Sourced directly from Knowledge Direct

So, you’ve decided to embrace online learning at your association. You know what a source of non-dues revenue this can be, and you know how popular eLearning has become in the association space. Well, not to be a Debbie Downer, but the board is going to have some questions. Have you anticipated the risk in online learning? Do you know how to overcome the challenges that come with implementing such an initiative? Pour yourself a cup of coffee, and let’s talk.

Risk 1: Being under staffed and ill prepared for implementation and delivery

How many people are in your education department? Will you have enough people to help with course creation, managing your LMS, marketing your courses? Not being prepared for the amount of work that goes into creating a successful online learning initiative could kill the program before it even starts. You’ll need to determine how many departments need to be involved and who needs to be trained. Creating the internal infrastructure to support online learning is a critical first step.

Risk 2: What if we build it and no one comes?

Before you run out and purchase a shiny new LMS with all the bells and whistles, have you considered the demand for online education at your association? You‘ll need to consider the size of your audience, the commonalities among that audience (will they require the same courses), growth within the occupation your association serves (a growing occupation offers more potential members and non-members to consume your educational offerings), and licensure/certification requirements (if members and non-members must maintain certifications and licenses then you have a built in audience with a need for your courses). Additionally, is professional parity an issue? In other words, do members need to keep up with the Joneses professionally? For example, a marketer is often considered only as good as his or her credentials and someone who is a member of a marketing association has an advantage over a marketer that isn’t in terms of professional credibility. You should also determine if your association caters to members and nonmembers within a profession that encourages professional and personal enrichment. For example, development directors and fund raisers often desire additional information and best practices for putting on fundraisers and seeking endowments for their nonprofits.

Risk 3: Not marketing your courses effectively

Market research is critically important to marketing your courses effectively. You must know who your audience is, what they need, what they want, what messaging resonates with them, and their reason for choosing online education. This allows you to create positioning and messaging strategies that work. Will you use email? Will you offer incentives? Will you run promotions? What about social media? Will you engage members and potential members on Twitter? What about content marketing? Will you write blogs and create infographics that add value for your members? Make sure you’ve taken the time to plan your marketing strategy. Sit down with the board and create a strategic plan to determine your goals and a marketing plan to make those goals happen.

Risk 4: Bad course design

You repurposed an old PowerPoint presentation. It has tons of text on the slides because there was a lot of information to cover. Your subject matter experts say the information is accurate and educational. Yet, members and nonmembers aren’t coming back to take more courses. This is probably because your courses just don’t appeal to learners. Maybe its aesthetics or presentation style, maybe the information is boring and tedious to get through. Maybe the learner simply can’t retain the information as presented. In truth, creating effective courses is half art, half learning science. An instructional designer knows how to present information in bite sized pieces that are easy for the learner to understand and engage with. If you don’t have an instructional designer on your team, consider hiring one or seeking additional information on course design best practices from reputable sources such as this blog, or Articulate’s website. You might also want to invest in a solid piece of course design software such as Storyline, or make sure your LMS provider offers you a course design tool.

Rewards

No risk, no reward they say, and in this case it’s true. Online learning can change the game at your association. No longer must you suffer declining numbers and live events with poor attendance. You can achieve success with eLearning creating a stream of non-dues revenue. You can reach a wider audience than ever before, and you can change the course of a young professional’s life by creating courses that fill the skills gap left upon graduating from college and entering the professional arena. You can reduce costs associated with training and career development. You can also make an environmental impact because eLearning is ecofriendly. Yes, starting an online learning initiative at your association is risky. There are costs involved and you’re going to need to prove that ROI to the board. But, you can do it! If you carefully anticipate and address the risks of online learning and plan for success, you can achieve a successful outcome and reap the rewards of board member accolades and satisfied learners.

Article by Josephine Heesh and Jessica Lobow Carroll & O'Dea on Mondaq

• Despite the 'switching off' of provisions relating to director's duties for directors of not-for-profit companies also registered as charities with the ACNC, it is recommended that directors adopt best practice and operate as if the provisions still applied.
  
• Directors of not-for-profits must now observe the five governance standards prescribed by the ACNC Act.
  
• To fulfil the duty of good faith under the Corporations Act directors must exercise independent judgment.
  

In the past, many people, without hesitation, would volunteer to be a director or board member of a not-for-profit organisation. However, we are in uncertain times, as recent litigation has caused concern for some volunteer directors and many more are now seeking some form of protection from their notfor-profit organisations for their potential exposure in these roles.

The concern generally speaking, arises from the disparity between the level of comfort a not-for-profit organisation can provide a volunteer director and the level of comfort that the volunteer director seeks.

For the most part, the duties of a volunteer director are the same as those under the common law, which, are also those of any company director under the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act), consisting namely of the duty:

• to avoid allowing the company to trade while insolvent
  
• to act in good faith
  
• to act honestly
  
• to act with reasonable care and diligence
  
• not to misuse position or information obtained while acting as a director
  
• to disclose any material personal interest or conflict.
  

However, if a director of a not-for-profit company under the Act and if the company is also registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC) (but not as a basic religious charity), then the Act provisions (180–183) relating to director's duties have been 'switched off'. While the common law duties still extend to directors of registered charities, additionally, the director must now observe the five governance standards, prescribed by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012 (ACNC Act). In particular, a director must ensure that the financial affairs of the charity are managed responsibly.

The ACNC sets out a brief overview of the five governance standards as follows:

Standard 1: Purposes and not-for-profit nature

'Charities must be not-for-profit and work towards their charitable purpose. They must be able to demonstrate this and provide information about their purposes to the public.'

Standard 2: Accountability to members

'Charities that have members must take reasonable steps to be accountable to their members and provide them with the adequate opportunity to raise concerns about how the charity is governed.'

Standard 3: Compliance with Australian laws

'Charities must not commit a serious offence (such as fraud) under any Australian law or breach a law that may result in a penalty of 60 penalty units (currently $10,200.00) or more.'

Standard 4: Suitability of responsible persons

'Charities must take reasonable steps to:

• be satisfied that its responsible persons (such as board or committee members or trustees) are not disqualified from managing a corporation under the Corporations Act or disqualified from being a responsible person of a registered charity by the ACNC Commissioner, and
  
• remove any responsible person who does not meet those requirements.'
  

Standard 5: Duties of responsible persons

'Charities must take reasonable steps to make sure that responsible persons are subject to understand and carry out the duties set in this standard.'

The ACNC prescribes that:

'As minimum, responsible persons should have good processes to prevent problems and to manage money responsibly', such as 'reading financial statements' as well has 'having a process to ask questions if they don't understand.'

The types of processes for risk management to be implemented will depend on the size of the charity and the nature of its financial affairs.

For example, to ensure uniform observance of the five governance standards throughout all the operations of the charity, it is recommended that the employment contracts or handbook of non-director officers and committee members (whether they are volunteers or paid employees) of an entity impose these same obligations on such persons.

Where a charity, registered with the ACNC, is not a company incorporated under the Act, but is a legally recognised entity (such as an incorporated association) the governing body must also adhere to the five governance standards.

Notwithstanding the 'switching off' of sections of the Act for corporations which are registered charities, as the common law still extends to these entities, and the Act still applies to noncharitable, not-for-profit corporations, we recommend all not-for-profits should adopt best practice and operate as if those provisions still applied.

To that end the following comments apply across all types of not-for-profits.

Importantly, to fulfil the duty of good faith under the Act directors must exercise 'independent judgment'. In the case of Blackwell v Moray (1991) 5 ACSR 255 the Supreme Court found that a director who simply adopted the preferences of the company's majority shareholder, without exercising independent judgment, had breached their duty of good faith, namely, to act bona fide in the exercise of the discretion required of a director so as to act for the benefit of the entity.

This means that merely turning up to meetings of the board is not sufficient to meet the requirements of acting as a director; a director must be actively involved in exercising independent judgment when it comes to voting on resolutions of the meeting including as a minimum 'considering the views of the relevant materials' (Per Cohen J) not just follow the majority decision because it is the 'popular' opinion.

A test of whether a director has used the degree of care and diligence required can be measured against the business judgment rule. Under that rule the director is found to have acted with the degree of care and diligence required if they make a business judgment in good faith and for a proper purpose, without any material personal interest in the subject matter, having informed themselves about the subject matter to the extent they reasonably believed was appropriate and provided they rationally believed the judgment is in the best interest of the company. The belief is deemed to be rational unless it is a belief that no reasonable person in the director's position would hold (180(2) of the Act).

This rule is limited to a defence of s180 of the Act (duty to exercise care and diligence), but not to any other duty provision of the Act (duty to act in good faith, for proper purpose, for best interests of the company; duty not to improperly use position or information; not to act recklessly or be intentionally dishonest).

If the business judgment test depends on whether it was reasonable for the director to rely on information provided by others, if the director:

• relies on information provided by an employee whom the director believes on reasonable grounds to be reliable and competent, or a professional adviser or expert whom the director believes on reasonable grounds to have the relevant expertise or another director in relation to matters within the director's or officer's authority, or a committee of directors in relation to matters within the committee's authority
  
• the reliance was made in good faith and after the director made an independent assessment of the information or advice relevant to the director's knowledge of the company.
  

Unless the contrary is proved, the director's reliance on the information is taken to be reasonable.

Volunteer directors must always declare perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

ACNC offers volunteer directors this advice 'Don't be embarrassed to declare a conflict of interest!'

Failure of a director to declare a conflict can, as the ACNC has correctly pointed out on its website, 'damage your charity's reputation', and will constitute a breach of the Act.

For example, recently the UK equivalent of the ACNC, the Charity Commission, announced a statutory inquiry into the Manchester based charity 'My Community UK' for an alleged failure to manage conflicts of interest.

In another instance earlier this year the Charity Commission advised the Tate Britain to 'follow its policies and processes concerning the management of conflicts of interest' after the gallery displayed artworks of Tomma Abts, who was also one of the Tate's trustees.

Of the 23 investigations undertaken by the UK Commission in 2013 nine involved 'unmanaged conflicts of interest'. Directors should ensure that there are adequate procedures in place as to how to deal with conflicts of interest, if and when they arise.

Directors should take extreme care not to allow their company or not-for-profit organisation to trade while insolvent. Where an entity continues to trade while insolvent, and it is found by a court that the director has not acted with appropriate care and diligence the directors may lose the protection of the corporate veil and be found personally liable for the company's debts. Additionally, these directors may be the subject of criminal proceedings for their breaches of the Act (s588G of the Act) — a director will be found to have breached their duties if they are aware that there are grounds for suspecting the company of being insolvent and/or a reasonable person in a similar situation in the company's circumstances would have been so aware.

In the 1991 National Safety Case (1991) 9 ACLC 946 the chairman of a not-for-profit organisation was held personally liable for the losses incurred after he signed an annual financial statement attesting that the company was solvent when in fact it was not.

All companies and not-for-profit organisations that can afford to do so should maintain Directors & Officers Liability insurance. Most constitutions provide that the entity must at all times maintain such cover. If such cover is unaffordable, entities may indemnify their directors by deed.

Insurance and indemnities cannot assist a director who is guilty of any criminal offence or reckless act.

It was noted in the Federal Parliamentary Standing Committee on Economics, the ACNC Act endeavours to 'ensure that the individuals do not seek to hide behind the protection of a corporate veil to protect themselves from acts of deliberate misconduct'.

Justice Tadgell said in the National Safety Case at 1012:

'It is in the public interest that, while directors should be held accountable of their conduct, able people should not be deterred from offering their voluntary services for want of adequate protection.'

Every effort should be made to inform volunteer directors about their real exposure, without unnecessarily alarming them, to ensure their work continues for the benefit of the charity. In particular, volunteer directors should be steered towards the ACNC website which provides an abundance of useful and accessible plain English advice on good governance and tips as well as warnings about common traps for directors.

The duties of the directors under the Act although not binding on the governing group of all not-for-profit entities may be used as a reference point and benchmark to achieve best practice.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Sourced from Courier Mail, written by Kay Dibben

Queensland magistrates are pushing to be renamed judges and have the backing of the state’s chief magistrate. Judge Ray Rinaudo said he fully supported the name change which was being introduced for the first time in the Northern Territory.

Territory magistrates will become judges, following the Lower Court Bill being passed recently. Judge Rinaudo said he agreed with the reasons put forward by the NT Attorney-General.

“Magistrates, are in a real sense, judges,’’ Judge Rinaudo said. “They have the same basic qualifications for appointment as judges and are subject to the same standards of judicial conduct, competence and ethics. “The title of magistrate reflects a public service magistracy of a bygone era."

About 96 per cent of criminal charges in 2013-14 were dealt with by magistrates courts. Bar Association of Queensland president Shane Doyle QC said if the Chief Magistrate supported the name change the Government should consider it.

“It is a sensible development to achieve uniformity and recognition of the importance of the work magistrates do,’’ Mr Doyle said.

The Australian Association of Magistrates and the Judicial Conference of Australia, representing both magistrates and judges, have been pushing for the name change for years. Association president Brett Dixon said he would be writing to the attorney-general of every state, putting forward the argument for local court judges throughout Australia.

Mr Dixon said there was no reason to distinguish between district court judges and magistrates. “We say the title ‘judge’ should apply to all of the judiciary,’’ he said. “Magistrates apply the law and are the sentencing body. In trials they carry out the same function as a judge.’’

Mr Dixon said magistrates were seeking a change of title, not a pay increase. Attorney-General and Justice Minister Yvette D’Ath said the issue had not been discussed.

“I appreciate that the magistrates play an important role in the judicial system but there are currently no plans to adopt changes similar to the Northern Territory,” she said.

Queensland magistrates can deal with civil cases involving up to $150,000 and jail offenders for up to three years. All domestic violence applications are dealt with in magistrates courts. In New Zealand, Canada and the UK, magistrates have been called judges for years.

IPWEA Australasia President, Michael Kahler, has announced on behalf of the Board that Mr Robert (Rob) Fuller has been appointed as the incoming Chief Executive Officer of IPWEA.

In brief from the Official Announcement:

"Robert Fuller is highly experienced across construction, infrastructure, fleet and government sectors having been in management at BP Australia, Honeywell Engineering, and Master Builders Association (MBA).  Being on project management teams and leading the construction industry for over $0.5b of critical government infrastructure including defence, health, education and energy sectors for more than two decades provides the blended depth of knowledge and coal-face experience that IPWEA requires in order to proactively engage with its members and government."

“Critically for IPWEA, in addition to his government and industry expertise, Robert brings a wealth of professional Association management experience to assist the Board in the business transformation that all contemporary businesses are currently undertaking.  As former CEO Newcastle Master Builder Association, NSW GM and Deputy CEO Printing Industry Association of Australia, QLD State Director CEDA (Committee for Economic Development of Australia), and CEO Hunter Valley Training Company, Robert will now lead the dedicated team of professional IPWEA staff across Australia and New Zealand in meeting the current and future needs of our members."  

A new Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) report gives a snapshot of the contribution of Victoria’s community sector charities to the state’s economy and society, with charities employing almost 97,000 people, generating about $13 billion in income a year and being supported by almost 135,000 volunteers.

Victoria’s community sector organisations make a significant contribution to strengthening the state’s economy and society. They generate high levels of economic activity, employment and volunteer support. They deliver positive service and advocacy programs that help people overcome disadvantage and build brighter futures. Through doing this, they help build strong, cohesive self-reliant communities.

Download the report here: http://vcoss.org.au/document/strengthening-the-state/

  

Good Beginnings Australia and Save the Children Australia are joining forces to create one of Australia's largest and most respected agencies working to improve the lives of thousands of children in disadvantaged communities. 

Together Good Beginnings, which specialises in providing early intervention and practical parenting programs for children and their families in disadvantaged communities, and Save the Children, which works around Australia and in more than 120 countries around the world, will be able to reach even more of Australia's most vulnerable children. 

CEO of Good Beginnings Australia Jayne Meyer Tucker said, "Not every child in Australia grows up safe, happy and healthy. There are no simple answers or quick fixes to the complex issues that children face in vulnerable communities. That's why we have been working on a 10 year strategy. Now, by joining with Save the Children an opportunity exists to leverage our joint expertise and local knowledge.  Together we can broaden our reach, drive systemic change and become greater advocates for children and their rights."

Save the Children's CEO Paul Ronalds said, "Both organisations have recognised the opportunity to work together on a shared bold goal for children in Australia. We are absolutely delighted that Good Beginnings Australia will join with us to improve the lives of children in Australia's most disadvantaged communities.

 "By joining forces we have a unique opportunity to combine our Australian programs for young children, have greater influence on government policy and the systems that support children, and of course leverage the best of both organisations.

 "Together we will create one of Australia's leading agencies working to improve outcomes for the most vulnerable children in the country."

The two charities have consulted extensively with major stakeholders on the merger and have found strong support for the purposes of the merger.       

Community Council of Australia chair Tim Costello said: "Australia's diverse not-for-profit sector plays a vital role and delivers outstanding value. The CCA supports a not-for-profit sector that is effective and accountable, and that continues to maintain the support and confidence of Australians.

 "A lot has been achieved through the reform agenda over recent years, including the introduction of the ACNC, and charities need to keep looking for ways to improve. This merger of Save the Children Australia and Good Beginnings Australia is a commendable reform and I wish to congratulate them on their vision to put children first."

David Crosbie, CEO at Community Council for Australia: "In the not-for-profit sector, real leadership is about finding ways to better achieve your organisation's purpose and more effectively drive positive change in the communities you serve. Real leadership is sometimes hard to find. In the case of Save the Children and Good Beginnings you have outstanding leaders supported by strong, well-informed boards prepared to not only lead, but to set an example of excellence many in the charities sector would do well to imitate."

Eddie Grobler, Divisional President Australasia for MasterCard, a major Good Beginnings partner: "I want to congratulate the two organisations with their decision to join forces – there are clear synergies. The main beneficiaries will undoubtedly be the children in Australia's disadvantaged communities."

Good Beginnings and Save the Children already work together in parts of Australia like the Northern Territory where they deliver Intensive Family Support Services.  

The two charities will officially join forces on July 1, 2015.  

For media inquiries contact Evan Schuurman from Save the Children on 0400 546 942 or Michael Thompson from Good Beginnings on 0451 373 454.

Does your business employ 20 employees or more? If so, SuperStream will affect you this year. The ATO SuperStream July deadline is fast approaching and now is the time to make sure that your business is compliant.
                          
The new requirements for SuperStream are being introduced to ensure that employer contributions are paid in a consistent, timely and efficient manner to a member’s account. SuperStream will require you to adapt your superannuation process and to collect additional information. The main change will be all data must be sent electronically in a standard message format, meaning no more hard copy reports can be sent and data cannot be faxed, emailed or posted.

We recommend that you find out what plans your payroll provider has for their software updates to meet these SuperStream requirements, set a date to start using SuperStream and don’t wait until 30 June 2015. Sage MicrOpay’s Express Super offers a solution for meeting these SuperStream requirements.

Express Super

Express Super is Sage MicrOpay’s clearing house service which will help you meet the new SuperStream requirements, giving you peace of mind that your contributions will be processed in the formats required by the ATO.

Minimise the time you spend on paying superannuation contributions with Express Super and protect your businesses against non-compliance and processing errors.

Express Super has been designed to accommodate all of the requirements brought about by the SuperStream reform.

Give yourself peace of mind that your obligations as an employer will be met under the SuperStream changes. Penalties will apply to employers who do not comply with these new rules, so reduce this risk today with Express Super. Find out more.

As of 1 July 2015, employers with 20 or more employees are expected to have switched over to a standardised electronic reporting system for contributions. Employers with 19 or fewer employees have another year to complete implementation, no later than 30 June 2016, and they are being encouraged to use the ramp-up time to prepare.

The initiative will require all super contributions to be treated the same way in an effort to simplify the way contributions are made to multiple super funds. It also promises to provide better information about the amount and timing of superannuation payments to employees, as well as whether the contributions have been received.

As of June 2010, the ATO estimated there were 33 million superannuation accounts in Australia, approximately three for every worker with a further 5 million accounts on the Lost Member Register. The ATO expects the new system, which takes advantage of electronic payment systems, to further benefit employers by reducing errors and costs by simplifying the back office functions.

Local governments representative body LGNZ should be commended for taking proactive steps to lift the performance of the sector, following the release of concerning national survey results which rated councils just 3 out of 10 for overall performance, says Stephen Selwood CEO of the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development.

The 2014 Colmar Brunton survey of 2400 residents and 600 businesses found that a strong majority of New Zealanders believe that local government is important, but also revealed a poor reputation for local government overall. Residents and businesses rated councils just 3.2 out of 10 for communication and interaction, 2.8 out of 10 for performance and 2.6 out of 10 for leadership.

The results should serve as a wakeup call to our 78 councils.

All councils are struggling to balance service costs with expectation pressures, a tension which is going to increase as growth pressures require the need for investment in some areas while demographic change limits capacity to pay for core services in others.

This survey suggests councils need to radically rethink the way they deliver services, engage with residents and lead their communities forward.

It is therefore encouraging to see local governments peak body outlining a priority programme to improve public understanding of local governments critical role and performance of the sector.

NZCID supports the six priorities proposed:

1. governance, leadership and strategy; 
2. financial decision-making and transparency; 
3. asset management and infrastructure; 
4. engaging with business; 
5. communicating and engaging with public; and 
6. building a stronger relationship with central government.

However, the one aspect LGNZ has not identified is whether the current size and number of councils is appropriate to address the issues and future challenges.

Local government has a potentially significant role to play in leading the social, economic and environmental development of our regions, but in order to perform this role adequately it requires fit for purpose structures, resourcing capability and the confidence of its constituents.

The results of this survey demonstrate the need for councils to dramatically up their game and suggest a need for transformational change to meet current and future challenges across the local government sector, Selwood says.

Sourced directly from here (NZCID).

A ‘responsible and supportive’ Budget from a ‘responsible and supportive’ Government is how Bill English described Budget 2015. BDO would agree with that, though as always with a budget there are clear winners and losers and a couple of surprises too. Read on for BDO New Zealand's Budget 2015 Highlights including what the announcements were and how it could affect you. Key changes included are research and development, tax compliance funding, boarder clearance levy and KiwiSaver changes.

Access the document here: https://www.bdo.co.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/141570/BDO-2015-Budget-Highlights.pdf

The Government's plan for a border clearance levy on passengers flying in or out of the country will irritate travellers, a tourism sector leader says.

The Tourism Industry Association, that represents industry members including Air New Zealand and Christchurch and Auckland airports, will submit on the levy plan that "will be an irritation for some", TIA chief executive Chris Roberts.

"We're disappointed to see this happen."

The levy is expected to take effect from  January 1, and will be around $16 for arriving passengers and around $6 for departing passengers – although the exact amounts will be subject to public consultation.

There is already an existing charge on travellers. The levy, when combined with existing charges will be around $36 for a return journey.

Roberts said the levy had been a total "surprise". TIA would likely make a submission about the process.

The idea that the Government would introduce a levy flew in the face of lobbying it had previously made against a similar tax in the United Kingdom. The New Zealand Government was worried it would discourage travellers.

There was also the potential danger with such a levy that it could easily be raised if the Government had a shortfall in its overall tax take, Roberts said.

The new border clearance levy will help the Government to protect New Zealand from imported pests, diseases, illegal drugs and contraband. "In the past, these costs have been met by taxpayers. The Government considers it is fairer for the costs to fall on passengers travelling internationally," Primary Industries Minister Nathan said.

Roberts said international passengers to New Zealand already paid taxes, such as GST that helped pay towards costs associated with their stay here. "International visitors are spending $10.3 billion a year in our economy and that includes $700 million a year in GST, collected by the Government.

However the TIA did not expect the would have a significant impact on visitor arrival numbers "at least in the short term", given that New Zealand was such a hot destination right now, he said.

Visitor arrivals to New Zealand numbered 2.96 million in the 12 months to April 30, which is the highest-ever annual total, Statistics New Zealand said on Thursday. This total was 7 per cent higher than the April 2014 year.

Tourism New Zealand chief executive Kevin Bowler said the numbers, driven in part by China and United States arrivals, continued a positive outlook for the tourism industry.

He was not going to oppose the introduction of a border levy and did not expect it to have an impact on arrival numbers.

However, "at the end of the day, we're probably in the camp that says anything you can do to make travel cheaper and more affordable for people is a positive thing ... (but) my feeling is it is not going to make a big difference." 

Roberts noted that from early June, the public and industry will get the chance to provide feedback on the design, introduction and level of the levy.

Wagner said the move brought New Zealand in line with many other countries that recover costs from passengers, including Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and China.

This announcement is part of a range of measures in Budget 2015 to improve security and services at the border, involving immigration, customs and biosecurity.

- Sourced from Stuff