EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Commonwealth of Australia
HEARING SERVICES PROVIDERS ACCREDITATION SCHEME AMENDMENT 2000 (No.1)
NOTES ON SECTIONS
1. Name of instrument
This section provides that this instrument may be cited as the Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme Amendment 2000 (No. 1).
2. Commencement
This section provides that this instrument commence on 1 July 2000.
3. Amendment of Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997
This section provides that this instrument amends the Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997.
SCHEDULE 1 AMENDMENTS
1. Section 1
The change corrects a wording error.
2. Paragraph 6(2)(f)
The change clarifies that the financial issue that is considered in relation to accreditation is viability. This change was made because financial status was considered to be too general.
3. After subsection 6(4)
This change reinforces the requirement for hearing services providers to always provide correct information in their dealings with the Commonwealth. It ensures that compliance action can be taken should a hearing services provider be found not to have provided correct information.
4. Section 7
This change removes a section of the instrument that has become redundant due to passage of time.
5. Subsection 9(2)
The change corrects a wording error.
6. Section 10
This change adds the power to give a warning to a service provider when the Minister has determined that they are in breach of their accreditation. This change gives effect to Section 16(5) of the Act. The ability to warn instead of taking immediate action is in addition to the already existing powers to change of cancel an accreditation.
7. Section 11
The change removes a reference to the Office of Hearing Services and replaces it with a reference to the Commonwealth. The change occurred to bring the terminology in the instrument into line with the legislation on which it is based.
Overview
The Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme Amendment 2000 (No.1) was enacted to address specific issues within the Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997. This legislative instrument, which came into effect on 1 July 2000, was introduced by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to refine and correct certain provisions in the original scheme. The primary policy objective of these amendments is to enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the accreditation process for hearing services providers, ensuring that the scheme operates with greater precision and accountability. The amendments aim to rectify wording errors, clarify certain criteria, and update terminology to align with the overarching legislative framework, thus maintaining the integrity and functionality of the accreditation process.
Scope and Application
The Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme Amendment 2000 (No. 1) amends the Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997, which pertains to the accreditation of hearing services providers in Australia. This Act applies to individuals and entities providing hearing services, ensuring that they meet certain standards and criteria to be accredited. The amendment aims to clarify and refine the criteria for accreditation, ensuring that providers demonstrate viability and provide accurate information to the Commonwealth. The changes include correcting wording errors and clarifying the financial viability criterion, among other adjustments. The amendments also introduce the power to issue warnings to providers who breach their accreditation, providing an additional tool for enforcement alongside the existing powers to modify or cancel accreditation. The jurisdictional reach of this Act is nationwide, applying across the Commonwealth of Australia, and it operates through subordinate instruments that may further define or expand the scope of the legislation. There are no stated exclusions or exemptions within the provided text, but the Act's application is subject to the overarching principles and specific provisions outlined in the Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997.
Key Provisions
The Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme Amendment 2000 (No. 1) introduces several modifications to the Hearing Services Providers Accreditation Scheme 1997. To begin with, Section 1 of this amendment instrument allows it to be cited as the aforementioned Amendment 2000 (No. 1), while Section 2 stipulates that the amendment takes effect from 1 July 2000. The core changes are outlined in Schedule 1, which specifically amends the original Scheme.
The key provisions introduced by this amendment include clarifying the financial viability criteria for accreditation in Paragraph 6(2)(f), ensuring that hearing services providers must consistently provide accurate information to the Commonwealth (post-subsection 6(4)). Additionally, Section 7 removes a redundant section that had outlived its relevance. Subsection 9(2) corrects a wording error, and Section 10 introduces the ability for the Minister to issue warnings to service providers found in breach of their accreditation, supplementing existing powers to change or cancel accreditation. Finally, Section 11 updates terminology to align with broader Commonwealth legislation, replacing references to the Office of Hearing Services with references to the Commonwealth.
The amendment imposes certain obligations and requirements on hearing services providers. Most significantly, it mandates that providers must furnish correct and accurate information to the Commonwealth at all times. This requirement is essential to maintain the integrity of the accreditation process and to ensure that the Commonwealth has reliable data for oversight purposes. Furthermore, the addition of the power to issue warnings to providers who breach their accreditation terms provides an additional layer of accountability. Providers must now be vigilant in adhering to their accreditation conditions to avoid such warnings, which could escalate to more severe actions if the breaches persist.
In terms of consequences for non-compliance, the amendment does not explicitly introduce new offences or penalties in the provided sections. However, it underscores the seriousness of providing incorrect information by allowing for compliance action to be taken. While the exact nature of these actions is not detailed, the potential repercussions could include warnings, sanctions, or even the cancellation of accreditation. Given that the amendment supplements existing powers to change or cancel accreditation, it is reasonable to infer that breaches of the new requirements could lead to similar outcomes as those for existing breaches. While the amendment does not detail maximum penalties, the potential for severe consequences underscores the importance of strict adherence to the new requirements.