ATO Practice Statement Law Administration
PS LA 2002/16 (Withdrawn)
|SUBJECT:||Mandatory use of Information Technology systems for interpretative work - inclusion in performance agreements|
|PURPOSE:||To advise that officers involved in interpretative work must use relevant information technology systems|
This law administration practice statement is withdrawn with effect from 3 May 2013. Content in this LAPS is now contained in various other policy documents or is no longer relevant.This document has changed over time. View its history.
FOI status: may be released
|TABLE OF CONTENTS|
1. Officers involved in interpretative work must use relevant Information Technology systems in use in the Australian Taxation Office to action, research and record that work.
2. This instruction to use relevant Information Technology systems must be reflected in the performance agreements of all staff, including SES officers, who undertake interpretative work. Additionally, performance agreements of staff, including SES officers, who have direct or indirect management responsibilities for such staff, must reflect their responsibility to ensure that staff who report to them comply with this practice statement.
3. Managers are to actively reinforce the requirement to use relevant Information Technology systems, and are to provide feedback to groups or individuals accordingly, with appropriate action being taken for non-compliance.
4. Each business line is required to monitor the level of compliance with this practice statement through its internal reporting mechanisms, and is to report on the level of compliance in each biannual Technical Quality Review report that is lodged with Law and Practice.
5. Electronic technical support systems support interpretative decision making, including the management and actioning of casework, the sharing of information on interpretative issues currently under consideration and the building of databases for internal and external use.
6. These systems continue to be upgraded to improve functionality and with the intent of making them easier to use. Some, ATOlaw for example, are at the leading edge of this form of technology.
7. Given the decentralised nature of our operations, knowledge-sharing and accurate, consistent interpretative decision making depends upon a disciplined approach to processing our work. That approach includes the use of electronic technical support systems. The use of these systems is particularly critical to ensuring the quality, consistency and integrity of written binding advice, an integral part of the community's tax system.
8. The Information Technology systems to which this practice statement relates include those listed in Attachment A together with any corporate systems that replace them.
Information Technology Systems for Interpretative Work
The following is a list of Information Technology systems to which this practice statement relates. This list is not exhaustive:
- Case management and actioning system (for example, TDMS, SIEBEL)
- Other case or issue actioning systems (for example, Priority Technical Issues, ATOlegals)
- Other case management systems (for example, Mind Your Matters (MYM), Parliamentary Workflow System (PWS))
- Research systems (for example, ATOlaw, Technical References Search Facility)
- Information sharing systems (for example, Knowledge Exchange, Microsoft Outlook Public Folders)
- Other case management and case actioning systems which operate in some business lines to cover specific types of compliance casework.
|Date of amendment||Part||Comment|
|29 October 2010||Contact details||Updated.|
|2 September 2009||Contact details||Updated.|
|8 February 2008||Paragraph 4||Business line authorisation revised.|
|31 January 2008||Contact details||Updated.|
|8 September 2006||Attachment A||List of systems updated.|
Date of Issue: 15 August 2002
Date of Effect: 15 August 2002
Related Practice Statements:
PS LA 1998/2
case actioning tools
case management systems
Assistant Commissioner, OCTC
|15 August 2002||Original statement|
|You are here||3 May 2013||Withdrawn|