Showing posts with label Australian Parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Parliament. Show all posts

Friday 23 June 2017

Members of Australian Parliament receive third pay rise in four years raising base salary to $203,020 per annum


The 226 members of the House of Representatives and Senate will receive a base salary which is almost six times higher than the June 2017 full-time minimum wage – commencing on 1 July 2017.

Excerpts from Remuneration Tribunal 2017 Review of Remuneration for Holders of Public Office Statement, 22 June 2017:

The Tribunal has decided to increase remuneration by 2 per cent for public offices in its jurisdiction, with effect from 1 July 2017…….


In conducting its annual review of remuneration, the Tribunal takes account of economic conditions in Australia, past and projected movements in remuneration in the private and public sectors (including the APS), as well as the outcomes of reviews of public offices completed by the Tribunal. In order to inform its conclusions the Tribunal draws upon authoritative external sources such as the published material available from the Government, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) as well as trends in public and private sector remuneration. It is obliged by its legislation also to consider the Annual Wage Reviews of the Fair Work Commission.

Adjustments arising from the Tribunal’s annual review generally apply to the broad spectrum of offices in the Tribunal’s determinative jurisdiction including the most senior offices in the public service and statutory agencies, certain government-owned businesses, Secretaries, numerous part-time offices and the federal judiciary, as well as parliamentarians. Ordinary annual adjustments in remuneration of this kind recognise the achievement of ongoing objectives and the steady evolution in responsibility that is characteristic of public administration.

The Tribunal considers it important that remuneration for offices in its jurisdiction be maintained at appropriate levels over the longer term to attract and retain people of the calibre required for these important high level offices. The Tribunal is conservative in its approach to annual increases and in this case is conscious of the Government’s policy of wage restraint for the APS and non- APS government agencies. Ideally, the Tribunal is concerned to avoid, in the future, any need for significant one-off increases to restore proper relativities and to recognise fully ongoing changes in work requirements…..

The Tribunal sets remuneration for a range of offices that sit at the forefront of the private/public sector ‘divide’. Heads of agencies, members of boards and technical/professional specialists often straddle roles between both sectors. Many of these office holders do not expect or require that monetary compensation be set at private sector levels.

Rather in the true sense of the phrase ‘public service’, office holders serve for the public good. This means that in setting remuneration the Tribunal has traditionally set rates below those of the private sector.

Nonetheless over the past year there has been a notable increase in submissions to the Tribunal seeking higher remuneration for offices and individual office holders based at least in part on private sector remuneration.

As well as achieving an appropriate balance in the assessment of both private and public sector wage movements, the Tribunal must make its assessment of wages and other economic considerations based not just on past experience but also on predictions of future movements. The Tribunal is also conscious of the Government’s policy of wage restraint applying to APS and non-APS agencies. Ultimately the Tribunal has decided to set its general increase at 2 per cent…..

This wage increase translates into the following figures.

The Australian, 22 June 2017:

The rise will push ordinary members of parliament up by just under $4000 to $203,020 per annum.
The Prime Minister will get a $10,350 pay rise from $517,504 a year to $527,854
Cabinet ministers, currently paid a base salary of $343,344, will get nearly $7000 extra and will now be paid $350,210 a year.
Shadow ministers, on $248,800 per year, will get bumped up to $253,776 a year.

MPs and senators had already been granted additional taxpayer-funded support staff six months ago.

The Australian, 20 December 2016:

Taxpayers will fork out an extra $35.8 million over the next four years for federal politicians to ­employ 33 additional staff, adding to more than 1500 people already employed by MPs.

The allocation will see the extra full-time positions divided ­between the Coalition, Labor, the Greens and crossbench MPs, and also provide for some existing roles to be reclassified, costing $9.1m annually from 2017-18.

The mid-year budget review says $35.8m will “allow parliamentarians to more effectively manage their workload and represent the interest of their constituents”.

The total number of personal staff employed by government MPs is 448, including 401 for the 30 ministers and 25 for the 12 parliamentary secretaries, who are called assistant ministers.

Eight staff work for government whips and a further 14 have other roles.

The opposition employs 101 personal staff; 37 are allocated to the Leader of the Opposition, and six to opposition whips. The Greens have 17 personal staff. Each of the 15 crossbench MPs and senators have been allocated an extra three staff. In addition, there are almost 1000 staffers working in electorate offices, with the 226 MPs and ­senators entitled to four workers each.

Department of Finance documents show the number of staff classified as senior advisers ­jumped from 61 in February last year to 101 last month. In the same ­period, the total staff in lower-paid positions fell by eight.

Government staff are paid ­between $48,000 annually for an entry-level electorate staffer to $245,000 for a senior adviser, plus allowances of up to $30,000 a year.

The staff have just signed a new enterprise bargaining agreement that locks in salary and allowance increases of 2 per cent a year for the next three years.


Friday 17 February 2017

Without wide consultation with indigenous peoples the Turnbull Government is fast tracking amendments to the C'wealth Native Title Act 1993


Without wide consultation with indigenous peoples the Turnbull Government has tabled a retrospective bill, Native title amendment (indigenous land use agreements) bill 2017, in order to overturn Federal Court of Australia orders handed down in McGlade  v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 and ensure that projects such as foreign multinational Adani Mining Pty Ltd’s Galilee Basin complex comprising six open-cut & five underground coal mines and associated infrastructure can proceed.

As it now stands this bill appears to allow a weakening of the authority of Native Title holders identified and named by the Native Title Tribunal in decisions made under existing provisions in Native Title Act 1993 as well as those who may be named in future decisions.

However, this is a complex issue given the number of existing Indigenous Land Use Agreements which have been entered into across Australia and merits Parliament’s attention – though perhaps not the less than 24 hour express train ride Turnbull gave it in the Lower House.

On 16 February the bill passed the House of Representatives with a majority of 9 MPs and has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which is expected to file a report on 17 March 2017.

Tuesday 8 November 2016

Senate finds Attorney-General Brandis sought to undermine rule of law in Australia


Australian Senate, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into the  Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, 8 November 2016 – majority view:

4.9 It is the committee's view that the Attorney-General has sought to undermine the rule of law in Australia by failing to adequately consult the Solicitor-General and constraining the independence of the Solicitor-General….

4.27 The committee makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 
4.28 That the Senate disallow the amendment to the Direction or the Attorney-General withdraw it immediately, and that the Guidance Note be revised accordingly.

Recommendation 2 
4.29 That the Attorney-General provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.

Recommendation 3 
4.30 That the Senate censure the Attorney-General for misleading the parliament and failing to discharge his duties as Attorney-General appropriately.

Full report here.


Wednesday 2 November 2016

Senators falling like skittles in Canberra


On 1 November 2016  it was the announcement that it was the intention of the Turnbull Government and  Australian Parliament to challenge the validity of the election of Family First Senator for South Australia Bob Day in the High Court on the basis of a potential non-direct pecuniary interest through Fullarton Investments Pty Ltd.

One day later and a similar announcement is made concerning One Nation Senator for West Australia Rod Cullerton in relation to a criminal conviction for larceny prior to the 2016 federal election.
UNCLASSIFIED
SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

MEDIA RELEASE­

Senator Rod Culleton
Last Saturday, I wrote to the President of the Senate, the Hon Stephen Parry, to draw to his attention an Opinion which I had received from the Solicitor-General concerning the election of Senator Rod Culleton as a Senator for Western Australia.  I received the Opinion late on Friday, 28 October 2016.  I also provided a copy of the Opinion to Senator Culleton.

The opinion was sought by me on 13 October 2016 in view of issues raised in proceedings commenced in the High Court against Senator Culleton by Mr Bruce Bell. 

It appears that the proceedings brought by Mr Bell are based on an allegation that, at the time of the last election, Senator Culleton had been convicted of an offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for one year or longer, and was therefore “incapable of being chosen” as a Senator under section 44(ii) of the Constitution.

The President of the Senate has written to me today to advise that he proposes to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate when it sits on 7 November 2016.  At that time, the Government will initiate a referral of the matter to the High Court pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

2 November 2016

"I don't know who the dickhead is that thought up this incredible, brilliant idea; it's just a total waste of taxpayers' money" - Warren Mundine


Having read the following media release last Thursday I feel sympathy for Warren Mundine’s obvious sense of frustration at the announcement of yet another ‘make busy’ inquiry into the criminal justice system and indigenous incarceration.

It was only in March last year that the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committees began an Inquiry into Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Experiences of Law Enforcement and Justice Services, which received fifty-one submissions and held hearings in Perth, Sydney and Canberra.

The final report was due on 25 August 2016, however as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull pulled the plug on all current parliamentary inquiries on 9 May 2016 by calling a double dissolution federal election, time spent, taxpayers’ money and the efforts of concerned parties have come to naught.

Rather like most of the recommendations of previously completed state and federal inquiries into the Aboriginal experience of Australian society and its institutions.

UNCLASSIFIED
SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

SENATOR THE HON NIGEL SCULLION
MINISTER FOR INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

JOINT MEDIA RELEASE­

ALRC inquiry into incarceration rate of Indigenous Australians

Today we announce that the Turnbull Government will ask the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to examine the factors leading to the over representation of Indigenous Australians in our prison system, and consider what reforms to the law could ameliorate this national tragedy.
It has been 25 years since the final report of the landmark Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, but Indigenous Australians are still overrepresented in Australia’s prisons. In 1991, Indigenous Australians made up 14 per cent of our nation’s prison population; by 2015, this had increased to 27 per cent.

Other worrying statistics include the fact that Indigenous children and teenagers are 24 times more likely to be incarcerated than their non-Indigenous peers, while Indigenous women are 30 times more likely to be incarcerated.

The ALRC’s inquiry is a critical step for breaking through these disturbing trends. The terms of reference will be subject to consultation, particularly with Indigenous Australians, state and territory governments who have primary responsibility for our criminal justice frameworks, as well as the broader legal profession.

The Turnbull Government is committed to reducing Indigenous incarceration and has committed $256 million in 2016-17 through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy for activities to address the drivers and improve community safety.

27 October 2016

Tuesday 1 November 2016

Please tell me how Family First Senator Bob Day has the gall to remain in the Australian Senate after announcing his resignation



s44. Any person who:
(i)is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(iv) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

s45. If a senator or member of the House of Representatives:
1. becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the last preceding section; or
2. takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or otherwise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or
3. directly or indirectly takes or agrees to take any fee or honorarium for services rendered to the Commonwealth, or for services rendered in the Parliament to any person or State;
his place shall thereupon become vacant.

Make no mistake, the following represents the insolvent liquidation of companies owned by Family First Senator Bob Day and family (with Bob Day as sole director) and foreshadows personal insolvency.  There are 207 houses still under construction and building work halted, an unspecified number of employees having no guarantee of full payment of wages/superannuation/holiday pay owed and, an unknown number of business creditors who will presumably meet with the liquidator in November 2016.

The Australian, 18 October 2016:

Senator Day said Home Australia and its subsidiaries in South Australia. Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales would be liquidated by McGrathNicol.

“As I have always agreed to sign personal guarantees to creditors, this closure also has serious implications for me and my family,” he said.

“Creditor liabilities greatly exceed our assets so we will also lose our family home.
“As for my role as a Senator, I will of course resign.”

Smart Company, 18 October 2016:

Matthew Caddy and Barry Kogan of McGrathNicol have been appointed as liquidators of parent company Home Australia Pty Ltd, as well as seven wholly owned subsidiaries: Homestead Homes Pty Ltd, Collier Homes Pty Ltd, Newstart Homes (SE QLD) Pty Ltd, Ashford Homes Pty Ltd, Huxley Homes Pty Ltd, Nationwide Australian Investments Pty Ltd, and Smart Road Property Rentals Pty Ltd.

Construction on all homes being built by Home Australia has ceased and the liquidators said in a statement on Monday their “immediate objective is to work constructively with relevant insurers and customers in an effort to facilitate the orderly recommencement of construction of uncompleted homes by alternative builders”.

McGrathNicol is also accepting expressions of interest from potential buyers for the entire Home Australia business or individual parts.

The Guardian, 27 October 2016:

Family First senator Bob Day’s collapsed house building empire owes a total of $37.8m, according to their liquidator.

A spokesman for liquidator McGrath Nichol told Guardian Australia on Thursday that the seven companies owe unsecured creditors a total of $19.6m.

The figure dwarfs initial estimates that unsecured creditors were owed $12.5m.

The companies owe a total of $18.2m in secured debt, of which National Australia Bank is owed $17.5m. Those debts will take priority over the unsecured creditors.


Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) 26 October 2016:
Name:
HUXLEY HOMES PTY LTD
ACN:
106 443 216
ABN:
Registration date:
24/09/2003
Next review date:
24/09/2017
Status:
External Administration
Type:
Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares
Locality of registered office:
TEA TREE GULLY SA 5091
  Regulator:
Australian Securities & Investments Commission
17/10/2016
7E8438321
Notification of Appointment of Liquidator (Creditors' (505J)
Voluntary Winding Up) 




Unfortunately for parliamentary democracy, Senator Day appears to have now rethought his statement of 17 October that he was resigning from the Senate and now intends to stay indefinitely as his announcement was apparently only one of future intent.

Wellington Times, 24 October 2016:

……Senator Day issued a short statement.
"I refer Fairfax to my statement last Monday expressing an intention to resign as a result of my family company's problems," he said.
One Adelaide-based expert in receivership and company administration said it was unlikely Senator Day's companies could be wound up quickly and suggested a possible bankruptcy was at least six months away.
Parliament will return on November 7 for three final sitting weeks of the year, with the Senate expected to vote on the two bills used for trigger the July 2 double dissolution election.
Senator Day's vote will be crucial as the government seeks nine out of 11 crossbenchers to support the legislation. If he is not present for the votes, he would seek a pair with Labor.

UPDATE

ABC News, 1 November 2016, 12:37pm:

Family First senator Bob Day has tendered his resignation, effective immediately.

Pressure had been mounting on the now-former senator to resign as his construction company crumbled.

Tuesday 18 October 2016

Thank the gods! Senator Bob Day resigns


The Australian: Senator Bob Day at a home being built by his family firm in Broadview, Adelaide

Far-right politician and former Liberal Party member, Family First’s Senator Robert “Bob” Day, having run his building company into liquidation has resigned from the Australian Senate.

He had been a senator for just over 28 months and was the only member of the senate with a Facebook page dedicated to a financial disaster he oversaw.

During his time in office he strongly voted for:

He voted against:


Thursday 6 October 2016

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics' Review of Australia's Four Major Banks - Days 1 & 2


On 15 September 2016 the Australian Treasurer asked the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics to inquire into and report on a Review of Australia's Four Major Banks.

Public hearing were conducted on 4 to 6 October.

News.com.au reporting on the Commonwealth Bank appearance on 4 October 2016:

Commonwealth Bank chief Ian Narev to face parliamentary inquiry into banking system…..

On Tuesday Mr Narev admitted an independent review found one in 10 customers received “inappropriate financial advice” from the bank.
Speaking to MPs, he said an independent report last week found of 8000 customers who asked for their financial advice to be reviewed, 6000 had been completed.

It found more than 10 per cent of those were given inappropriate advice. The bank had paid out $11 million in claims since its initial payout of $52 million several years ago.
Mr Narev defended the time it had taken to resolve the matter and said it would be wrapped up by the end of the year.

“We’ve gone back a large number of years in this program to statements of advice that go back prior to the global financial crisis,” he said. “So yes it has taken a period of time to do that but we’ve done it thoroughly, with independent oversight.”…

When asked by Labor’s Pat Conroy about whether there had been disciplinary consequences for CommInsure officers who rejected insurance claims from terminally ill people or refused to pay out life insurance, Mr Narev said there had been no terminations of employment.

“There are certainly individuals where we know enough about them that they’ve had some consequences related to remuneration but at this stage we have not had individuals terminated because of this because we’ve not seen the need to do that,” he said.

Independent committees within the bank will decide on disciplinary action after the review is completed.

Mr Narev said he expected there would be more cases of poor customer outcomes, but said this would be followed by more announcements regarding compensation due to customers…..

This was The Canberra Times commenting that same day:

Power is a funny thing.

It shifts and flows, is both tangible and vague.

Often, it is most identifiable when it is missing. 

As Ian Narev, the Commonwealth Bank CEO who received $12.3 million in pay last financial year, fronted the first of what are to be annual parliamentary committee hearings, who held the power was clear.

And it wasn't the government.

As far as Narev was concerned, everything he needed to say was said at his opening statement - the bank had not always done right by customers, but it was learning and changing and on the whole, its customers were "the most satisfied they've been".  

It was all, he said, about being strong and fair.  Strong banks equalled a strong economy. And that was almost an excuse for anything, even if they needed to work on being a little more fair.

Throughout the three-hour hearing, he often referred to what he said at the beginning, to the point where it became a mantra, no matter how many cases were mentioned.

On 5 October it was The Sydney Morning Herald which noticed what is probably a Brian Loughnane-inspired evidential trend:

This time, it was Shayne Elliott, the ANZ chief executive officer, who was very sorry.

He was very sorry for the issues within its wealth management division and its rural lending business, which saw ANZ foreclose on drought-stricken farmers.  

He was very sorry for not supplying all the promised services to thousands of financial planning customers, resulting in $30 million compensation. 

Very sorry for overcharging fees.

Very sorry for errors of a "reasonable magnitude" which saw more than 1.3 million customers within the OnePath financial advisory and life insurance arm suffer, including 1400 who had their superannuation directed to the wrong account.

These apologies are the opening moves.

But they were "mistakes", and the bank has since "put it right".

Processes have changed, systems have been put in place.  There's no reason to push further, Mr Elliott implied.  He's "proud of the culture of the bank", because when it's made aware of problems, it fixes them.

There's nothing more to see here.


Herald Sun, 5 October 2016:

Regarding the treatment of customers, Mr Elliott said ANZ had “not always met the standards we set for ourselves or that the community rightly expects of us”. He revealed the bank had seen off 40 financial planners in the past year after the bank breached regulatory rules.

Mr Elliott also admitted the bank had “poorly managed” an incident when 1400 customers had superannuation directed into the wrong account.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 October 2016:

So how remiss had the banks previously been in dealing with their indiscretions?

Let's take ANZ. Last year it reported 45 breaches by its financial planners to the regulator. That is one in 20 and in one year. But the year before there were only six reported.

As Pat Conroy noted,  that was a 750 per cent increase in reported breaches in the space of a year so either there was a massive jump in adviser breaches or they had not been reported in the past.

Elliott had to admit the latter was more likely.

Thus far the big banks have been all but laughing openly at parliament and the general public.  

Commencing at 9.15am this morning it's NAB and Westpac's turn to pretend to care tuppence.

Hearing transcripts can be found here.

Wednesday 5 October 2016

Australian Federal Police spokesperson careful not to say that investigation had 'cleared' Brough & Ashby


This was The Daily Examiner (News Corp) take on the completion of the Australian Federal Police investigation into the unlawful disclosure of information by Commonwealth officers alleged to have occurred when a member of the Speaker of the House of Representatives’ staff photocopied details of the diary and gave it to a person desirous of unseating Peter Slipper:


However, what the Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated was not a clearing of anyone’s name.

As at the time of writing there is no published media release from the AFP one has to rely on details gleaned from various media articles.

“Following a thorough investigation material was provided to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for certain advice. As a result of the advice provided by the CDPP the matter did not proceed further. The length of this investigation has been influenced by a number of factors, including, but not limited to the availability of individuals to provide statements, the provision of materials from third parties, and the substantial volume of material that needed to be assessed.”
In a statement to the ABC, the AFP said it considered the matter now finalised.
"In September 2014 the AFP received a request to investigate matters relating to the alleged unauthorised disclosure of information from the official diary of former speaker of the House of Representatives, Peter Slipper," the statement read.
"Following a thorough investigation material was provided to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) for certain advice.
"As a result of the advice provided by the CDPP the matter did not proceed further."
Mr Slipper said on Tuesday his lawyers has been informed by AFP assistant commissioner Shane Connelly that the investigation had been closed.  In a letter, Mr Connelly said a review found the available evidence was insufficient for any potential prosecution. 

In a letter to Mr Brough’s lawyers, AFP Assistant Commissioner Shane Connelly said the investigation had been finished and no charges laid.
“I write to advise you of the outcome of the Australian Federal Police ‘AFP’ investigation into the allegation a former staff member of then Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper had disclosed parliamentary diary entries of Mr Slipper without his authority,’’ the letter says.
“A review of the evidence available to support a potential prosecution has determined the evidence is not sufficient to prove all elements of the relevant ­offence ... as a result, the AFP will be taking no further action in ­relation to the matter.’’

I write to advise you of the outcome of the Australian Federal Police ‘AFP’ investigation into the allegation a former staff member of then speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper had disclosed parliamentary diary entries of Mr Slipper without his authority … A review of the evidence available to support a potential prosecution has determined the evidence is not sufficient to prove all elements of the relevant offence, being the disclosures of information by Commonwealth officers as described in section 70 of the Crime Act 1914 (CTH). As a result, the AFP will be taking no further action in relation to the matter.

Sunday 18 September 2016

So why is the Turnbull Government toadying to the religious right when it comes to marriage equality?



Why is the Turnbull Government toadying to the religious right when it comes to marriage equality?

It is a bit of a puzzle when religion appears to mean so little to couples deciding to marry.

For instance, there were 121,197 marriages registered in Australia in 2014 and only 31,336 (or 25.8%) of the marriage services were conducted by a minister of religion, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

At least 79.4 per cent of all these couples co-habitated before marriage.

In 2014 a total of 299,697 births were recorded of which an est. 34.6% were born outside of a registered marriage.

If one looks at the broader picture – the 2011 Census records that that 67.3% of the population professed to having a religion.

Only 48.7% of the 2011 population over 15 years of age were married, 5.5% were widowed and 45.8% were never married, separated or divorced.

In 2011 a total of 301,617 births were recorded of which an est. 34.18% were born outside of a registered marriage.

Similarly In 2010 a total of 297,903 births were recorded of which an est. 33.63% were born outside of a registered marriage.

Given that the majority of religions practiced in Australia have some form of prohibition on the sexual conduct of unmarried males and females and encourage legally binding marriage, one has to suspect that an individual’s religious beliefs do not necessarily have any impact on how they choose to enter into partnerships for life or what type of partnerships these may be.

Nor does religious belief appear to play a large part in decisions to start a family.

As for the last stage of life, McCrindle Research (2014) states that in Australia; Cost is the biggest influencer when planning a funeral with 2 in 3 (66%) Australians stating it is extremely or significantly influential. Cost is considered more important than both religion or life philosophy (31%) and culture and family traditions (27%) and Over half (58%) of the population would prefer to have a civil celebrant conduct their funeral.

Which indicates that religious beliefs are no longer a primary concern for the majority of individuals when burying life partners and family members.

So, Liberal and National Party senators and members of parliament – why on earth are you creating such a hypocritical fuss over revisiting the federal Marriage Act again and including same-sex, transgender etc. couples in the definition of marriage and why are you considering giving people professing a religion and rabid homophobes the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ couples who may seek to marry in the future?

It was the Australian Parliament which narrowed the Marriage Act in 2004 and it is up to this 45th parliament to correct that mistake.