to undergo a monumental change and the global legal and regulatory infrastructure is massively unprepared. When the bulk of international space law was written, the Cold War was raging, and man had not even landed on the Moon yet. Now, thanks to advances in technology, a seismic shift has occurred which will see private industry leading the future of space exploration with national space agencies as partners, rather than the other way around as has been the status quo for decades. One of the most lucrative possibilities luring private firms to space is the opportunity to extract resources from a celestial body such as an asteroid, another planet, or the Moon. It is estimated that trillions of dollars' worth of precious metals, liquids, and gasses exist on these bodies. A galactic resource race will soon be underway, and space-faring nations must take the lead to ensure that legal, economic, and environmental issues posed by such space exploration is hammered out before it is too late. I assert that if left to their own devices, firms will fail to follow the same standard of their fore-father government space agencies. As a result, we need an international agreement or body for the twenty-first century to govern and regulate the extraction of resources from outer space led by the great space hegemons.