Sie verdienen mit binare optionen broker geld37 comments
Trade currency online india
This objective attracts for consideration substantive issues relating to the operation of the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund and restrictions on business activity. It also attracts consideration of more technical issues such as the clarity of legislation, particularly where improvements can be made in drafting legislation and by removal of anomalies. The Committee deliberated about improvements to the legislative framework against the following considerations: An important issue for consideration is the extent to which there should be legislative intervention into the conduct of ceremonies on ANZAC Day.
The Victorian Branch is of the view that the manner in which the Dawn Service at the Shrine is at present conducted is appropriate particularly with the strong feature of remembrance. This view is supported by the majority of the unit associations who have been consulted in relation to this matter. The RSL should be responsible for the carrying out of such commemorative activities assisted by other ex-service organizations.
The bodies should be composed of representatives of the ex-service community, local Government authorities, Defence Force and other interested community groups.
The Committee found that there does not appear to be any substantial grounds to suggest that ceremonies on ANZAC Day are conducted in a way which warrants direct Government intervention. It appears clear enough that the extent of legislative intervention should not extend to the conduct of ceremonies on ANZAC Day.
The Committee considers that the long-standing role of the ex-service community in the conduct of marches and other commemorative ceremonies throughout Victoria on ANZAC Day should remain in place without legislative control. The Committee notes, however, the view of the RSL National Headquarters that the organising body be at least authorised by government.
The Committee recommends that, in view of the long-standing role of the ex-service community in the conduct of ANZAC Day ceremonies throughout Victoria, these matters should remain the province of the ex-service community, without legislative intervention.
An issue for consideration is whether to provide for a single and clear piece of legislation that consolidates the many laws affecting Anzac Day. A preliminary consideration relates to the way in which the encryption of ANZAC is represented in legislation. The Committee recommends that references to "ANZAC" in legislation should be made in upper case encryption to reflect the origin of the word as a combination of the Australian and New Zealand forces that served at Gallipoli.
Commemoration of all Service. An anomaly in the existing legislation that was apparent to the Committee related to the reference in the Anzac Day Act to commemoration related to World War I.
The Committee found no basis for continuing this limited reference in future legislation. The Committee concluded that there is justification for updating the reference to recognise all conflicts in which Australian people have been engaged. Further, as there is considerable support for the commemoration to be extended to include peacekeeping activities, as presently recognised in the Patriotic Funds Act , the Committee considers that this would be an improvement to the legislation.
The use of the word "conflict" is consistent with the definitions and words expressed in the Patriotic Funds Act". The Committee recommends that: In keeping with the general support for observing the significance of ANZAC Day, there is little contention about the continued observance of a public holiday on 25 April each year.
In the course of the review, it became clear that if enhanced priority is to be given to commemorating ANZAC Day and the ANZAC spirit, specific functions should be identified and responsibility allocated for their performance.
In this respect, Melbourne Legacy submitted that: The Council should be responsible to advise the Minister and to make determinations on matters including approval of sporting events and recreational activity, restrictions on business activity, commercial opening laws, and the like.
The thrust of these functions should be to assist, facilitate and promote commemoration and education activities. The capacity to perform these functions will depend on appropriate funding. Having regard to its responsibility for the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund, it is appropriate that the Patriotic Funds Council assume expanded functions to assist, facilitate and promote commemoration and education activities. The Committee considers the new Act should give statutory recognition to a body to perform these functions for the Patriotic Funds Council.
Its membership would include representatives of ex-service organisations in particular the RSL , and other representation possibly including people from the business, sporting, entertainment and education sectors. Performance of the expanded functions will require increased funding, which the Committee discusses later in this Report. The Act provides for the income of the fund to be derived from the net profits of sporting and racing clubs conducting events on ANZAC Day.
The Patriotic Funds Act establishes the Patriotic Funds Council of Victoria to, in effect, assume responsibility for overseeing the operation of all Victorian patriotic funds. The Patriotic Funds Council submission explains that: Although a number of Patriotic Funds are asset rich, these assets are generally buildings which are not "liquid".
The emphasis here has been on ensuring that the funds are distributed to the widest possible number of recipients and therefore organisations that apply are evaluated on this criterion. Unfortunately, as indicated earlier, a number of the ex services community are asset rich in terms of their funds but are operating with a deficit.
It is these funds that the PFC particularly wishes to address if extra funding is obtained. The Patriotic Funds Council also noted that: This has obviously left the PFC with less money to distribute to those ex-service organisations that are administering welfare to ex-service personnel and their dependants. The balance of the fund is sourced from contributions of sporting and racing clubs.
Clearly, the Patriotic Funds Council is the appropriate body and should be the only body whose function is to receive and apportion proceeds generated into the Fund to ex-service organisations. However, there is clearly scope for the source of funds to be expanded. There does not seem to be any policy reason or principle to justify confining contributions to the fund to the activities of sport and racing. In this context, theatres, cinemas and entertainment associated with hotels and licensed clubs appear to be appropriate sources of contributions.
In particular, it does not seem unreasonable to expect contributions to be sourced from relevant gaming activities. There are plausible grounds for the Treasury policy relating to totalisator wagering taxation to be similarly applied with respect to gaming taxation . Such an expansion of sources of income for the fund is likely to have a substantial corresponding impact on the quantum of the fund.
In considering this issue, the Committee has identified a fundamental principle that those, whether sporting, gaming or entertainment organisations, which receive commercial benefit for their activities should make a reasonable contribution to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund that is commensurate with the commercial outcome of conducting the particular activity on ANZAC Day. This matter is discussed further in relation to Recommendations 12 and 13 below. Apparently, the ceremonies are, in effect, funded by the RSL and through the goodwill of other organisations.
In this context, the Committee received evidence that in respect of the ceremonies held in Melbourne, the City of Melbourne sends the RSL an invoice for all services which it provides on the day . The Committee considers that having regard to the significance of ANZAC Day, its important ceremonies should not be vulnerable because of financial or resource deficiencies. While the goodwill that supports the existing conduct of the ceremonies reflects the significance of the day, it is nevertheless not the most satisfactory arrangement.
The Committee considers that the ceremonies are of such substantial importance that their continued success should be guaranteed at least in respect of financial and resource terms. The Shrine of Remembrance Act makes provision for the care, management and maintenance of the Shrine of Remembrance and other Memorials for other purposes.
The Trustees of the Shrine submitted that the Shrine of Remembrance should have a formal role "in helping raise awareness and educate current and future generations about the ANZAC spirit.
The Trustees of the Shrine submitted that the review provides an opportunity to extend the scope of the functions of the Patriotic Funds Council so that it also provides financial support to commemorative bodies such as the Shrine of Remembrance.
These funds could then be utilised by the Shrine, or commemorative bodies, for purposes consistent with their objectives, and in recognition of the pivotal role that can be played in the education and promotion of remembrance.
The Trustees of the Shrine also suggested that there should be an ability for: Accordingly, the Trustees of the Shrine of Remembrance submitted that the Committee, in its deliberations consider: The Committee accepts the force of the proposals of the Trustees of the Shrine of Remembrance and, in particular, welcomes the current redevelopment of the Shrine precincts to allow for the greater provision of information and other educative resources to school students and other visitors.
However, the Committee is keen to emphasise that the central role in the conduct of ceremonies on ANZAC Day should remain with the ex-service organisations . The Shrine of Remembrance offers scope for a powerful medium for the education and commemoration of ANZAC Day and, more broadly, the service of Australians in wars and peacekeeping efforts.
If Victoria is to be serious about according appropriate significance to this task, enhancing the functions of the Shrine is an opportunity we can ill-afford to ignore. Therefore, the Committee considers that the Trustees of the Shrine should have legislative support for greater involvement in education activities. The scope of these activities is discussed later in this report. The proposed expanded role of the Shrine of Remembrance is a very worthy one.
However, its worth will not be achieved if appropriate funding is not made available to enable it to perform the functions of its role. The importance of the contribution that the Shrine of Remembrance can make in respect of ANZAC Day is sufficiently considerable as to justify substantial priority in the allocation of funding.
In the case of clubs holding events outside the metropolitan area, the Minister may authorise the payment of such profits to other patriotic funds after consulting with the President of the RSL to ensure the bona fides of such funds. The framework for sporting clubs effectively mirrors that for racing clubs where the Minister for Racing has comparable responsibilities under the Racing Act It is clear that there is significant dissatisfaction with the existing legislative scheme governing contributions by major sporting organisations to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund.
This dissatisfaction is primarily founded on equity grounds. In this context, submissions pointed to a perceived inadequacy of the contribution presently made by the Australian Football League the "AFL". It is submitted that the arrangements in relation to racing are appropriate, but there is a need for further improved financial arrangements with the AFL and with other organizations providing sport in relation to which section 4 7 of the Act applies.
It is appropriate that such funds that are collected from sporting organizations ought to be placed in the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund and that fund ought to be distributed not only for the purposes for which it is distributed by the Patriotic Funds Council, but also to assist in the educative activities proposed in the Discussion Paper.
Further, Melbourne Legacy submitted that: The Patriotic Funds Council submitted that: It is noted at present that the consent of the President of the Victorian Branch is required for the conduct of paid sport more than 30 miles from the GPO. It is submitted the restriction of 30 miles from the GPO ought to be removed and that the consent for conduct of all paid sport in the State of Victoria ought to be subject to the consent of the President of the RSL.
It is noted that the definition of sport, as set out in Section 4 7 and the relevant criteria is as follows "which persons are admitted on payment of an admission fee, or charge or after any donation has been sought from them" would restrict the number of consents that would be required. There no longer appears to be any reason for a differentiation between matters that take place in Greater Melbourne as against matters that take place in the balance of Victoria.
The AFL submitted that: We also make a direct financial contribution to the RSL. Racing Victoria Limited proposed that consideration be given to: The issue is not so much about a requirement to contribute, but rather about equity of contribution. In respect of this issue, the Committee concluded that the fundamental threshold principle which has strong general support is that those, whether sporting, gaming or entertainment organisations, who receive commercial benefit for their activities should make a reasonable contribution to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund that is commensurate with the commercial outcome of conducting the particular activity on ANZAC Day.
Acceptance of this fundamental principle provides the basis for an equitable scheme of contributions. The Committee considers that an appropriate equitable scheme can be enacted by investing in the Premier a power to prescribe a formula for contributions by major sporting organisations to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund.
In this way, there will be fair regulation of the contribution to be made by the racing industry and by the Australian Football League, or other sporting organisations conducting a major event on ANZAC Day. This is, no doubt, due to the fact that legalised gaming came in to being after the original ANZAC Day legislation was passed. As with sport, this issue is primarily about equity considerations. For example Melbourne Legacy submitted that: Melbourne Legacy contends that gaming should be captured with an appropriate percentage of profit made by all operators on ANZAC Day directed to the Fund.
Whilst the RSL was not directly supportive of this measure  , this was, in part, due to its scrupulous perception of conflict of interest. A further consideration in relation to gaming is the impact that a requirement to make a contribution to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund may have on existing obligations to contribute to the Community Support Fund.