ACCC Template

Dally Messenger III and the ACCC

Home Table of Contents ACCC Dally Messenger III	CELEBRANT JOHN HILL Re Fundraising Dear Friend, Like you, I am a friend of Dally and Remi Messenger. They have lost touch with a number of friends in the last three years. They have been pre-occupied with a fearful and draining struggle with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). This is an extremely powerful and very well-funded government body meant to protect the consumer from the machinations and conspiracies of big business. The ACCC issued civil proceedings against Dally for writing a letter to Funeral Directors asking for a rise in their ceiling payment to Funeral Celebrants - an action which had been done many times in the previous thirty years. On the basis of this letter they issued proceedings without interviewing Dally or any kind of committal procedure. All of us who have observed this process are at loss to explain what the ACCC is doing pursuing a 69 year old age-pensioner like Dally Messenger. The fines and fees, in my opinion, are out of all proportion to the real or perceived offence against society. I do not wish to comment further except to ask you to read the article by author and legal practitioner Moira Rayner. Dally and Remi are anxious that friends and family feel no obligation to support them in this, but many friends have asked for details of the Fundraising. I am only writing this to give you the opporutnity to do so if you so wish. Some of you are familiar with the circumstances and understand the issues. If so, you need read no further! If you wish to donate, details of the legal Fundraiser, Stan Jordan CPA, are at the end of this letter. Dally Messenger is up for $40,000 in fines, $6000 in costs, and $18,600 in legal fees - $64,000 in all - just for writing a letter! Any contribution will be gratefully received and will be acknowledged by Dally and Remi Messenger personally. My Connection I was involved with Dally in the development of the *Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants Inc (AFCC)* and the *International College of Celebrancy* during the mid and late 1990s. These organisations did substantial work in improving standards of ceremonies by celebrants. -- The Fixed Fee in Weddings and Funerals. From its beginnings in 1973, the celebrant movement inherited a fixed fee culture. The fee for weddings was fixed by the Federal Government until 1995. The fee for funerals has always been fixed by agreement between the Funeral Directors (FD) and the clergy. Celebrants inherited this culture. Because of the extra time celebrants need to prepare personal Funeral ceremonies, and because, unlike the clergy, they are not supported by a congregation, celebrants asked for a fairer fee. Throughout most of Australia the Funeral Directors resisted. In Victoria a few recognised the fairness of the claim, and paid civil celebrants a higher fee – but insisted (and still insist) that it had to be fixed for all Funeral Directors across the board. -- Periodic rises in fees from the Funeral Directors Over the years, funeral celebrants in Dally's state of Victoria had asked the Funeral Directors for a rise in fees, especially when their fee had been eaten away by inflation – but with mixed success. Individual celebrants who set their own fee simply received no work. The public goes to the Funeral Director. -- Enter the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) In 1997 when Dally was AFCC Administrator (and I was active on the committee supporting him), the Federation received phone calls and letters from the ACCC regarding fees for Funeral Celebrants . Dally explained to the official that the control of fees was, and always had been, in the control of the Funeral Directors (FDs). If they had a difficulty with the fixed non-competitive fee for celebrants, they should go to the FDs. Dally wrote suggesting to the ACCC that they should inform the FDs and the Churches, who had for many years agreed on a system, to change their practice. Nevertheless, they advised Dally to arrange for a clarification in the AFCC’s constitution with the following words: “The celebrant should individually determine the fees to be charged for his or her services. In doing so, he or she may wish to consult the fee scale recommended by the Association.” Dally did exactly what the ACCC recommended – indeed these words have remained in the AFCC’s constitution (most Funeral Celebrants are members) and in the College of Celebrancy’s constitution. They have been on the College’s website for years before the present problems, and are there still. -- Telephone the Celebrant First campaign. In 1997 Dally personally decided to set his own hourly rate for funerals as the only fair way to be paid, and urged his fellow celebrants to do so. He suggested bypassing the Funeral Director and communicating with the individual celebrant’s client base. In a sense, by doing so, he was the only celebrant engaging in competition. It appears that he may have been blacklisted since, in ten years, he has never received from the FDs one funeral at his hourly rate. -- The Rest is History At a Best Practice Funerals Conference in October 2005, Dally, against his better judgment, wrote again to the Victorian FDs. The letter had two parts: one, asking the FDs to raise their fixed ceiling fee, the second part contained his own request that they consider those celebrants who charge the hourly rate. We believe that the ACCC received an anonymous letter accusing Dally of violating the Act by uncompetitive behaviour. Without even interviewing Dally or finding out the true circumstances, or any kind of committal hearing, the ACCC issued civil proceedings against him in the Federal Court. More detail is available by reading the excellent article by author and legal practitioner Moira Rayner on this link. It is a must read. Also there is a key quotation from the transcript of the the court proceedings. -- Injustice The “Mediation” arranged by Dally’s lawyers was considered “successful” because the amounts at the Federal Court level are usually in hundreds of thousands of dollars. But to someone like Dally (or you and me!), the penalty is unbalanced and out of proportion. Even the ACCC barrister stated to the judge that Dally did not stand to gain any benefit from his letter. -- The future of Celebrancy Dally is firmly of the belief, and so am I, that Funeral Celebrancy is central to the celebrant’s role in our society. Educated skilled funeral celebrants who prepare a proper tribute should be the norm instead of the exception. However good training is scarce and the scene is over-competitive. This inevitably leads to cheap prices for ceremonies of low standard. High standard celebrants need access to Funerals, in such a way, that they can be paid according to effort and ability. This would give many celebrants meaningful work, give more comfort to grieving families, and enrich Australian cultural life. -- Leadership and gratitude As for Dally himself, I have given my opinion of him in a personal letter to Mr Graeme Samuel of the ACCC. In short I have found him wonderfully generous and creative in his efforts on behalf of others - which I do not have to say to anyone who knows him. He has made a unique and incomparable contribution to the celebrant movement. In doing so, he has also contributed to creating a more humane, decent and hope-filled society. I agree with others who say that there is not a celebrant in Australia who has not benefited in some way by Dally Messenger’s work over the years. In incurring this penalty, it is universally acknowledged that Dally was acting for the betterment of all.

Home

Table of Contents
ACCC

Dally Messenger III

CELEBRANT JOHN HILL

Re Fundraising

Dear Friend,

Like you, I am a friend of Dally and Remi Messenger. They have lost touch with a number of friends in the last three years. They have been pre-occupied with a fearful and draining struggle with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

This is an extremely powerful and very well-funded government body meant to protect the consumer from the machinations and conspiracies of big business. The ACCC issued civil proceedings against Dally for writing a letter to Funeral Directors asking for a rise in their ceiling payment to Funeral Celebrants - an action which had been done many times in the previous thirty years. On the basis of this letter they issued proceedings without interviewing Dally or any kind of committal procedure.

All of us who have observed this process are at loss to explain what the ACCC is doing pursuing a 69 year old age-pensioner like Dally Messenger. The fines and fees, in my opinion, are out of all proportion to the real or perceived offence against society. I do not wish to comment further except to ask you to read the article by author and legal practitioner Moira Rayner.

Dally and Remi are anxious that friends and family feel no obligation to support them in this, but many friends have asked for details of the Fundraising. I am only writing this to give you the opporutnity to do so if you so wish.

Some of you are familiar with the circumstances and understand the issues. If so, you need read no further! If you wish to donate, details of the legal Fundraiser, Stan Jordan CPA, are at the end of this letter. Dally Messenger is up for $40,000 in fines, $6000 in costs, and $18,600 in legal fees - $64,000 in all - just for writing a letter! Any contribution will be gratefully received and will be acknowledged by Dally and Remi Messenger personally.

My Connection
I was involved with Dally in the development of the Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants Inc (AFCC) and the International College of Celebrancy during the mid and late 1990s. These organisations did substantial work in improving standards of ceremonies by celebrants.
--
The Fixed Fee in Weddings and Funerals.
From its beginnings in 1973, the celebrant movement inherited a fixed fee culture. The fee for weddings was fixed by the Federal Government until 1995. The fee for funerals has always been fixed by agreement between the Funeral Directors (FD) and the clergy. Celebrants inherited this culture.
Because of the extra time celebrants need to prepare personal Funeral ceremonies, and because, unlike the clergy, they are not supported by a congregation, celebrants asked for a fairer fee. Throughout most of Australia the Funeral Directors resisted. In Victoria a few recognised the fairness of the claim, and paid civil celebrants a higher fee – but insisted (and still insist) that it had to be fixed for all Funeral Directors across the board.

--
Periodic rises in fees from the Funeral Directors
Over the years, funeral celebrants in Dally's state of Victoria had asked the Funeral Directors for a rise in fees, especially when their fee had been eaten away by inflation – but with mixed success. Individual celebrants who set their own fee simply received no work. The public goes to the Funeral Director.

--
Enter the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
In 1997 when Dally was AFCC Administrator (and I was active on the committee supporting him), the Federation received phone calls and letters from the ACCC regarding fees for Funeral Celebrants . Dally explained to the official that the control of fees was, and always had been, in the control of the Funeral Directors (FDs). If they had a difficulty with the fixed non-competitive fee for celebrants, they should go to the FDs.
Dally wrote suggesting to the ACCC that they should inform the FDs and the Churches, who had for many years agreed on a system, to change their practice. Nevertheless, they advised Dally to arrange for a clarification in the AFCC’s constitution with the following words:

“The celebrant should individually determine the fees to be charged for his or her services. In doing so, he or she may wish to consult the fee scale recommended by the Association.”

Dally did exactly what the ACCC recommended – indeed these words have remained in the AFCC’s constitution (most Funeral Celebrants are members) and in the College of Celebrancy’s constitution. They have been on the College’s website for years before the present problems, and are there still.

--
Telephone the Celebrant First campaign.
In 1997 Dally personally decided to set his own hourly rate for funerals as the only fair way to be paid, and urged his fellow celebrants to do so. He suggested bypassing the Funeral Director and communicating with the individual celebrant’s client base. In a sense, by doing so, he was the only celebrant engaging in competition. It appears that he may have been blacklisted since, in ten years, he has never received from the FDs one funeral at his hourly rate.

--
The Rest is History
At a Best Practice Funerals Conference in October 2005, Dally, against his better judgment, wrote again to the Victorian FDs. The letter had two parts: one, asking the FDs to raise their fixed ceiling fee, the second part contained his own request that they consider those celebrants who charge the hourly rate.
We believe that the ACCC received an anonymous letter accusing Dally of violating the Act by uncompetitive behaviour. Without even interviewing Dally or finding out the true circumstances, or any kind of committal hearing, the ACCC issued civil proceedings against him in the Federal Court. More detail is available by reading the excellent article by author and legal practitioner Moira Rayner on this link. It is a must read. Also there is a key quotation from the transcript of the the court proceedings.

--
Injustice
The “Mediation” arranged by Dally’s lawyers was considered “successful” because the amounts at the Federal Court level are usually in hundreds of thousands of dollars. But to someone like Dally (or you and me!), the penalty is unbalanced and out of proportion. Even the ACCC barrister stated to the judge that Dally did not stand to gain any benefit from his letter.

--
The future of Celebrancy
Dally is firmly of the belief, and so am I, that Funeral Celebrancy is central to the celebrant’s role in our society. Educated skilled funeral celebrants who prepare a proper tribute should be the norm instead of the exception. However good training is scarce and the scene is over-competitive. This inevitably leads to cheap prices for ceremonies of low standard. High standard celebrants need access to Funerals, in such a way, that they can be paid according to effort and ability. This would give many celebrants meaningful work, give more comfort to grieving families, and enrich Australian cultural life.

--
Leadership and gratitude
As for Dally himself, I have given my opinion of him in a personal letter to Mr Graeme Samuel of the ACCC. In short I have found him wonderfully generous and creative in his efforts on behalf of others - which I do not have to say to anyone who knows him. He has made a unique and incomparable contribution to the celebrant movement. In doing so, he has also contributed to creating a more humane, decent and hope-filled society. I agree with others who say that there is not a celebrant in Australia who has not benefited in some way by Dally Messenger’s work over the years. In incurring this penalty, it is universally acknowledged that Dally was acting for the betterment of all.