Get SEC filings for Firstsource Solutions Ltd (FSL), including Annual Report (10k) and Quarterly Report (10Q). The report had been provided to the Northern Territory Government on 30 April , . The first source is the Stronger Futures consultations undertaken in the . The Financial impact of this Bill is put in the Explanatory Memorandum as – 98aaca1cd0e//;fileType=application%2Fpdf: ‘The. filings like the K and Q data, the EDGAR site is a first-source repository for the . Loughran and McDonald () link the tone of the annual report .. on a form having at least one non-robot request (of any file type).
|Published (Last):||26 June 2009|
|PDF File Size:||4.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.37 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
PDF version [ KB ]. This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill. House of Representatives Portfolio: The formal sections commence on Royal Assent, while the operative provisions commence on Proclamation or within six months of Royal Assent.
The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through http: When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw website at http: Part 3 gives the Commonwealth certain powers to regulate town camps and community living areas in the Northern Territory.
Part 4 gives the Commonwealth the power to regulate community store licences in the Northern Territory, including the power to impose conditions on licences granted to store managers and owners. Many provisions and issues associated with those Bills were flagged in the Bills Digests prepared at the time. At the time there was much debate on all the above flagged measures. The appropriateness of suspending the application of the Racial Discrimination Act was questioned, as was the likely efficacy of the income management regime.
There were suggestions that the unilateral nature of the action may produce a counterproductive weakening of Indigenous governance. There were questions concerning the procedure by which the Government would decide what is appropriate for specific communities and how the Government would know when the desired changes had occurred.
Over the ensuing years some of the measures in those original Bills have been revisited. An administrative procedure aborted the suspension of the permit system for access to Aboriginal land. In that period there has also been a rhetorical shift in indigenous affairs policy. The legislative and rhetorical changes did not silence critics of the original Intervention, which was perceived to be continuing. Some, such as Professor Jon Altman have argued that the evidence simply does not support assertions that NTER originating measures are having the desired positive effect in key areas of education, health, crime, employment and housing, concluding:.
Development in remote Aboriginal communities will inevitably require state subvention for the foreseeable future, but the current delivery architecture is faulty and runs counter to sound principles of participatory development.
The state policy of normalisation is not delivering even by its own benchmarks. This is unconscionable policy failure without any apparent policy risk assessment or contingency planning. The Government has stated that the measures in these Bills are informed by feedback from two sources. In the last mentioned it was concluded:. From these consultations the Government identified School attendance and educational achievementEconomic development and employmentand Tackling alcohol abuse as being in particular urgent need of address, while having also consulted in the areas of Community safetyHealthFood securityHousing and Governance.
The other source is an independent evaluation of the NTER. Aboriginal people living in remote communities in the Northern Territory feel safer and receive better levels of government services than they did four years ago. Having been informed by these two sources of information, Minister Macklin declared in a policy statement which was issued the same day that the package of relevant legislation was introduced to parliament, that:.
The Australian Government, in partnership with the Northern Territory Government, is now acting on the issues people said were the most urgent:. A number of commentators questioned the way the key message the Government took from those reports of October and November. For example, Professor Jon Altman wrote:. A series of reports in October and November have made it quite clear that the intervention, currently re-labelled the National Partnership Agreement to Close the Gap in the Northern Territory, is having limited measurable impacts for residents of prescribed communities.
There is widespread criticism of the way the government undertook the so-called consultation and cherry-picked the results to support the decisions already made. The latest reports, touted by the minister as proving the benefits of some NTER programs, do not support her claims. The endorsements are few and are cautious as the data does not prove benefits, just records often flawed perceptions of possible benefits. The consultations that informed the Stronger Futures report, for example, have come under fire for poor process and reporting.
Analysis based on independent recordings of the consultations reveals striking discrepancy between opinions expressed by communities and the view of opinions present in the report. He says that support for linking school attendance to welfare payments was also not there and criticised the fact the scrapping of bilingual education was not on the agenda.
Similarly, the group called the Northern Territory Elder and Community Representatives, claimed the consultation report:. This is shown clearly by the absence of any commitment to bilingual learning programmes as well as the proposal to introduce welfare cuts and fines to parents of non-attending school children.
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill – Parliament of Australia
Some commentators compared the findings of the Independent NTER Evaluation with those in other recent Government and non-government reports and found the overall picture annual to be as the Minister was keen to characterise it. Professor Jon Altman wrote:. Since —08 indigenous hospitalisation rates NT-wide not just in NTER communities have increased from per to per These are extraordinarily high rates unimagined in the broader community. Recorded school enrolment and attendance has declined from In the name of job creation, welfare dependence is increasing.
Reports of child abuse in NTER communities have increased from in —08 to in —11; as have domestic violence reported incidents, from to And the gap in child protection indicators between indigenous and non-indigenous has increased across the NT for a range of indicators.
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011
This statistic is embedded in Figure 6. If such a per capita rate was replicated in Sydney it would be about 22, The Australian government response to what looks awfully like policy failure is to promulgate more of the same. Contrary to selectively published statistics, the collective measures filefype the Intervention are not delivering better overall outcomes for Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory.
The report details how school attendance has declined since It shows that child hospitalisation rates have increased and that confirmed incidences of personal harm and suicide have more than doubled since The positive investments contribute to improving geport attendance.
Chris Graham, Indigenous snnual commentator and managing editor of the publication Tracker, was reported as putting the cost and outcomes as follows:.
Many of those weighing the costs and benefit of the existing approach have reflected on the needs that may not be being met by this approach. Thus Amanda Midlam suggested:. It is hard to see how new legislation aimed at controlling alcohol, food and land in Indigenous communities will address those unmet needs.
Whilst compliance is an admirable goal, compliance without capacity does little to achieve food security. Much of the above is clearly a reaction not so much to the detail of this Bill, as to that which has come before, to that which is not being addressed and to the continuation of an approach which this Bill and even more particularly the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill are seen to represent.
I think these things, supported by strictly enforced sanctions against unjustifiable non-attendance, together would make staying away from school a very unattractive option. But also – importantly – all parties should read the fine print of the Macklin proposal carefully and without rancour or prejudice. There is little chance that children will go hungry, as a Centrelink social worker will be assigned to their case from the beginning to help avoid such outcomes, and they will be able to receive meals as soon as they attend school, where meals are provided .
It is in this context of divergent views on the appropriateness of processes, on the import of reports and on the best way forward, that the Stronger Future in the Northern Territory Bills are now coming up for debate. As the Senate inquiry into the NT Stronger Futures laws by the Community Affairs Committee closes submissions by January 12, most of those affected or concerned about the new legislation provisions will not respond.
Most are unlikely to know that it is even under way. These groups suggest the legislation is badly flawed, so definitely should not be rushed through over the holiday period when nobody will notice. There are three main parts to this Bill and each one has a substantial issue behind it. Part 2 — Tackling Alcohol Abuse is the most significant section of the Bill. High levels of alcohol consumption have been repeatedly identified in reports as a principle factor contributing to the level of child abuse, assault, social dysfunction, foetal Alcohol Spectrum of Disorders and other problems in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
It was, for example, identified as such in the Anderson and Wild report that sparked the NTER in and the Government has considered their tackling alcohol abuse measure to be a special measure under the Racial Discrimination Act.
The supply tap must be turned down, nationally as well as in the NT. If this does not happen, the efforts of the Australian and NT Governments to improve educational attainment, parental responsibility, employment opportunities and housing are unlikely to get a strong foothold. For example Bob Durnan comments. In particular, we could even see adequate respect for the rights of all children to receive proper care from sober parents and carers, not disrupted by alcohol-related harms, and a healthy start to their lives during their pre-birth, pre-school and school years.
The Minister has suggested that the already underway process of tenure clarification has enabled new houses to be built and work on another to commence. Many indigenous leaders in the Territory for example, Dr Sue Gordon, Alison Anderson, Barbara Shaw have seen the need for the Government to push ahead with their plans, but the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda has suggested the Government should talk with the Alice Spring town camp residents about phasing out the camp system.
Part 4—Food Security is the largest part of the Bill. The quality of the food being provided at community stores in Aboriginal communities has been recognised for some years to be both a major health issue and a management of income issue for the people in those communities. As part of the initial NTER the Government introduced a licensing system for community stores in the Northern Territory and has since issued licences to more than 80 stores that are able to participate in the income-management scheme, have a reasonable quality, quantity and range of groceries and can demonstrate sound financial structures, retail practices and governance.
The Government has now decided to extend the licensing scheme to cover all shops that are a key source of food, drink and grocery items for an Indigenous community, and this includes takeaway shops and roadhouses.
They have also decided licences should be issued to owners rather than managers to recognise the specific responsibilities and risks borne by both store owners and store manager.
The Explanatory Memorandum suggests the Bill recognises that community stores differ greatly and that the regulation should be tailored to its individual circumstances. The latter will be the whole of the Northern Territory other than such areas as Alice Springs and Darwin where the choice is deemed to be sufficient to ensure adequate access to a reasonable range of fresh food and groceries. Our experience firstsoource the front line of remote retail services has found that store managers and operators generally reporh basic business management and retail skills.
They are doomed to repeated failure, which means that without the appropriate capacity building communities are doomed to poor food security.
Compliance is a necessary but insufficient element of success and needs to be accompanied by good management. This review must be concluded approximately one year later i. Most significantly this introduces the offences of supplying, possessing or consuming liquor in an alcohol protected area proposed sections 75B and 75C. The alcohol protected area is defined later in the Part proposed Division 7. There are defences to these offences for people in a boat engaged in recreational boating 22011 commercial fishing activities proposed subsections 75B 2 or 75C 2 and for those who are on organised tours proposed subsections 75B 4 and 75C 4.
Pepsi ipl 2013 pdf
It would have been logical for proposed section 75F to regulate such notices, especially since this provision, which creates and offence of removing or damaging notices is situated in proposed Division 2. Giletype in fact proposed section 75F creates such an offence with respect to notices governed by proposed subsection 14 3 — not notices placed under proposed section 75E.
Proposed section 75F creates an offence regarding notices about alcohol regulation at the entrances to alcohol protected areas. Firstsourcee notices are defined in proposed Division 4 Notices about alcohol offences in alcohol protected areas.
It is odd to have a regulation of provisions established in proposed Division 4 situated in proposed Division 2.