What was said in the Courtroom
Here is exactly what was said in the courtroom - part of the transcript.

--
MR GRAY: (for the ACCC)
The curious features of this case, your Honour, include the following. The arrangement itself and what I have just said about 45(3) actually leads to this. The arrangement itself was envisaged and intended to apply to persons in competition with one another but the persons who are doing the attempting and the attempted inducing, the first and second respondents (Dally Messenger and Dally M Publishing), were not those people in competition with one another. Your Honour will have seen that and that is a very curious feature of this case that had led to the agreed fact that the respondents were not seeking a pecuniary gain for themselves.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Indeed, could not. ….
……………
MR GLICK: (for Dally Messenger) But there are other factors in this sense, your Honour. And I do not mean any sanctimonious comment in this. Mr Dally Messenger is a person that our community would regard as acting in good faith to assist others. The cost of a funeral is between $6,000 - $10,000, the total package. We are talking about $400.

HIS HONOUR: Ten per cent.

MR GLICK: Nothing.

HIS HONOUR: A bit less; eight per cent.

MR GLICK: Yes, eight per cent. And Mr Dally Messenger stood to gain nothing out of this. He did not do it because he was party to it. Indeed, your Honour saw the material; he did not want this agreed price to go up. He wanted them to negotiate hourly fees but he said, “If you want me to send this, I will do your bidding for you”. He was the messenger, in that sense.

(But the mediated fine still stayed at $40,000 plus $6000 costs!)

 From JOHN HILL to

--
Mr Graeme Samuel
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,
Level 35, The Tower, 360 Elizabeth St, Melbourne, 3000 
--

Re Dally Messenger III 
--

I write to you personally so that you may be able to understand the respect in which we hold this wonderfully generous and creative man. We celebrants acknowledge the contribution he has made to the Celebrant Movement. He has also contributed much to create a more humane, decent and hopefilled society. 

--
Mr. Messenger was my mentor when I was first appointed a celebrant in February 1995. Like all celebrants who wish to excel in this worthy profession, there was the need to find teachers who taught in words and actions but even more so with inner values. Mr. Messenger did precisely that. His integrity meant the alignment of words and actions with deep inner values. Those of us who had him as a teacher found this out in the process of our initial training. Why the Celebrant Movement has had such high respect with the general public is because he has presented values that are essential in ritual. An alternative and more expedient path would have been easier and definitely more financially advantageous.  
--

Mr. Messenger has proved himself a leader in his field because he is trusted and he holds to strong values. He has become a powerful model for us to copy. He has been able to influence an entire movement in developing effective cultural values. 
--

In the past Dally Messenger founded two major marriage celebrant organizations dedicated to the ideal of doing good in society.  He has always displayed that rather rare virtue of giving voluntary time and energy to a task that he believed in. I personally observed how he gave of himself. He wanted to see the richness and the beauty of ritual and ceremony for the sake of Australian culture. 
--

In this quest he has been magnanimous in crediting and affirming others with success, while at the same time accepting personal responsibility if things did not work out. He always bestowed great dignity on all those who worked with him in any capacity. 
--

What has made the work of Mr. Messenger so unique in the celebrant field is that he has been the most creative of individuals. This in part has had to do with his academic background but, surpassing even that, is his ability to think differently, and being able to move outside ‘the box’. He has the ability to take a new and different viewpoint on things. 
--

He has always endeavoured to see a future for the Celebrant Movement which would allow all of us, who are privileged to work in this field, to be creative. He has helped us acquire the ability to think differently and to see things that others have not seen. 
--

In this way he has given those of us who have learnt from him the ability to follow creative pathways and thus engender the Celebrant Movement with what is deeply human and at the same time very spiritual. 
--

It needs also to be acknowledged that people who work in our profession are meant to be very competent in their field. They need to be reimbursed to an extent that does justice to their profession and their training. Unfortunately, many in our society do not recognize this. Civil celebrants, especially funeral celebrants, are at the bottom of the “food chain”. They receive little for their services, when considering the important role they play in the lives of families and the broader community. The amount of money spent on things that do not really matter in the surrounds of weddings and funerals, compared to the fee given to a celebrant for the detailed work involved, is very disconcerting. 
--

Dally Messenger has continually reminded us that rites of passage are central to the way we live our lives. He has been a pioneer and a visionary in this field. It has been his creativity, his enthusiasm, his commitment and his insight as to what the community truly needs and values, that gave birth to the International College of Celebrancy. 
--

He has been its guiding light. He has fought against the mediocre, the facile, the tacky, the bland and the pedestrian. He has opposed the clichéd performances of poorly trained and insensitive celebrants. For this reason many, I believe most, who work in the field as celebrants, would wish to acknowledge the gift he has given to us, and the gift he is to all of us.
--

The amount of $46,000 plus legal fees, for a real or perceived legal transgression,  which your organisation has imposed upon him, is seen by most people who know the circumstances, as unbalanced, and out of all proportion to the real or perceived offence against society. Is there any way this fine or costs can be lessened?
I am writing to ask you to do whatever you can to rectify this situation as much as you can. 
--

With respect,
 
John Hill 
Civil Marriage Celebrant
5th of September 2007

Re: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the the Notices
served on me, accusing me of inducing others to fix fees in the funeral industry.
I claim to have done the exact opposite.

My solicitors have asked me not to discuss the case with the Media or in general.

The following facts, which are already in the public forum, and which I here bring together, may be helpful to those who cannot understand what is going on.

In the video of the Best Practice Funerals Conference September 2005, in my Keynote Address and elsewhere, including the "meeting" at the end, I spoke strongly and often, against accepting the Funeral Director's fixed ceiling fee. (In the Keynote address please note lessons 5A, 5B, 6, Lesson 13, Conclusions under Fees and Plan.)

3 Mins 31 secs

I discovered something, by the way, when I went on an hourly rate. I thought it would give me freedom, but it actually gave the family freedom . . .
--
You can only do (all the work outlined) on an hourly rate.

THESE QUOTES ARE FROM THE VIDEO OF THE BEST PRACTICE FUNERALS CONFERENCE.

3 Mins 34 secs

I listed a number of trades and professions which charge an hourly rate.
(see Keynote Address)
--
My plan for the future . . . I hope I can persuade you of this . . . every time you send a newsletter out you mention how much you charge for funerals – so much per hour – somewhere between $50 and $150 an hour I would recommend depending on your qualifications . . . and the ball park number of hours – mine – 10 to 20 hours.

Re: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the the Notices

served on me, accusing me of inducing others to fix fees in the funeral industry.
I claimed to have done the exact opposite.

My solicitors have asked me not to discuss the case with the Media or in general.

The following facts, which are already in the public forum, and which I here bring together, may be helpful to those who cannot understand what is going on.

In the video of the Best Practice Funerals Conference September 2005, in my Keynote Address and elsewhere, including the "meeting" at the end, I spoke strongly and often, against accepting the Funeral Director's fixed ceiling fee. (In the Keynote address please note lessons 5A, 5B, 6, Lesson 13, Conclusions under Fees and Plan.)

For this reason I have never officiated at a Funeral referred to me by a Funeral Director for at least ten years. Perhaps "blacklisted" is too strong a word, perhaps it is not.

I am in the 1997 and 1998 Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants Funerals Celebrants List pamphlet (and others) as the ONLY celebrant who did not accept the Funeral Directors fixed ceiling fee. My hourly rate is published in a separate box. The only celebrant conforming to the Trade Practices Act?

I am reported in TIME magazine in the article dated September 6, 2004 (Before the conference) FUNERALS ARE US - column 3 p. 56 as charging my own hourly rate.

I recorded an Ockhams' Razor for the ABC on April 29, 2005 (6 months before the conference) which they recorded but never aired, but I have records of when the ABC recorded it. The link gives the text.

I have a letter from Bishop Rayner , the Archbishop of Melbourne in 1997, explaining to me how the churches decide the "recommended" fee in consultation with each other. (This I believe, is the real origins of our fixed fee tradition)

I am not a player in the field. My last Funeral was in May 2005 for a lady who booked me eight years before she died. Her husband paid me my low (by professional standards) hourly rate.

For many years (a few have joined me now) I was the only celebrant in Australia who conformed (as I understand now) to the Trade Practices Act as I did not accept the Funeral Directors fixed ceiling fee.

I have led the ineffective campaign - RING THE CELEBRANT FIRST - for at least 10 years. I wrote an article on it in Celebrations Magazine of Dec 1997.

In the RING THE CELEBRANT FIRST - campaign I advocated:-

• that each celebrant set their own hourly rate in accordance with their qualifications and experience.
• that they give their clients a ball park figure of hours.

"As a result of the expressed sentiments of the majority at the Conference (with which I personally disagreed), a letter was sent to the Funeral Directors protesting their ongoing and historical policy of fixed fee for Civil Celebrants. The letter requested that they reconsider their ceiling fee for the recompense to Civil Funeral Celebrants for professional services rendered to their bereaved clients. There is some controversy regarding the omission of the word 'recommended' in that letter." This is what celebrants had done for thirty years.
PDFs - Letter to Funeral Directors from Rick Barclay 86, 87, 89 and 83 | Letter to Funeral Directors in 1996 (D,Messenger) | Letter to Funeral Directors in 1997 (D.Messenger) | Letter to Funeral Directors in 1998 (Kathleen Hurley) | Letter to Funeral Directors Jan1, 2004 (Barry Densley) |Letter to Archbishops and Moderator - see Bishop Rayner's reply above.

Five of my colleagues also went through the gruelling and expensive questions of the ACCC. I believe most of them earn less than the minimum wage. I am the only one on whom notices have been served.

I have often stated that high standard Funeral Celebrants are the most exploited people in the Funeral Industry.

Dally Messenger 19/4/07