DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of Justice Annual Report 2018-2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Department of Justice Annual Report 2O18–2O19 Department of Justice A safe, fair and just Tasmania. Department of Justice Office of the Secretary Level 14, 110 Collins St, Hobart GPO Box 825 HOBART TAS 7001 30 August 2019 Elise Archer MP Roger Jaensch MP Attorney-General Minister for Human Services Minister for Justice Minister for Housing Minister for Corrections Minister for Disability Services Minister for Building and and Community Development Construction Minister for Planning Minister for Racing Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Minister for the Arts Dear Ministers Annual Report of the Department of Justice for the year ended 30 June 2019. In accordance with the requirements of Section 36 of the State Service Act 2000 and Section 27 of the Financial Management and Audit Act 1990, I have pleasure in presenting the Annual Report for the Department of Justice for the financial year ending 30 June 2019. Please note that this report also includes the reports by the Director, Monetary Penalties Enforcement Service pursuant to Section 121 of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 and the Attorney-General pursuant to Section 31 of the Police Powers (Public Safety) Act 2005. Kathrine Morgan-Wicks Secretary Department of Justice Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 1 Department of Justice Annual Report 2018-19 © Government of Tasmania 2019 Excerpts from this publication may be reproduced, with appropriate acknowledgement, as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 For further information, please contact: Office of the Secretary GPO Box 825 Hobart TAS 7001 Published October 2019 2 Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 Contents Reporting Requirements 4 2018-19 – The Year in Review 6 Message from the Secretary 8 Organisational chart 9 1. About Us 10 2. Report on 2018-19 Key Deliverables 14 3. Output Group 1: Administration of Justice 17 4. Output Group 2: Legal Services 27 5. Output Group 3: Corrections and Enforcement 30 6. Output Group 4: Regulatory and Other Services 42 7. Corporate Support and Strategy 61 8. Climate Change 70 9. Police Powers (Public Safety) 70 10. Right to Information 71 11. Public Interest Disclosures 71 12. Processes for Appealing Decisions of the Agency 72 13. Legislation Administered by the Department 73 14. Location of Services 78 15. Staffing Information 80 16. Gender Diversity in the Tasmanian State Service 82 17. Superannuation Certificate 85 18. Contracts and Consultancies Awarded 86 19. Debts, Loss and Damage 89 20. Financial Statements 90 21. Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements 102 Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 3 Reporting Requirements Legislative Reporting Requirements Reports of Statutory Officers This annual report includes specific information required This annual report contains only a brief outline of the by either statute, the Auditor-General or the Treasurer’s functions of independent statutory officers who are Instructions. subject to separate annual reporting requirements. Readers should refer to the annual reports prepared by In particular, it contains the reports on the functions and these statutory officers for further information. exercise of powers of the Secretary of the Department required by the: A small number of statutory office holders employed in the Agency do not report independently to Parliament, • State Service Act 2000, section 36(1)(c); and their reports are therefore required to be included • State Service Regulations 2011, regulation 9; and in this annual report in accordance with the following legislative requirements: • Financial Management and Audit Act 1990, section 27(1). • State Service Act 2000, Section 36(1)(c); See the table on the next page for an index of other legislative requirements, and where they are found in this • State Service Regulations 2011, Regulation 9; and annual report. • Financial Management and Audit Act 1990, Section 27(1). The relevant officers, and the section in which their reports are included, are listed below: • the Report of the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages is included within section 3; • the Report of the Director of Corrective Services is included within section 5; • the Report of the Director of Consumer Affairs is included within section 6; and • the Report of the Director, Monetary Penalties and Enforcement Service, required under section 121 of the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005, is included within section 5. 4 Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 Other Reporting Requirements Table 1: Other Reporting Requirements Requirement Legislation Section of this report Overview of Strategic Plan SSR r9(a(i) Section 1 Organisational chart SSR r9(a(ii) Section 1 Organisational structure and program management structure SSR r9(a(iii) Section 1 relationship Major changes in programs, aims, functions or organisational SSR r9(a)(iv) Section 2 to 8 structure Major initiatives to develop and give effect to Government policy SSR r9(a)(v) Sections 2 to 8 Processes established to ensure employee participation in SSR r9(b)(iv) Section 7 industrial relations matters and any disputes affecting the Agency Occupational health and safety strategies SSR r9(b)(vi) Section 7 Community awareness, services and publications SSR r9(c)(i) Sections 2 to 8 Contact officers and points of public access SSR r9(c)(ii) Sections 1 and 15 Processes for appealing decisions of the Agency SSR r9(c)(iii) Section13 Legislation administered by the Agency SSR s9(d) Section 14 Contracts and consultancies awarded FMA Part 6 – Miscellaneous s51 Section 19 Treasurer’s Instructions, Treasurer’s Instructions FR-4 - Annual Reports Annual Reports Financial Statements FMA s27(1)(c) Section 21 Auditor-General’s Report on Financial Statements FMA s27(1)(c) Section 21 Public Interest Disclosures Public Interest Disclosures Act 2002 s86 Section 12 Right to Information Right to Information Act 2009 S23 Section 11 Superannuation contributions Public Sector Superannuation Reform Act Section 18 1999 s13 SSR = State Service Regulations 2011 FMA = Financial Management and Audit Act 1990 The Department has administrative responsibility for the Police Powers (Public Safety) Act 2005. Section 31 requires the Attorney-General to report to Parliament on any police activities conducted under this Act. This report is included at Section 10. Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 5 2018-19 The Year in Review Implemented legislation to allow Made significant progress on implementing Magistrates and Judges to sentence suitable the recommendations of the Royal offenders to Home Detention Orders. Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, including establishing Delivered a 24-hour monitoring unit for the Department’s Child Abuse Royal electronic monitoring of Home Detention Commission Response Unit. Orders and selected family violence offenders. Engaged a Design Consultant for the $79.34 million Southern Remand Centre and Opened the $2.6 million Dr Vanessa Risdon Prison Complex upgrade program. Goodwin Cottages at the Mary Hutchinson Women’s Prison to accommodate up to 25 Engaged an architect for the project to female prisoners, including five rooms to upgrade the Burnie Court Complex, with cater for mothers and their babies. the development of concept designs well under way. Ensured that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is automatically presumed to be Strengthened family violence laws by work-related in regards to public sector introducing a new crime of persistent family workers’ compensation claims for this violence in the Criminal Code. injury. Began and completed work upgrading the Developed and consulted on draft Launceston Supreme Court and provided legislation designed to address the serious Correctional Officers to assume prisoner problem of bullying. transport and security responsibilities at the Court. Continued work towards becoming a White Ribbon Accredited workplace. Reformed the Electoral Act 2004 to remove the ban on election day newspaper coverage. 6 Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 The Dr Vanessa Goodwin Cottages. Launched a new online service for Identified the preferred technology ordering certificates from Births, Deaths architecture and implementation and Marriages as well as an online birth approach for the Justice Connect end-to- registration service. end technology solution for justice and corrections. Sought and received expressions of interest for the siting of a $270 million Northern Opened a new 40-bed facility at the Ron Regional Prison. Barwick Minimum Security Prison, worth $1.35 million. Consulted on potential changes to the Evidence Act 2001 to ensure it appropriately Implemented a Tasmanian Code of Practice protects the rights of all victims of sexual to allow retail staff to carry out inspections assault. on customers’ bags. Continued funding for the Chatter Matters Developed and established a statutory Just Time program, aimed at developing process for fast tracking the zoning of literacy and communication skills for men land suitable for affordable housing and and women in Tasmanian prisons. processed four Housing Land Supply Orders. Introduced a new bond management system, called MyBond, which offers 24/7 Continued work to implement the online access and an online bond lodgement Government’s planning reform agenda. service. Appointed retired Detective Inspector David Plumpton to the Parole Board to ensure a member with policing experience is represented on the Board. Department of Justice Annual Report 2018–2019 7 Message from the Secretary I am
Recommended publications
  • The Rifle Club Movement and Australian Defence 1860-1941

    The Rifle Club Movement and Australian Defence 1860-1941

    The Rifle Club Movement and Australian Defence 1860-1941 Andrew Kilsby A thesis in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of New South Wales School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences February 2014 Abstract This thesis examines the rifle club movement and its relationship with Australian defence to 1941. It looks at the origins and evolution of the rifle clubs and associations within the context of defence developments. It analyses their leadership, structure, levels of Government and Defence support, motivations and activities, focusing on the peak bodies. The primary question addressed is: why the rifle club movement, despite its strong association with military rifle shooting, failed to realise its potential as an active military reserve, leading it to be by-passed by the military as an effective force in two world wars? In the 19th century, what became known as the rifle club movement evolved alongside defence developments in the Australian colonies. Rifle associations were formed to support the Volunteers and later Militia forces, with the first ‘national’ rifle association formed in 1888. Defence authorities came to see rifle clubs, especially the popular civilian rifle clubs, as a cheap defence asset, and demanded more control in return for ammunition grants, free rail travel and use of rifle ranges. At the same time, civilian rifle clubs grew in influence within their associations and their members resisted military control. An essential contradiction developed. The military wanted rifle clubs to conduct shooting ‘under service conditions’, which included drill; the rifle clubs preferred their traditional target shooting for money prizes.
  • Additional Estimates 2010-11

    Additional Estimates 2010-11

    Dinner on the occasion of the First Meeting of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Kirribilli House, Kirribilli, Sydney Sunday, 19 October 2008 Host Mr Francois Heisbourg The Honourable Kevin Rudd MP Commissioner (France) Prime Minister Chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies and Geneva Centre for Official Party Security Policy, Special Adviser at the The Honourable Gareth Evans AO QC Foundation pour la Recherche Strategique Co-Chair International Commission on Nuclear Non- General (Ret'd) Jehangir Karamat proliferation and Disarmament Commissioner (Pakistan) and President of the International Crisis Director, Spearhead Research Group Mrs Nilofar Karamat Ms Yoriko Kawaguchi General ((Ret'd) Klaus Naumann Co-Chair Commissioner (Germany) International Commission on Nuclear Non- Member of the International Advisory Board proliferation and Disarmament and member of the World Security Network Foundation of the House of Councillors and Chair of the Liberal Democratic Party Research Dr William Perry Commission on the Environment Commissioner (United States) Professor of Stanford University School of Mr Ali Alatas Engineering and Institute of International Commissioner (Indonesia) Studies Adviser and Special Envoy of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Ambassador Wang Yingfan Mrs Junisa Alatas Commissioner (China) Formerly China's Vice Foreign Minister Dr Alexei Arbatov (1995-2000), China's Ambassador and Commissioner (Russia) Permanent Representative to the United Scholar-in-residence
  • Memorandum of Advice Public Release 7 May 2019

    Memorandum of Advice Public Release 7 May 2019

    Memorandum of Advice Public release 7 May 2019 Hon Elise Archer MP Attorney-General Minister for Corrections Minister for Justice Hon Michael Ferguson MP Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Management Hon Roger Jaensch MP Minister for Human Services Hon Jacquie Petrusma MP Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Searches of children and young people in custody in custodial Subject: facilities in Tasmania L1 – 119 Macquarie Street [email protected] Hobart TAS 7000 www.childcomm.com.au Page 1 of 28 +61 (0)3 6166 1366 Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Summary of Recommendations 4 3. Role of the Commissioner for Children and Young People 5 4. Terminology 6 5. What prompted this Advice? 6 6. This is not a new issue 7 7. Briefings from Tasmanian Government agencies 9 8. Current Tasmanian legislation, policies, procedures and practice 10 8.1 Children and young people can be held in custody in various custodial settings 10 8.2 Different rules for searches apply in different custodial settings 11 8.2.1 Searches where a child or young person is a watch-house detainee in a reception prison 12 8.2.2 Searches where a child or young person is a watch-house detainee in police custody 14 8.2.3 Searches where a child or young person is in custody in a detention centre 15 9. Human rights standards, principles and rules 16 10. What can we learn from others? 18 10.1 Impact of searches 18 10.2 Managing risk in custodial settings 20 10.3 Approaches in other jurisdictions 22 10.3.1 Northern Territory 22 10.3.2 Australian Capital Territory 23 11.
  • Law Reform I N S T I T U T E

    Law Reform I N S T I T U T E

    T A S M A N I A LAW REFORM I N S T I T U T E Faculty of Law, Private Bag 89, Hobart, TAS 7001 Phone: (03) 62262069, fax: (03) 62267623 [email protected] www.law.utas.edu.au/reform Annual Progress and Financial Report 2017 External Reference: DPAC - Tasmanian Law Reform Institute FMIS: 023901 Contents 1. Structure, Board Members and staff 1 2. Activities 2 3. Financial Statement 18 1. Structure, Board Members and Staff The Institute was established on 23 July 2001 by Agreement between the State Government, the University of Tasmania and the Law Society of Tasmania. In April 2015, the Partners to the Institute Agreement finalised a renewal agreement extending the agreement for five years, until November 2019. The functions and operations of the Institute are undertaken by its Director, with assistance from Board members, research assistants and Law Faculty staff and students. The founding Director, Emeritus Professor Kate Warner, retired from the position in December 2014. The current Director, Assoc Prof Terese Henning was appointed in April 2015. All written proposals for law reform projects are presented to the Board, which then makes recommendations for consideration by the Institute (Tasmania Law Reform Institute Renewal Agreement, clause 3.3), including identifying a recommended project’s extent, time for completion, expected output and cost (clause 3.4). Board members Associate Professor Terese Henning, Director of the Institute, appointed by the Vice- Chancellor of the University of Tasmania Professor Margaret Otlowski, Dean
  • Tasmania: Majority Or Minority Government? *

    Tasmania: Majority Or Minority Government? *

    AUSTRALASIAN PARLIAMENTARY REVIEW Tasmania: Majority or Minority Government? * Michael Lester and Dain Bolwell PhD Candidate, Institute for the Study of Social Change, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Tasmania Associate, Institute for the Study of Social Change, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Tasmania * Double-blind reviewed article. INTRODUCTION While the outcome of the March 2018 Tasmanian State Election was predictable,1 the controversies that dogged the campaign were not. Yet it was the aftermath of the election that was most astonishing—not only to the public but also to members of Cabinet. Tasmania is different. Its parliamentary institutions are unusual and its electoral system is distinctive. So were the issues on which the March 2018 state election was fought. In the lead up to the election both major parties campaigned to govern alone or not at all—neither in minority nor in coalition with the Greens. As well as this apparently overarching concern, there were three other major issues prominent during the campaign—an acute housing shortage, the thousands of poker machines in pubs and clubs, and the surprise matter of gun control. Health, education, law and order, the economy and who would best manage the budget were, as usual, also policy battle grounds; however, the minority government fear campaign, a television blitz on the benefits of poker machines and considerable 1 N. Miragliotta, ‘As Tasmania Looks Likely to Have Minority Government, The Greens Must Decide How to Play Their Hand’, The Conversation, 26 February 2018. Accessed at: https://theconversation.com/as-tasmania-looks- likely-to-have-minority-government-the-greens-must-decide-how-to-play-their-hand-91985.
  • Ttl(' Australian Nat/O!La! Uniuer.Rlly

    Ttl(' Australian Nat/O!La! Uniuer.Rlly

    Ttl(' Australian Nat/o!la! Uniuer.rlly The Library c;p() Box 4, Canberra, ACT 2601 Telegrams & cables NATUNIV Canberra Telex AA 62694 NATUNI reference Telephone 062-49 5m USE OF THESES This microfiche is supplied for purposes of private study and research only. Passages from the thesis may not be copied or closely paraphrased without the written consent of the author. J .A. LYONS~ A Political Biogro\phy by Philip R. Hart This thesis was submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Australian National University December 1967 ' i 'l i ,[ :1 J 11 ,f li This statement is to certify that the contents of this thesis are my own original work. Philip R. Hart iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREF.ACE iv L!ST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix SYNOPSIS x Chapter 1 TASMANIA 1 Chapter' 2 THE SPLIT 54 Chapter .'.3 LEADER _OF THE OPPOSITION 100 Chapte:t' 4 LYONS AND EXTRA-PARLIAMENTARY FORCES 143 Chapte:t' 5 LYONS AS POLITICIAN 189 l l Chapter 6 LYONS AND POLICY 235 Chapter 7 THE FINAL YEAR ' 284 Ihi 'l '! APPENDIX Colnntonwealth Ministries, 1929-1939 .'.317 SELECT B!BLIOGRAPHY 329 iv PREFACE Entering federal politics after a political career in Tasmania that had been notable for his record tenure of party leadership and his respected achievements as Premier, Joseph Aloysius Lyons became one of the most significant participants in the Depression crisis, led one of the three great desertions from the Labour Party, participated in the preliminaries for the Second World War, and died in office only two weeks short of W.M.
  • Harmony Day Gathering

    Harmony Day Gathering

    THE FRIENDS’ STUDENT PUBLICATION SCHOOL May 2018 F O C U S Issue #104 Harmony Day Gathering Twilight Fair P.8 Relay for Life P.15 Students speaking Luobin Huang Year 11, Alexander Exarhakos Year 10, Shekhar Sharma Year 7, Cathy Dong Year 7 & Photos: Steven Shen Ambrosia Negri at the Whole School Gathering Jacob Julian-Best staff, parents and family Historically, Quakers This year’s integration of and respect for everyone is and Pearl Bamford that make up our school have always understood the Whole School Gathering not just important in the community are able to be the importance of with such a significant day twenty-four hours that make Wellbeing Week Whole School Gathering incredibly diverse in their multiculturalism; so much across the globe culminated up 21 March. P.16 was a great day that focused language or heritage and yet so that the early movement in a display of the School’s The idea should be on the diversity within The still work together and be a was strongly identified with diversity and splendour. reinforced all year, in every Friends’ School. part of the one community. humanitarianism. However, Harmony Day’s aspect of your life. Live it On 21 March the Hobart Harmony Day is a Quakers initially came to reminder of inclusiveness every day. weather held off the rain worldwide celebration of Australia to inquire about for students and staff from diversity, inclusiveness, and the conditions of penal all three campuses, Morris, respect for all. settlements and the welfare High School and Clemes, to These values tie into some of Aboriginal people and come together on the Argyle of the most important Quaker free settlers.
  • NTER) in Encouraging Competitive Neutrality

    NTER) in Encouraging Competitive Neutrality

    School of Business Law and Taxation The Effectiveness of the National Tax Equivalent Regime (NTER) in Encouraging Competitive Neutrality Josephine Doueihi This thesis is presented for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Curtin University February 2019 0 0 Abstract The Hilmer report (1993) sought to recommend a consistent national approach to encourage greater competition in the Australian economy. One of the ways it sought to do this was to remove any competitive advantages government-owned businesses might have by way of any tax advantages. 1 These competitive advantages needed to be removed in order to achieve competitive neutrality - a market whereby all firms compete on a level playing field and are subject to the same rules and regulations regardless of their ownership. This aim to achieve competitive neutrality between public and private businesses paved the way for the formation of the National Tax Equivalent Regime (NTER). The National Tax Equivalent Regime (NTER) is an administrative inter- governmental arrangement under which, for competitive neutrality purposes, the Federal income tax laws are notionally applied to listed governmental business entities owned by the State and Territories as if they were subject to those laws. The resulting NTER tax is a liability owed and paid by these entities directly to their owner State and Territory Governments – it does not form part of the actual Federal income tax base as it would for privately owned companies. Apart from some specific modifications, NTER entities are treated in the same way as their federal counterparts. For example, an NTER entity is required to lodge income tax returns, make quarterly or monthly PAYG instalment payments, is subject to audit or other compliance assurance activities by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), has the ability to seek private rulings, and is subject to interest and penalty charges in the same manner applicable to privately owned organisations.
  • New Lease Accounting Standard and Impact on Report Gross and Net Debt

    New Lease Accounting Standard and Impact on Report Gross and Net Debt

    BOARD OF TREASURERS MEDIA RELEASE Friday, 21 December 2018 INFORMATION PAPER NEW LEASE ACCOUNTING STANDARD AND ITS IMPACT ON THE REPORTING OF GROSS AND NET DEBT FROM 2019-20 The Board of Treasurers of Australia’s States and Territories today released an Information Paper outlining the implications for the reporting of gross and net debt levels following the application of Australian Accounting Standard AASB 16: Leases, which will come into effect for financial reporting in Australia for all reporting periods from 1 January 2019. The new standard, which impacts the financial statements of both public and private sector reporting entities, is expected to be reflected in the 2019-20 Budgets of the Australian States and Territories and will result in a material increase in the reported level of gross and net debt for each jurisdiction. Importantly, while an increase in reported debt levels will be apparent under the new standard, there will be no change in the economic or legal circumstances of the States and Territories as a result of applying AASB 16. On transition to the new standard there will be a significant increase to jurisdictions’ forecasts of assets and liabilities in Budget projections, but the Paper explains that the effect of the change on gross and net debt is largely one of timing, with no change to cash payments expected as a result of this accounting re-measurement. Reflecting this, the credit rating agencies, while continuing to make their own independent assessments, may ‘look through’ the impact of AASB 16 for credit rating purposes. The standard increases transparency of lease arrangements by reducing off-balance sheet reporting and bringing consistency to the measurement of lease obligations.
  • Report of the Integrity Commission

    Report of the Integrity Commission

    REPORT OF THE INTEGRITY COMMISSION NO. 1 OF 2021 / 24 AUGUST 2021 Summary of an investigation into allegations of misconduct by the Work Health and Safety Regulator, Government Ministers and ministerial staff The objectives of the Integrity Commission are to – • improve the standard of conduct, propriety and ethics inpublic authorities in Tasmania; • enhance public confidence that misconduct by public officers will be appropriately investigated and dealt with; and • enhance the quality of, and commitment to, ethical conduct by adopting a strong, educative, preventative and advisory role. © Integrity Commission 2021 This report and further information about the Commission can be found on the website www.integrity.tas.gov.au GPO Box 822 Hobart Tasmania 7001 Phone: 1300 720 289 Email: [email protected] ISSN: 2204-5910 (Online) ISBN: 978-0-6452628-0-3 24 August 2021 President Speaker Legislative Council House of Assembly Parliament House Parliament House HOBART TAS 7000 HOBART TAS 7000 Dear Mr President, Dear Mr Speaker, In accordance with s 11(3) of the Integrity Commission Act 2009, the Integrity Commission presents Report 1 of 2021 to Parliament, a summary of an investigation into allegations of misconduct by the Work Health and Safety Regulator, Government Ministers and ministerial staff. Yours sincerely, Aziz Gregory Melick AO SC Chief Commissioner On behalf of the Board Michael Easton Chief Executive Officer Page 1 of 1 Level 2 199 Macquarie Street . GPO Box 822 Hobart 7001 . 1300 720 289 . www.integrity.tas.gov.au . [email protected] Summary Report – Investigation Tyndall CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PART A INTRODUCTION 4 1.
  • Productivity Commission Inquiry Into Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation Commonwealth Government Response

    Productivity Commission Inquiry Into Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation Commonwealth Government Response

    Productivity Commission Inquiry into Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation Commonwealth Government Response Department of Treasury and Finance Analysis October 2018 CONTENTS Background 1 Commonwealth Government’s Proposal 2 Treasury Analysis of Proposal 3 Recommendation to Equalise to the Second Highest State 3 The PC’s “Consensus” Relativity Forecasts 3 Variability in Relativities 4 Alternative Scenario Analysis 5 Other Recommendations 7 Summary of Proposal 9 Outcome of Council of Federal Financial Relations meeting 10 Attachments 11 Attachment 1 - Summary of Commonwealth’s Proposal 11 Attachment 2 - Other Recommendations 12 Background On 30 April 2017, the Commonwealth Government Treasurer requested that the Productivity Commission (PC) undertake an inquiry into Australia’s system of Horizontal Fiscal Equalisation (HFE), which underpins the distribution of GST revenue to the States and Territories (States). Throughout the inquiry, the Tasmanian Government made a number of submissions supporting the current HFE system, arguing that the PC’s alternatives would redirect GST funding to the strongest States and reduce the GST funding to the other States. This would, over time, reduce equity between the States. The Tasmanian Government considered that the PC had not been able to demonstrate that HFE had been detrimental to national productivity, efficiency and growth, and that its conclusions on these issues were predicated on assertions, not evidence. Copies of the Tasmanian Government submissions are available at https://www.treasury.tas.gov.au/gst-distribution-to-tasmania/publications. The Treasurer of Tasmania, the Hon Peter Gutwein MP’s presentation to the Productivity Commission’s public hearings held in Hobart on 1 December 2017, is also available from the Tasmanian Treasury website.
  • Joseph Lyons: the Tasmanian Treasurer

    Joseph Lyons: the Tasmanian Treasurer

    Joseph Lyons: the Tasmanian treasurer John Hawkins1 ‘Honest Joe’ Lyons (far left in the picture below), was premier of Tasmania before moving to federal parliament and serving as an acting treasurer for Labor during the Great Depression. He clashed with Theodore and others and left the party. He then became a conservative treasurer and prime minister as the Australian economy gradually emerged from the depression. He was known for his consensual but orthodox approach. Source: National Library of Australia. 1 The author formerly worked in the Domestic Economy Division, the Australian Treasury. The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Australian Treasury. 85 Joseph Lyons: the Tasmanian treasurer Introduction Joseph Aloysius Lyons was the only treasurer (and prime minister) from Tasmania. As the Tasmanian minister for education in his thirties, Lyons fell in love with Enid Burnell, a teenage trainee teacher. They married in 1915 when she was seventeen and he was thirty-five.2 The marriage remained a love match all their lives.3 Indeed, until recently the only published biography of Lyons was called ‘a political love story’; White (1987). After Lyons’ death Enid was herself elected to the federal parliament and became the first female cabinet member. They had eleven children (another baby died), pictured on the previous page. Lyons was amiable and popular, a ‘kindly, compassionate man’.4 ‘Everyone liked Joe Lyons’ when he was first a federal minister.5 His resemblance to a cheerful koala was a cartoonist’s delight. His typist recalled ‘a pretty shrewd judge of people … extraordinarily tolerant’ but, as befitted a former teacher, with a ‘horror of split infinitives’.6 A pacifist who abhorred violence, he opposed capital punishment.7 He not only opposed conscription, but did not take place in wartime recruitment (so it is perhaps fortunate that he did not face leadership during a world war).