Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013

Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and report.  They are due to report by 18 June and submissions have been requested by 26 April.  Further information is available on the parliament house website:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/marriage_celebrants/index.htm

Links on the Inquiry’s webpage

• Information about the Inquiry
• Information about the Bills:
  • Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013
  • Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013
• Getting involved in Committee inquiries
• Upload Submission Online
• Submissions Received

For further information, contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Phone:	+61 2 6277 3560
Fax:	+61 2 6277 5794
Email:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Coalition of Celebrant Association Position.

• supports the Amendment to Australia Marriage Act 1961 Part IV Division 2 Sub-paragraph 42 to add an Australian passport as evident of the date and place of birth of the party seeking to marry as this removes discrimination against all Australian citizens, and especially as those persons born  overseas are able to use overseas passports
• supports the introduction of an Application Fee for the processing of all new marriage celebrants.
• opposes removal of 5 year reviews of life-time appointments
• opposes the introduction of a “Celebrant Registration Fee”  unless this applies to all marriage celebrants.
• proposes a minimal staffing of the Marriage Law and Celebrant Section,  making the maximum use of the advice and support of the peak body CoCA, celebrant associations  and the State Registry Offices
• calls for implementing the recommendations of  its comprehensive Submission on Cost Recovery & Increasing Professionalism. Those recommendations are aimed at a cost-effective and professionally enhancing system for the appointment and ongoing management of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrant Program.

DOWNLOAD

CocA-Senate-Submission2013.pdf

Senate Inquiry Calls For Written Submission by 26th April 2013

Celebrants can make a difference to these Bills supporting CoCA’s recommendations and submitting your views

• via electronic form submitted online or
• sent by email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. (must include full postal address and contact details), or
• written submission posted – see further details below.

Associations and individual celebrants wishing to make submissions are reminded to keep arguments unemotional, credible and give evidence, grammar and spell check, do NOT tick private and ensure points relate directly to matters raised in the Bills, Explanatory material or introduce links or arguments showing the relationship to matters raised in the Bills.

The Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and report. 

The Senate Committee is  due to report  to parliament by 18 June 2013.

Further information is available on the parliament house website:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/marriage_celebrants/index.htm

Written Submissions to

Committee Secretary
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600 Australia

• Details about the Marriage Amendment Bills 2013 Senate Inquiry 

RELATED INFORMATION

• Summary of Proposed Changes – Marriage Amendment Bills and Explanatory Material 
• Exempted Marriage Celebrants
• Explanatory Memorandum – Proposed Marriage Amendment Bills
• Coalition of Celebrant Association submission on Cost Recovery and Increased Professionalism
• Coalition of Celebrant Association submission to Commonwealth Dept. Finance – Review of Cost Recovery Guidelines
• CoCA Response to AGD August 2012 Discussion Paper
• Implementation of CoCA recommendations by MLCS Cost Recovery measures
• Argumentative  points
• Discussion
• Other options to raise funds

Senate Inquiry Calls For Written Submission by 26th April 2013

Celebrants can make a difference to these Bills supporting CoCA’s recommendations and submitting your views

• via electronic form submitted online or
• sent by email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. as an attached Adobe PDF or MS Word format document. (must include full postal address and contact details), or
• written submission posted – see below.

Associations and individual celebrants wishing to make submissions are reminded to keep arguments unemotional, credible and give evidence, grammar and spell check, do NOT tick private and ensure points relate directly to matters raised in the Bills, Explanatory material or introduce links or arguments showing the relationship to matters raised in the Bills.

The Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration and report. 

The Senate Committee is  due to report  to parliament by 18 June 2013.

Further information was available on the parliament house website:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/marriage_celebrants/index.htm

PD for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants – Paper June 2013 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] UNCLASSIFIED

Dear all

Ongoing professional development for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants

This e-mail is being sent on behalf of Peter Arnaudo, Assistant Secretary, Marriage and Intercountry Adoption Branch

Thank you to all who attended the OPD meeting in February this year. Your valuable input is greatly appreciated and has assisted us to develop a proposal for the future of OPD.

Please find enclosed a paper outlining a proposal for OPD content, design and delivery from 2014.

If you have any comments on the proposal, please let us know by 5 July 2013.

In addition to the OPD meeting participants, the paper is being provided to all celebrant associations.

Peter Arnaudo
Assistant Secretary | Marriage and Intercountry Adoption Branch
Access to Justice Division | Attorney General’s Department
T:  (02) 6141 3111 | F:  (02) 6141 3246

11/29938-02

Ongoing professional development for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants

This paper was developed following an OPD meeting held on 21 February 2013. The meeting comprised representatives of the Coalition of Celebrant Associations (CoCA), the panel of OPD providers (Gordon TAFE, AssentTECS and Australian Celebrations Training) and the department and was facilitated by an independent facilitator.

1.     Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to outline a proposal for OPD content, design and delivery from 2014 that will meet the key principles of OPD design and delivery identified during the meeting.

The department will put in place arrangements for the 2014 OPD year, including:

• seeking expressions of interest for potential providers of OPD to provide OPD in 2014 (expected from August 2014)
• establish new arrangements to assess association conferences and new OPD activities (expected from September 2014), and
• continue to consider other options to improve OPD from beyond 2014 (including options set out at Part 5 of this paper).

2. OPD Objectives (Why do OPD?)

The meeting participants identified the following objectives of OPD for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants:

• To assist celebrants to keep up to date and informed with developments and/or about changes and issues relevant to their role as a marriage celebrant.
• To assist celebrants to broaden their skills, improve their practices, enhance and refine their work as a practitioner and improve their confidence and personal fulfilment as a marriage celebrant.
• To assist celebrants to build and strengthen networks to support and mentor each other and share ideas/experiences as a marriage celebrant.
• To demonstrate a commitment to being professional and reflecting the important role marriage celebrants have in the Australian community.

3.     How will OPD be delivered?

The meeting participants also identified the following principles for OPD design, development and delivery:

• high quality, variety and relevant subject matter for activities providing flexibility for the diverse celebrant population
• choice for participants · adult learning principles · continuous improvement, including consultation with celebrants, and
• value for money. OPD activities must be accessible and delivered flexibly to meet the needs and circumstances of celebrants as a whole (including in classroom settings, by online or distance education).

OPD activities must also cater for the needs of Commonwealth-registered celebrants delivering religious marriage ceremonies on behalf of independent religious organisations.

4.     OPD in 2014

The Marriage Regulations 1963 state that marriage celebrants must complete five hours of OPD each year, with the Registrar able to determine compulsory activities.

For 2014, it is proposed that OPD requirements be made up of:

• A 2 hour compulsory activity written by AGD and delivered by approved providers, and
• At least 3 hours of elective activities from:
  • An elective activity approved by the AGD and delivered by an approved provider, and/or
  • Attending an association conference approved by the AGD.

Attachment A sets out the proposed process for approving OPD providers and activities.

5.     OPD beyond 2014

Other ideas on approaches to OPD have been raised but have not at this stage been implemented or considered in great detail by the department. These include:

• Association office bearers receive an exemption from elective OPD requirements
• Conference paper developers / authors / presenters receive an exemption from elective OPD requirements
• OPD trainers / activity developers receive an exemption from elective OPD requirements
• Units of the Certificate IV in Celebrancy count as OPD
• Removing the distinction between compulsory and elective OPD activities, and
• Review of requirements for trainers delivering OPD.

The department proposes to continue to monitor and review OPD with a view to ensure that OPD continues to meet OPD principles and objectives, be relevant for marriage celebrants and provide choice recognising the diversity of interests of marriage celebrants while remaining a simple system for celebrants to use.

These ideas (and any others that may be put forward) will be considered by the department during 2014.

Ongoing professional development for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants June 2013.

EXTRACT FROM THE DEPARTMENTS LETTER TO COCA

RE: OPD and Celebrant Association Activities

I am writing to seek your views on the recognition of association conference attendance for OPD in 2013.  I apologise for the delay in writing about our proposed options.  Given that this calendar year is quickly coming to an end, I would really appreciate your views by next Tuesday 30 October.  We can then put in place the new arrangements and notify celebrants through the December edition of the newsletter.

Options for conference attendance – See extract below

Coalition of Celebrant Associations CoCA Response letter to the AG Department.

TO: Marriage Celebrant and Law Section.

CoCA Delegates were very disappointed with the MLCS proposing only two options – no OPD credit or a proposal of 1 hour OPD Equivalent for attendance at a Celebrant Conference.  

These options were not discussed with CoCA representatives at two meetings in September, nor at the CoCA-MLCS meeting in October.

Rather, at these meetings, a THIRD option of a 3-hour OPD Equivalent for a full day’s attendance (6 hours) of an association approved conference was discussed without any apparent concerns expressed by the Department. One delegate mentioned a longer-term option of the association making a recommendation of, for example, a 1-hour OPD equivalent for a 3-hour activity.

The purpose of the celebrant association conference option is to link celebrants with professional association support, and to encourage them to join associations.

The purpose of OPD is to encourage ongoing learning and should not be used as a substitute for pre-appointment training, nor on a punitive model of making celebrant pay more for learning they do not necessarily need. This system is already discriminatory against Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants when the 24,000 State marriage celebrants are not required to do any AGD approved OPD.

CoCA Delegates considers:

1.  A 1-hour’s OPD Equivalent for a full day’s attendance (6 hours) of an approved association conference sends a very poor message to the celebrant community about how the Department views the value of celebrant association conferences.

2. As previously discussed, the current OPD Approval and Monitoring model is flawed and biased to the existing OPD providers. CoCA has already presented a model for an independent approval process.

3.  A priority for 2013 is the establishment of a simple, efficient, effective and independent approval and monitoring process that expands the opportunities for Ongoing Professional Development as outlined in CoCA’s February submission.

4. This Independent Approval and Monitoring Process for 2014 OPD learning activities, including association conferences and workshops, needs to be established by 30 June 2013 to ensure that new OPD opportunities, including celebrant association activities, can be submitted and approved from 1st July 2013.

5. Feedback about OPD needs to be part of the annual celebrant survey.

Therefore CoCA’s recommendation would have to be Option 1 – The Status Quo (ie no credit for celebrant association conferences for 2013 only)

Kind regards
Rona

Rona Goold
Secretary
Phone: 02 4885 2393

Coalition of Celebrants Association (CoCA) Inc.

Options for conference attendance

Option 1 – Status quo

Under this option, we would continue to have five hours of OPD delivered by the current Panel.  Conferences could continue to engage the Panel to deliver five hours of OPD and work with the Panel providers to tailor packages to suit their members’ needs.  This will allow time to fully explore and develop options for conference attendance counting towards OPD attendance from 2014.

Option 2 – approved association conference attendance counts as one hour towards OPD elective

Under this option, AGD would pilot association conference attendance being recognised as meeting one hour of a celebrants’ OPD elective obligations.  The conference organisers would be required to send an outline of the conference agenda to the Registrar for approval and the conference would be listed as an approved activity in that year.  This would give associations, OPD providers and AGD an idea of how this option can work in practice and any variations that might be required in order to fully implement it from 2014.  It will also allow us to seek feedback from celebrants about their views on this option and identify any problems to resolve.

Under this option, we do not intend that conferences will be required to demonstrate that a formal training course will be provided equalling one hour, or that the person delivering the topic would have formal training qualifications.  The intention of allowing conference attendance to count towards OPD is a recognition that there are flexible ways for celebrants to develop their skills, networks and knowledge outside of a formal training environment.

The CCN Inc., as a member of the Coalition of Celebrant Associations Incorporated (CoCA), supports

• the recommendations of the February 2012 CoCA Submission on Cost Recovery and Increased Professionalism
• the CoCA recommendations in their response to the AGD August 2012 Discussion Paper

Summary of CoCA Recommendations re: AGD August 2012 Discussion Paper:

RECOMMENDATION 1:
That CoCA and Attorney General’s Department continue to work together to build stronger consultation processes so that the Coalition can work in partnership with the Marriage Law and Celebrant Section in developing the CommonwealthMarriage Celebrant Program.

RECOMMENDATION 2:
That an Independent Review or Inquiry be established to ensure fairness and equity for all marrying couples and their celebrants.

RECOMMENDATION 3: 
That the Department implements a Moratorium on all new appointments until a new workable model for the Civil Celebrant Program can be established.

RECOMMENDATION 4:
That the MLCS implement CoCA’s recommendations and in particular, provide a “streamlined” enquiries approach to celebrants, with the initial step being to contact the relevant BDM and/or their celebrant association, and with their CoCA association delegates or another such designated association representative having hotline access to make enquiries on behalf of association members.

RECOMMENDATION 5:
CoCA strongly recommends

1. The establishment of an AGD-CoCA Joint Standing Committee for OPD Approval and Monitoring 

2. A simple and clear set of Guidelines for Approvals of OPD activities

3. An Application and Monitoring Process that requires minimal support and supervision from the MLCS, and allows the MLCS to concentrate on ensuring all marriage celebrants are up-to-date with their OPD obligations.

RECOMMENDATION 6:  
That the Department give further consideration to the implementation of a Marriage Licence Fee to be collected from all couples and the monies so collected be distributed proportionally between the Commonwealth and the state/ territories for marriage program improvements for all marrying couples.

RECOMMENDATION 7:  
That Exemptions for the payment of the Annual Fee be decided on a case-by-case basis upon receipt of an Application for Exemption, and that where celebrants are granted an exemption on the basis of Special Circumstances, the celebrant’s registration should not be automatically suspended, but also decided on a case by case basis.

RECOMMENDATION 8:
That the MLCS implement, in addition to its plans above, CoCA’s recommendation to implement an Independent Knowledge and Skills Pre-Appointment Assessment process, to be cost-recovered by the applicant.

Summary of CCN Inc Recommendations re: AGD August 2012 Discussion Paper:

Further to the CoCA recommendations, the CCN Inc wishes to raise a number of related issues and makes the following recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1: 
That the MLCS, in ‘streamlining requests’ as per CoCA Recommendation 4 above, provide CoCA association member celebrants with a 50% discount on the annual fee.

RECOMMENDATION 2:
That the MLCS investigate the move to a 5 year Registration Fee as soon as possible.

RECOMMENDATION 3:
CoCA strongly recommends the OPD Year remain as Calendar Year, the published extension for the 2012 OPD year until July 1 2013 be made up by 5 extra hours of the 2013 OPD year, and that this decision be made as a matter of urgency.

RECOMMENDATION 4: 
CoCA strongly recommends the decision to assess the Compulsory OPD not proceed, pending further consultation with CoCA.

RECOMMENDATION 5:
That the decision to supply a paper-based Annual Certificate be rescinded.

Introduction:

CCN Inc appreciates that the MLCS wants to ensure a high quality of service from Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants. However it is increasing obvious that much of what the MLCS plans to do is based upon

• problems with the flawed 2003 “business” model of celebrancy
  
  
• the problems created by the inadequate level of training required between 2003 and 2010 of only one VET Unit for an appointment as a Marriage Celebrant
  
  
• the narrow regulatory role in relation to celebrants, for a Department that does not provide marriage services, and whose primary role as a Commonwealth body should be oversighting the Marriage Act and Regulations and providing marriage policy advice to the government.
  
  

These are the reasons CCN Inc supports CoCA’s recommendations that the MLCS work more closely with CoCA to find a more appropriate model upon which to appoint and regulate marriage celebrants and to work with celebrants in Reviewing the Certificate IV in Celebrancy.  

Discounts on Annual Fees

The CCN Inc considers that the proposed services for Commonwealth Celebrants:

• do not make the most cost effective and efficient use of the existing resources in the marriage celebrant field, namely the Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages and the professional celebrant associations that both currently support marriages celebrants with answers to questions related to marriage work, and the latter also providing information on a whole range of issues related to the Code of Practice as well as support in a number of other ways.

• supports those celebrants who have not gained a high level of knowledge and skill and/ or do not consider it important to belong to a celebrant association, thus not availing themselves of the extra information and support they could have to increase their professionalism, and as such

• means that not only are all celebrants going to pay more than is necessary, those who are competent and knowledgeable celebrants and those in professional associations will be forced to subsidise those who are not.

The CCN Inc is concerned that unless the MLCS accepts all or most the recommendations made by CoCA and by the CCN Inc in their February 2012 Submissions on Cost Recovery, then the majority of marriage celebrants will be unable to afford to pay both the Annual Fee and their professional celebrant association membership fees.

CCN Inc calculates that the annual fee would not exceed $100 pa if all these recommendations were acted upon, especially as the use of the celebrant website portal and integrated web-based record system should make the MLCS much more efficient and effective in meeting its responsibilities in regulating  Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants

RECOMMENDATION 1:
That the MLCS, in ‘streamlining requests’ as per CoCA Recommendation 4 above, provide CoCA association member celebrants with a 50% discount on the annual fee.

Re: 4.2 Annual registration fee

CoCA is concerned that all Commonwealth celebrants are being charged for services that are not necessary and in particular, discriminatory when the Recognised Religious and State BDM officers are not held to meet any of the same training and specific regulatory measures, and when there is no evidence to suggest that Commonwealth marriage celebrants are worse in performing their duties than State celebrants.

This proposal is a huge annual cost recovery bill ($2.4 million) to correct an insignificant number of Statutory Complaints i.e. $120,000 per Statutory Complaint.

This Annual Fee also creates unfair dismissal conditions in turning Commonwealth celebrants into annual contractors, yet leaving Recognised Religious Celebrants, some of whom are ignorant of Marriage Law, still able to continue see their religious marriages as the “real” marriages and the State’s involvement as secondary.

CCN Inc considers that if the more cost efficient model of regulation were embraced then it would be possible to charge a $500 fee for the celebrant five year review cycle.

RECOMMENDATION 2:
That the MLCS investigate the move to a 5 year Registration Fee as soon as possible.

Ongoing Professional Development:

In particular, CCN Inc is concerned that assessing Compulsory OPD

• adds another level of discrimination as this type of assessment is not applied to Recognised Religious celebrants
  
  
• is not warranted given the low rate of Statutory Complaints
  
  
• will be an added cost burden on Commonwealth celebrants, and

•  would not be necessary if the Department implemented CoCA’s recommendation of requiring a much higher entry standard by establishing an Independent Knowledge & Skills Pre-Appointment Assessment process, and established much higher standards for celebrant trainers.

Besides with the online portal there would be other strategies that could be used to do spot checks on the knowledge of current celebrants to assist in planning OPD.

Doing assessments then raises the question of “what extra work will the MLCS have to do to address low performing celebrants?”

Given the MLCS’s unwillingness to consider introducing fines or a bond system from which to collect fines, if any such follow-up action is to be taken, this then will add extra costs to those celebrants who are performing well.

RECOMMENDATION 3:
CoCA strongly recommends the decision to assess the Compulsory OPD not proceed, pending further consultation with CoCA and the CCN Inc.

CoCA is concerned about the lack of consultation with regard to OPD and the move from a Calendar to Financial Year with either celebrant associations or the OPD providers

May to June is the most appropriate time for OPD for our members, especially as the CCN Inc has members in every state. The June long weekend is the most appropriate time for our network, but would be far too late in the OPD Year if that were to change to a financial year basis.

CCN Inc considers that this has been in place for the last 3 years and all celebrants have had enough information to know that they are required to complete by December each year.  To alter the date again, just makes for more confusion. 

If a celebrant has not completed their OPD for the current year, then this should be dealt with on an individual basis, and the six months gap until the beginning of the Registration Year would give the Department time to follow-up on any Disciplinary Measures it needs to give in relation to OPD.

RECOMMENDATION 4:
CCN inc strongly recommends the OPD Year remain as Calendar Year, the published extension for the 2012 OPD year until July 1 2013 be made up by 5 extra hours of the 2013 OPD year, and that this decision be made as a matter of urgency.

RE: Issue of an annual registration certificate for each individual celebrant

The cost of the distribution of seven to ten thousand plus pieces of paper by mail is an unnecessary expense when this information is to be available instantly online by the most secure source of such information – namely the Attorney General website.

Should a certificate be required, then a PDF version should be made available for celebrants to print out themselves.

CoCA understands the cost saving of not providing this certificate is in the order of $100,00 annually or half a million every 5 years, as well as the additional cost to the environment.

RECOMMENDATION 5:
That the decision to supply a paper-based Annual Certificate be rescinded.

Given than the Same Sex Equality Bills have been rejected by the Commonwealth Government, CCN Inc strongly recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department address and implement the Recommendations that the CCN Inc presented in its February 2012 Submission on Cost Recovery, namely:

Summary of Recommendations

SECTION A – GENERAL

The CCN Inc. recommends that the Commonwealth Attorney General:

Recommendation 1 – Page 16
That discrimination be removed from the Marriage Act and Regulations, in principle and practice, based upon ‘non or neutral religious belief” as well as “religious belief” as regards the criteria for validation of the marriage by ensuring that the same criteria are required of all classes of marriage celebrants and all marrying couples to ensure that:

• all couples are treated equally with respect to the basic criteria for the validation of a marriage
  
  
• the wording of the key components of the marriage ceremony is in simple, plain English
  
  
• Compliance as regards Sections 45 and 46 do not question the validity of a marriage on the basis of the specific wording of the declaration
  
  
• all marriage celebrants are dealt with fairly and equitably as regards Compliance measures.
  
  

Recommendation 2 – Page 19
That changes to the Marriage Celebrant Program be made based upon a professional model of celebrancy wherein marriage services and ceremonies are a sub-set, regardless of whether the celebrant is independent (i.e. in private practice) or not, or offering religious services or not.

Recommendation 3 – Page 20
That all newly appointed marriage celebrants, whether commonwealth or state registered, be required to have the same basic level of training as regards Marriage Law, and Marriage Registration.

Recommendation 4 – Page 20
That the Conflict of Interest provisions be based on a professional model of celebrancy  

Recommendation 5 – Page 22
Tha tall new marriage celebrants be required to adhere to the same Code of Practice.

Recommendation 6 – Page 23
That all marriage celebrants be required to complete Ongoing Professional Development

Recommendation 7 – Page 23
That all marriage celebrants be required to utilize the Marriage Law and Celebrant Website’s “Celebrant Only” section to:

1. Provide annual statistics
   
   
2. Review, confirm, or provide information on their OPD activities and other compliance requirements
   
   
3. Gain access to legal fact sheets, information, and news bulletins
   
   
4. Update contact information
   
   

Recommendation 8 – Page 24
That all marriage celebrants be subjected to the same procedures for information distribution about marriage, marriage related services, and complaints about celebrants.

SECTION B - MARRIAGE ACT, REGULATIONS AND RELATED MATTERS

Revised Happily Ever After brochure :

Recommendation 9 – Page 26
That the Form 13A be revised and used  as a strategy to increase the compliance of all celebrants in providing

• information about relationship education and support services,
  
  
• information about Marriage according to Australian Law
  
  
• information about the couple’s rights to complain about services supplied by the marriage celebrant, and
  
  
• encouraging marriage celebrants to belong to celebrant associations or networks if they do not belong to a celebrant-related organisation.
  
  (N.B.  Some celebrants’ associations do take religious as well as civil celebrants.)

Note: CoCA Recommendation 12 also relates to this community information opportunity.

Giving Notice:

Recommendation 10 – Page 27
That the principles underlying the Length of Notice, Shortening of Time for Notice, and the Documentation required to be sighted by all celebrants be reviewed.

Australian passports:

Recommendation 11 – Page 32

That a change be made to the EXISTING:

Section 42 Notice to be given and declaration made
(1) Subject to this section, a marriage shall not be solemnized unless: (a) notice in writing of the intended marriage has been given in accordance with this section and has been received by the authorized celebrant solemnizing the marriage not earlier than 18 months before the date of the marriage and not later than 1 month before the date of the marriage;

(b) there has been produced to that authorized celebrant, in respect of each of the parties:

(i) an official certificate, or an official extract of an entry in an official register, showing the date and place of birth of the party; or

(ii) a statutory declaration made by the party or a parent of the party stating that, for reasons specified in the declaration, it is impracticable to obtain such a certificate or extract and stating, to the best of the declarant’s knowledge and belief and as accurately as the declarant has been able to ascertain, when and where the party was born; or

(iii) a passport issued by a government of an overseas country, showing the date and place of birth of the party; and

BE CHANGED TO:

42 Notice to be given and declaration made
(1) Subject to this section, a marriage shall not be solemnized unless:
(a) as is
(b) as is
(i) as is
(ii) as is
(iii) a passport issued by the Australian Government for an overseas born Australian citizen and verified by an Australian Citizenship Certificate or a passport issued by a government of an overseas country,

Establish improved procedures for verifying identity

Recommendation 12  – Page 33
That improved procedures for all marriage celebrants be established to verify the identity of the parties applying to be married.

Additional Categories for Shortening of Time

Recommendation 13 – Page 35
That the EXISTING Schedule 1B Circumstances for authorising marriage despite late notice (regulation 39) be changed from

There are the five categories of circumstances set out in the regulations.  These are:

• Employment related or other travel commitments,
  
  
• Wedding or celebration arrangements, or religious considerations,
  
  
• Medical reasons,
  
  
• Legal proceedings,
  
  
• Error in giving notice.
  
  To:

Schedule 1B Circumstances for authorising marriage despite late notice (regulation 39)
There are the seven categories of circumstances set out in the regulations.  These are:

• Employment related or other travel commitments,
  
  
• Wedding or celebration arrangements, or religious considerations,
  
  
• Medical reasons,
  
  
• Legal proceedings,
  
  
• Error in giving notice
  
  
• Established relationship of 3 months
  
  
• Pregnancy

The definition of an established relationship of 3 months would be that the parties to the marriage have known one another, been engaged to, or lived with one another for at least 3 months.

Revision of the Role of Prescribed Authorities

Recommendation 14 – Page 36
That the role of the Prescribed Authorities be reviewed to address the primary concerns of the Federal Government as they relate to couples marrying in a shorter time than Australia allows, given Australia could just as easily determine, like many other countries, a much shorter time.

Additional Classes of Prescribed Authorities

Recommendation 15 – Page 36
That a new class of Prescribed Authorities be created from Community Based Marriage Celebrants (both religious and civil) such that there would be a minimum of 4 Community-based Marriage Celebrant Prescribed Authorities per electorate available after-hours and weekends to process requests for Shortening of Time.

Education and Information for Prescribed Authorities and Their Staff

Recommendation 16 – Page 37
That the processes for the appointment of Prescribed Authorities (PA) be reviewed to  ensure that all PAs

• be provided with a handbook on their responsibilities, including the need to inform themselves and any front-line personnel of their roles, and of the dangers of moralizing and discriminating against couples simply on the basis of their making a request for Shortening of Time.
  
  
• have access to the Celebrant Only section of the MLCS of the AGD’s website.

Note: It is also expected that this information would be available to all marriage celebrants via the Marriage Celebrants Only On-line Portal section of the MLSC website.

Celebrant rights re service provision

Recommendation 17 – Page 38

Change the EXISTING Marriage Act Section 47 from:

47 Ministers of religion not bound to solemnize marriage etc.
Nothing in this Part:
(a) imposes an obligation on an authorized celebrant, being a minister of religion, to solemnize any marriage; or
(b) prevents such an authorized celebrant from making it a condition of his or her solemnizing a marriage that:
(i) longer notice of intention to marry than that required by this Act is given; or
(ii) requirements additional to those provided by this Act are observed.

To:

47 Celebrants’ Rights re Service Provision etc.

47 Authorised Marriage Celebrants not bound to solemnize marriage etc.
Nothing in this Part:
(a) imposes an obligation on an authorized celebrant, to solemnize any marriage;
(b) prevents an authorized celebrant, being a religious celebrant, from making it a condition of his or her solemnizing a marriage that:
(i) longer notice of intention to marry than that required by this Act is given; or
(ii) requirements additional to those provided by this Act are observed.

Statement of Authorisation and Definition of Marriage

Recommendation 18 – Page 39
Change the EXISTING Marriage Act Section 46 from

46 Certain authorised celebrants to explain nature of marriage relationship
(1) Subject to subsection (2), before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion of a recognized denomination, the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of the witnesses, the words:

“I am duly authorized by law to solemnize marriages according to law.

“Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn and binding nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter.

“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”;

or words to that effect.

(2) Where, in the case of a person authorized under subsection 39(2) to solemnize marriages, the Minister is satisfied that the form of ceremony to be used by that person sufficiently states the nature and obligations of marriage, the Minister may, either by the instrument by which that person is so authorized or by a subsequent instrument, exempt that person from compliance with subsection (1) of this section.

To:

46 Authorised celebrants make their status clear and explain nature of marriage relationship
(1), before a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant,  the authorized celebrant shall say to the parties, in the presence of the witnesses and at some point before Section 45, the words:

“I am authorized by law to witness and register this marriage according to law.

“Before you are joined in marriage in my presence and in the presence of these witnesses, I am to remind you of the solemn, binding and special nature of the relationship into which you are now about to enter.

“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, entered into voluntarily on the understanding that this relationship is for life.”

(2) delete

NOTE: Whilst The CCN Inc. assumes that it is not within the scope of this review, the CCN Inc. recommends and supports the change of the definition of marriage to:

“Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of two adults to the exclusion of all others, entered into voluntarily on the understanding that this relationship is for life.”

Form of ceremony - Parties publicly consent to marry

Recommendation 19 – Page 42
Change the EXISTING Marriage Act Section 45 from:

Marriage Act Section 45 Form of ceremony
(1) Where a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, being a minister of religion, it may be solemnized according to any form and ceremony recognized as sufficient for the purpose by the religious body or organization of which he or she is a minister.

(2) Where a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, not being a minister of religion, it is sufficient if each of the parties says to the other, in the presence of the authorized celebrant and the witnesses, the words:

“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. (or C.D.), take thee, C.D. (or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband)”;

or words to that effect.

(3) Where a marriage has been solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, a certificate of the marriage prepared and signed in accordance with section 50 is conclusive evidence that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with this section.

(4) Nothing in subsection (3) makes a certificate conclusive:

(a) where the fact that the marriage ceremony took place is in issue—as to that fact; or
(b) where the identity of a party to the marriage is in issue—as to the identity of that party.

To:

Marriage Act Section 45 Form of ceremony
(1) Where a marriage is solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, , it may be solemnized according to any form and ceremony recognized as sufficient for the purpose by the marriage celebrant and is sufficient if, in the presence of the authorized celebrant and the witnesses, each of the parties indicates consent to the marriage by saying in words or indicating in some other form to the other:

I, A. take you, B, to be my wife (or husband or marriage partner or partner in marriage or spouse)

Or words to that effect.

(2) Where a marriage has been solemnized by or in the presence of an authorized celebrant, a certificate of the marriage prepared and signed in accordance with section 50 is conclusive evidence that the marriage was solemnized in accordance with this section.

(3)  Nothing in subsection (2) makes a certificate conclusive:

(a) where the fact that the marriage ceremony took place is in issue—as to that fact; or
(b) where the identity of a party to the marriage is in issue—as to the identity of that party.

Processes to Minimize Identity Fraud

Recommendation 20 – Page 45
That  a funding component should be built into Cost Recovery to allow people getting married to use a “Verification Change of Name” Form via their celebrant, along with a statutory declaration, for a small or no fee to address this problem, if the federal government has other reasons for wanting to secure a paper trial for the identity of citizens.

SECTION C - INCREASING PROFESSIONALISM  

Guiding Principles
(Re: COCA Recommendation 1)  

Recommendation 21 – Page 46

That, in addition to the CoCA principles, the Attorney General applies the following principles in addressing Cost Recovery for the purpose of “increasing professionalism”.

1. All marriage celebrants are providing a government service to the community on behalf of the Federal Government under the Marriage Act 1961. As such the aims and delivery of the program need to have the best interests of the community as its highest priority.
   
   
2. All marriage celebrants and marrying couples need to be treated with the same respect and upon the same underlying principles, whether the ceremony is conducted within a religious context or not. Note marriage was originally in Western culture, and is in Australia, a civil (not religious) function governed by one Commonwealth Marriage Act.
   
   
3. The Commonwealth Attorney General’s Office and its Department has a leadership role in the areas of justice for all citizens and the removal of all forms of discrimination.
   
   
4. The Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department has a responsibility to ensure that all aspects of the Marriage Celebrant Program operate in a fair and equitable manner and that cost recovery does not use ‘loop holes’ in government policy to continue unfair practices.
   
   
5. The primary profession through which marriage services need to be delivered is that of a family and community focused celebrant, whether religious or not, and where marriage ceremonies are part of a range of ceremonies delivered by the profession.  That is, marriage celebrancy is a sub-set of the broader professional role of ‘Family and Community Celebrant’. i.e. Civil Celebrancy as a profession fits within the context of the three original professions of Ministry, Law, and Medicine.
   
   
6. The potential for Civil Celebrants to assist other government goals in the areas of human rights, social inclusion, physical and mental heath, and the prevention of domestic violence and child abuse should not be adversely affected by the way in which the Marriage Celebrant program is perceived and administered.
   
   
7. Compliance measures should be fair and should not be used to discriminate against independent civil marriage celebrants who should  not have to meet  more rigorous standards than those that apply to recognized religious celebrants.
   
   
8. Compliance measures need to be based upon a well designed and non-discriminatory program that is designed to improve professionalism of the delivery of ALL marriage services, rather than building a bigger bureaucracy.

Limiting Appointments to Community Need
(Re: COCA Recommendation 2)

Recommendation 22 – Page 47
That all people being considered for appointment need to have a current pass from the Pre-Appointment Knowledge and Skills Assessment. “Current” is defined as being within the two years prior to consideration for appointment by a Regional Advisory Committee.  

Recommendation 23 – Page 48
That the Attorney General establish

1. its own appointment panel and criteria to elect the most appropriate people for the vacancies in that region and/or  
   
   
2. a random draw from the pool of all the suitable applicants for that Region

after all other processes have been completed, if the Department considers that the face-to-face interview process recommended by CoCA not practical (NB CCN Inc. considers that the CoCA plan can be practical.)

Celebrant pre-training processes
(COCA Recommendation 4)

The CCN Inc. supports the principles outlined in COCA recommendation 4.  However 4.2 Implement a Suitability Course does not need to be as complicated as implied by this title.

Recommendation 24 – Page 51

That a simple process could be implemented using a two hour information session, designed and conducted by the MLCS in conjunction with the BDMs and CoCA representatives held at the BDM offices or other suitable venues, available once or twice per year.

Review approaches to Marriage Celebrant Training
(COCA Recommendation 5)

Recommendation 25 – Page 52

That, in addition to the CoCA recommendations on the Certificate IV in Celebrancy, the Attorney General refer this recommendation to the appropriate Branch of the AGD or other government department to advocate for the development of following new VET units to be available for students for a range of Certificate IV courses in the Community Services and Health Sector, including students of the Certificate IV in Celebrancy.

• UNIT 1 Human Rights, Discrimination, and Citizenship – Evolution of separation of church and state; Human Rights’ history and examples of the ways that belief systems about the meaning of life and causes of human behaviour have impacted and still do impact the treatment of women, people with disabilities, people with mental illness, people vulnerable to life style pressures etc. Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens in a secular multicultural society.

• UNIT 2 Spirituality, Religion, and Community - Relationship between belief, faith, knowledge, and behaviour; Secular (Civil) Spirituality, New Age and other Forms of Spirituality, Comparative Religion, Cults, Advantages and Disadvantages, Stages of Religious/Spiritual/Psychological Growth, Examination of spiritual and religious beliefs and their impacts on human rights and society.

• UNIT  3 Rites of Passage and Stages of Human Growth to Maturity (physical, mental, spiritual and social, cultural) - Symbolism, Dependence, Independence, Interdependence issues.  Their relation to alcohol and other drug use, mental health, violence, etc. Examination of the SA program used in some schools, called The Rite Journey (a unique educational programme designed to support the development of self-aware, vital, responsible and resilient adults) http://theritejourney.com.au/

• UNIT 4 Role of Community Citizenship Celebrant - Role of a Community Citizenship Celebrant; Australian Constitution; Basic structure of Australia’s legal system; History and Law as related to Citizenship; Rights  & Responsibilities of Citizenship; Citizenship Ceremonies and Programs; Knowledge of   factors affecting the social and cultural development of all citizens; local community structures and their relationships with federal, state, and local government; research, liaison and referral skills.

• UNIT 5 Role of Civil Chaplain for schools, hospitals etc.  - The role of civil chaplain; its benefits and limitations; support structures for the role; principles of empowerment of people to take responsibility for the well-being of self and others; problem identification and referral; knowledge and understanding of well-being structures; advantages and limits of providing emotional/spiritual support and leadership, crisis management principles; values clarification and analysis; leadership skills, motivational skills.

Review approaches to Ongoing Professional Development (OPD)
(COCA Recommendation 7)

Recommendation 26 – Page 53
That the Attorney General make provision for independent basic feedback related to OPD for planning and review, in addition to the recording of OPD activities completed by the marriage celebrant. For example: via the Celebrant Only section of the website.

Upgrade to MLCS Web and IT systems
(COCA Recommendation 8)

Recommendation 27 – Page 55
That the Attorney General require all marriage celebrants to complete an annual return as regards:

• their delivery of marriage services, and
• their evidence of their Duty of Care in the provision of their Marriage Services
• their compliance with any other responsibilities they may have under the Marriage Act and Regulations and associated laws.

Support for Celebrant Associations and other Stakeholders
(COCA Recommendation 11)

Recommendation 28 – Page 55
That Cost Recovery measures include the provision for some funding to support the State Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages in their involvement with the “Expert Resource Team” and the provision of Ongoing Professional Development, as required and as appropriate, for State registered marriage celebrants.

Support for Public Information on Marriage.
(COCA Recommendation 12 )

Recommendation 29 – Page 56
That the Attorney General facilitate the availability of “blank” decorative Wedding Anniversaries Certificates with the Commonwealth of Australia (similar in style but not security to Form 15) to be available for purchase by all marriage celebrants via either Canprint or the State Registry Offices.

Recommendation 30 – Page 57
That the Attorney General facilitate a process of dialogue between the ML&CS with other relevant AG and government departments to improve the flow of information on marriage related issues to all marriage celebrants.

Recommendation 31 – Page 57
That the Attorney General facilitate the development of a Coming of Citizenship Age Pack to be utilised by suitably trained marriage celebrants to be available via Canprint and to include:

• an appropriately worded and designed Coming of Citizenship Age Certificate
• a copy of the  Australian Constitution (and /or a Summary thereof)
• an Electoral Voting Pack including a Summary of the Australian Voting system
• a Citizenship (Human) Rights and Responsibility Booklet

any other material as deemed appropriate by government for young adults who are about to reach citizenship age.

Civil Celebrations Network (CCN) Incorporated
PO Box 3113 Robertson NSW 2577
Rona Goold CCN Inc Chairperson
Phone: 02 4885 2393
Fax: 02 4885 1639
Email Address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 
                                 
TO: Marriage Law and Celebrants Section
Attorney-General’s Department
3–5 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600

Fax:     (02) 6141 3246
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Re: Response to AGD August 2012 Consultation Paper

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our concerns and recommendations on your August 2012 Consultation Paper.
Please contact us for more information as per contact details above.

Kind regards

Rona Goold
Civil Celebrations Network (CCN) Inc Chair.

24 ^th September 201

SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION PAPER “MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS PROGRAM _ PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH COST RECOVERY” From CIVIL CELEBRANTS GRADUATE ASSOCIATION
(MONASH)

The Civil Celebrants Graduate Association (Monash), CCGA, congratulates the Marriage Law and Celebrants Section of the Attorney General’s Department on their sincere and detailed analysis of the key points that arose from the consultations and over 280 written
submissions received. It must have been a daunting task.

Having analysed the items from these submissions that related directly to ‘cost recovery’ rather than general reforms which will be ongoing, MLCS engaged an external consultant to cost what it was perceived would increase efficiencies in the system and ‘formulate a charging structure that would prove reasonable, as well as reflect  value for money for celebrants.’

However CCGA believes that the guidelines stipulated to the external consultant were based on a false premise which affects the whole cost recovery process.

This stated premise is (from 3.4 in the consultation paper) “The Department also considered the suggestion made by some stakeholders that a charge be applied to the Notice of Intended Marriage. A fee on the NOIM is also unsuitable given that marrying couples are not directly in receipt of the services provided by the Department to marriage celebrants”

1.1 Marriage celebrants are part of the service provided by the
government to marrying couples, not the end users of that service.

CCGA believes MLCS has responsibility for administering the Marriage Act 1961. This encompasses overseeing the legal marriage of all couples who get married in Australia by any category of celebrant not just Commonwealth – registered marriage celebrants. The marrying couples are directly in receipt of the services provided for by The Marriage Act. They are the end users. Therefore, the only just way to cover the administration of the Act is to charge all couples who get married under the Act for the service provided to them as is done in most countries in the developed world.

1.2 CCGA still believes that cost recovery for MLCS services applied just to Commonwealth–appointed Marriage Celebrants is discriminatory to both those celebrants and the couples they marry.

The ‘cost recovery’ most Commonwealth-appointed marriage celebrants accomplish for their service to the public barely covers the cost of their service. To burden them with extra cost recovery by the imposition of a registration fee which then needs to be recouped from marrying couples imposes an extra cost on those couples who choose a non-religious celebrant (as is their right) over celebrants of recognised religious denominations. This is discrimination against these couples. The average celebrant who has 6 ceremonies a year would have to charge an extra $40 per couple to cover the $240 registration fee. It would be fairer for all marrying couples to carry this cost equally.

2.1 CCGA also has reservations regarding a certain lack of transparency on the cost recovery process.

The Australian government is currently conducting a review of cost recovery guidelines. We note that one item to be reviewed is ‘what information non-government users need in relation to specific cost recovery activities’. This is an area where we feel we have been kept in ignorance regarding the MLCS cost recovery process

CCGA is currently running a request by CoCA to make a Freedom of Information inquiry so we will not include all the questions here.

The crux of our concern is that, as far as CCGA can see, the efforts required by MLCS to either structure or become enabled or have other legislative support for income generation under cost recovery with legitimacy is a massive exercise which would entail amendments to the
Marriage Act.

The Attorney General’s portfolio statement clearly defines the registrar and the departmental body: “The Registrar is the departmental body recognised in legislation and was established under the Marriage Act 1961 S39A Oct 2002”. That is the complete extent of the recognition of the authority of the Registrar responsible for the Marriage Act. There is no reflection of any change of its role to incorporate new fiduciary authority. The Attorney General departmental sections which do have a fiduciary component are clearly listed with legislative reference. Most have specific Acts to enable financial powers for cost recovery. The Marriage Registrar and section are not listed in any AG or other Department of Finance and Treasury as a Government Business Entity or prescribed agency, incorporated or unincorporated, nor do they appear to be structured to meet these requirements. We believe that this will require a change in legislation for fees to be enforceable.

Have draft amendments to the Marriage Act or legislation regarding the fiduciary role of the marriage registrar commenced? If so, where is the reporting or visibility for transparency and governance?

COST RECOVERY

Regardless of the question of justice for marrying couples and Commonwealth- registered marriage celebrants in a fee relating only to this one category of marriage or the status of MLCS as a fiduciary authority, CCGA believes the amount of cost recovery deemed necessary in managing the marriage celebrant program has been overstated. Greater efficiencies, along with some of the reforms which MLCS has discounted from the cost recovery process, can be achieved.

These are:

3 Strengthened technological processes

3.1 MLCS is taking on tasks already performed efficiently by State offices of Births, Deaths and Marriages
and celebrant associations.

CCGA estimates that there is very little need for celebrants to contact MLCS with their hundreds of queries regarding the particular circumstances of the couples they are marrying when:

a. MLCS has issued comprehensive guidelines to all celebrants.
b. There is a ‘Frequently asked Questions’ section on the MLCS website.

c. The state offices of Births, Deaths and Marriages give prompt and informed responses as they, after all, are responsible for processing the Notices of Intended Marriage. They have provided this service to all celebrants, religious or otherwise, even before 1973 when the marriage celebrant program was introduced.

d. Celebrants can be encouraged or required to belong to celebrant associations. Celebrants daily ask their colleagues on association email forums for answers to their questions. These answers are seen by all members of the association not just by the celebrant who enquired and most association celebrants believe this is one of their best forms of professional development.

MLCS seems to have taken on more of this role since the introduction of new regulatory measures in 2003. This is unnecessary as the old
system was working well.

There will occasionally be quite complex situations where MLCS needs to be consulted but for the rest there is no need to double up on all the other avenues of knowledge available to celebrants and thus use up staff time.

3.2 Website files compiled on each celebrant with all information keyed into one site will save a lot of time and staffing and, consequently, cost.

Cost recovery by way of a registration fee of $240 per celebrant for 10,000 celebrants a year would create revenue for MLCS of $2.4 million. Clearly the celebrant associations do not have a breakdown of how cost recovery funds are to be apportioned. However, cost recovery needs were estimated largely on the basis of the time and staffing required to complete the five-yearly reviews of celebrants and handling of complaints against celebrants.

Improved data storage may take time to set up but should create a cost saving efficiency before long so that an hour should be sufficient time to examine the file and conduct each five-yearly review of a celebrant. For 10,000 celebrants this would amount to 2,000 celebrants to be reviewed each year. Allowing $60 for each review the total cost would be $120,000. This then becomes a much smaller fraction of the amount required in the past for such reviews and a small fraction of the $2.4 million funding.

Keying in of data for celebrant compliance with annual ongoing professional development should be prompt using improved data storage techniques and immediately highlight at the end of each year any celebrant who has not completed their OPD. An automated letter could then be sent immediately to each non-complying celebrant with a warning to comply within a given time or be deregistered.

It is one of MLCS’s claims that improved processing of information will make celebrants ‘more professional’ because celebrants who do not comply with regulations will more readily be deregistered. If this is the case there will quite possibly be fewer than the current 15-20 statutory complaints against celebrants lodged each year as the less conscientious celebrants
may no longer be practising.

Were the cost savings that these new efficiencies will bring about factored in when MLCS set the guidelines for the external consultant to evaluate what registration fee to set for celebrants to cover the cost of managing the services to celebrants or was the consultant given information only on the current amount of work entailed in each review?

4 Need for reduction in number of celebrants

4.1 CCGA believes that MLCS should impose an immediate moratorium of up to two years on the appointment of new celebrants and thereafter should reintroduce a legislative cap to the annual number of appointments of marriage celebrants.

This was our plea in our response to the Regulation Impact Statement. At the time we argued this mainly in relation to making it possible for celebrants to maintain their professionalism which is not possible on the basis of performing the average 6.5 ceremonies a year per celebrant.

However, the continued appointment of new celebrants will impact on cost recovery as well.

Already we have over 10,500 celebrants performing approximately 60% of the 120,000 + marriages in Australia per annum, that is, about 72,000. This comes to about 6.5 marriages a year per celebrant, which does nothing for their professionalism or financial viability. New celebrants are being appointed at the rate of about 40 a month which equates to 480 a year. This clearly will decrease the number of ceremonies per celebrant per year and increase the work of MLCS in regulating the excessive number of celebrants in the program.

CCGA believes that to run an efficient system of professionally performing celebrants each celebrant needs to perform at least 15 ceremonies a year which means that an efficient, professional system would need less than half the current number of celebrants. Instead of increasing the number of celebrants MLCS should be aiming at reducing the number to approximately 5,000. This would both reduce their work by half and raise the professional standard of celebrancy. It is patently inefficient to increase the numbers of celebrants to be regulated at MLCS expense as well as reducing the “professionalism” of celebrants across the board.

A certain number of celebrants will give up their authorisation each year but to effect a fifty percent reduction in the number of celebrants at the earliest opportunity there would need to be a moratorium on appointments followed by a fixed cap on appointments per year. This action is not without precedent.

5. Application Fee

5.1 CCGA would prefer a more stringent test of readiness for applicants pre-appointment.

The appointment process outlined in the cost recovery statement greatly improves the deterrent factor for those who may be seeking only to marry a few friends or are having a fad interest. It is also more thorough in creating the human contact that helps assess an applicant’s bona fides and ability to meet the ‘fit and proper person’ criterion, both by personal interview and discussion with referees. We are pleased to see these initiatives. The $600 fee also creates a category of cost recovery which becomes self-sufficient and does not impinge on what the registration fee for practising celebrants is to achieve.

The one area of doubt in the process is in establishing proof that an applicant has gained sufficient knowledge to conduct most of their marriages efficiently and independently. MLCS does not need to constantly replenish the numbers of celebrants calling on their time with simple questions that they should be able to find solutions to on their own. It is important to establish that new appointees understand the legal requirements of their role beyond their ability to fill in a Notice of Intended Marriage.

CCGA would like applicants at least to present a sample legal ceremony as well and would prefer a simple tick-the-box pre-assessment test to be completed satisfactorily.

If this is not done then a regular and far more thorough evaluation of the courses run by training institutions needs to be conducted. The experience required of teachers of these courses also needs to be increased beyond having performed’ a minimum of three ceremonies’. Hopefully this will come under the umbrella of your ‘ongoing reforms’.

6. Transitional arrangements.

The initiatives regarding Ongoing Professional Development outlined in the cost recovery statement are welcome. It is the transition to the new annual model that disturbs us.

6.1 CCGA recommends maintaining the January to December year for the
completion of OPD

Our members have already completed their OPD for 2012, over 90 of them at our June conference. Our conference for 2013 has already been set for June. The venue and OPD provider have been booked and other arrangements are underway.

It seems unfair that conscientious celebrants who have met requirements for OPD are to be penalised because some celebrants uncertain about the proposed changes might have failed to meet their OPD obligations by the end of 2012. Could these few celebrants not be given personal extensions of time rather than throwing out the conference schedule for a number of associations?

Now that the proposal is for the OPD year to coincide with the registration year, that is, 1 July to 30 June each year, our practice of holding our conference in mid- June each year will be compromised. It appears that there will be no requirement for us to do any OPD at our June 2013 conference now that you have extended the time for the completion of last year’s OPD. Thereafter our OPD will be held within a fortnight of expiry of the OPD year in every consequent year, hence creating nervousness on the part of our members who might find themselves incapacitated for some reason at this time and unable to meet their OPD obligation by alternative means at such a
late stage in the set year.

You might argue that we can adapt and hold our conference in July instead of June to complete our obligation early in the OPD year. We have explored this possibility in the past. As our membership is Australia-wide, to give all members the opportunity to vote on vital issues, we hold our Annual General Meeting at the conference in June. Thus, membership fees have always been paid up by our June conference so all members can vote. Therefore, a July conference would see very few financial members able to vote, as not many would have paid their fees for the new financial year. This is why we originally chose the date in June for our conference, and that choice remains
unchanged.

The winter months are the times when most, if not all, associations hold their conferences as celebrants do not do many ceremonies at this time. We would not be alone in finding difficulty with your change in the OPD year.

Conclusion

Overall, we believe that some real reforms to the service MLCS offers will be brought about by the forecast changes in procedures outlined in the cost recovery statement. Paying heed to our recommendations here might further increase the efficiency of the service to enable a lower registration fee to be charged of celebrants annually, perhaps $200. Certainly reducing the number of celebrants would increase the ability of celebrants to maintain their professionalism which is a key object of your program.

****

This submission has been prepared on behalf of CCGA by Meg L’Estrange – ph. (03) 9439 7346

- email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

in consultation with committee members.

PROFESSIONAL CELEBRANTS ASSOCIATION INC. (PCA)

www.professionalcelebrants.asn.au

PCA SUBMISSION RESPONSE
TO CONSULTATION PAPER

“MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS PROGRAM –PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH COST RECOVERY”

The Professional Celebrants Association Inc (PCA) has provided the following submission response to the consultation paper recently released by the Marriage Law and Celebrants Section regarding Cost Recovery appreciates the opportunity to respond to concerns of their members with regard to the Consultation Paper.

PCA understands that the consultation paper relates to Cost Recovery only but considers that the issue of discrimination has not been addressed. The Marriage Act 1961 applies to all those who solemnise marriages and thus includes religious and non-religious celebrants. The AGD continues to not address the discrimination towards Commonwealth Registered Marriage Celebrants by claiming that the religious celebrants are managed by the States regardless of the fact that those religious celebrants must follow the Marriage Act 1961.

PCA understands that as all celebrants (religious and non-religious) must comply with the Marriage Act, the fee should be applied equally to all. PCA rejects the AGD’s stand on this discrimination.

PCA also rejects the notion that the definition of “end-users” of the program are Commonwealth Registered Marriage Celebrants as the PCA believes the “end-users” to be the marrying couples. Application of the fee to the marrying couples via a “Marriage License Fee” or other means, would address the issue of the current discrimination as mentioned earlier as it would apply to all marriages in Australia irrespective of who solemnised the marriage. PCA considers this as fairer and equitable way to ensure cost recovery.

PCA does not accept that the Cost Recovery Fee will necessarily improve professionalism of Commonwealth Registered Marriage Celebrants as PCA sees the Cost Recovery Fee as a means by the AGD to fund its management of the Marriage Celebrant Program through staffing etc. Mandating assessment of the compulsory component of the OPD, providing a hotline etc does not necessarily guarantee the professionalism of a celebrant. PCA recognises that the MLCS has made efforts to provide guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest and Advertising as another means of ensuring professionalism but regards that these do not go far enough to address concerns.

PCA considers that no celebrant should be linked to any other wedding provider supplier and that the MLCS needs to enforce this.

The MLCS has indicated that addressing the issue of an oversupply of celebrants is not part of the Cost Recovery Process. PCA rejects this as the MLCS states in its Consultation Paper that “The implementation of the cost recovery will enable the Department to improve the services delivered to marriage celebrants, while also effectively regulating those celebrants. This will in turn ensure professional, knowledgeable and legally correct services are delivered to marrying couples in Australia”. PCA considers the numbers of current celebrants and prospective celebrants is a major issue as many celebrants are unable to gain experience through practical application of their knowledge and skills. PCA believes that it is imperative that the MLCS considers the issue of numbers as part of the cost recovery process and seeks processes to address it to enable all celebrants to gain valuable
experience. As cost recovery has been based on current numbers, there should be some process to implement a moratorium or reduction of new celebrants in some way. As the new Application fee is based on assessing new celebrants, a moratorium on registering new celebrants will not impact on the cost recovery of regulating current celebrants.

PCA believes that a moratorium on new registrations should be implemented for a certain time period.

3. Proposed Cost Recovery Arrangements

PCA accepts the proposed Charging Structure in that the MLCS has recognised that the majority of their costs are involved in the processing of new applicants.

New Application Charge

To avoid prospective celebrants from unnecessary costs, PCA feels that the MLCS should provide prospective celebrants with detailed information about the costs involved in becoming a marriage celebrant as well as ongoing costs before they enrol in a Certificate IV training course. Prospective celebrants should receive this information from both the MLCS website and the Certificate IV training providers before committing to training to ensure they are fully informed. Some examples regarding costs that should be provided are listed as follows:

• The Application fee to register as a Marriage Celebrant
• The Registration Fee
• Public Liability and Insurance
• Potential set up business costs e.g. websites, marketing, PA equipment, vehicle use etc
• Ongoing business costs
• Association membership

It is imperative that prospective celebrants are fully informed about costs as well as the potential or lack thereof to earn an income is based on many variables and may not provide a
level of income that can be supportive once all costs are considered.

PCA proposed that all prospective celebrants should be fully informed about all costs and the current oversupply of celebrants will impact greatly on the ability to earn an income.

Annual Registration Charge

Although PCA is satisfied that the Annual Registration Charge is not as high as early speculated by the MLCS, PCA rejects Annual Registration Charge on the basis of the discriminatory application to Commonwealth Registered Marriage Celebrants only.

3.5 Exemption Processing Charge and 3.4 Exemptions

PCA approves that the MLCS has recognised that at times, celebrants may be unable to pay the Annual Registration Fee. It is hoped that the exemption Processing Charge will be applied to serious situations such as health issues or an event of a major disaster.

PCA rejects the notion of a low income for rural areas as a reason for exemption as many city based celebrants receive little or no income from their celebrancy services.

The Annual Registration Charge should be applied to all celebrants . Postcode location is an unfair justification for an exemption as there are equally as many celebrants in more populated areas who receive a low income from their celebrancy services. PCA believes that many urban celebrants will consider this discriminatory. Urban celebrants could justify applying for an exemption on the basis of low income as a “special circumstances “ as they would be on par with those in rural and remote rural areas.

PCA rejects the consideration of postcode as a basis for exemption. All celebrants should pay the Annual Registration Charge and an exemptions be granted on individual application for reasons such as serious health issues or impact of a major disaster .

4.2 Annual Registration Fee

Increased Engagement and Guidance from the Department

PCA is happy that the MLCS will address the response times to enquiries as well as the provision for an online portal and FAQ and regular updates etc.

PCA believes the current situation of celebrants contacting their associations and / or their state Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) as a better situation than the expectation of contacting the MLCS staff for information. Celebrants are expected to refer to the Guidelines first and foremost, for information. PCA believes that the MLCs has not considered the valuable roles that both associations and state BDM’s provide to celebrants. The majority of celebrants would prefer to maintain this arrangement and only contact the MLCS for a determination on extremely difficult situations which require direction from the legal staff of MLCS.

OPD

PCA supports the assessment of the compulsory OPD material as an important step in ensuring all celebrants are maintaining their knowledge.

PCA supports the increased flexibility for celebrants to regarding the 3 hours of elective topics but considers that suitable processes must be put in place to ensure celebrants are offered valid quality options.

PCA supports the improved performance monitoring but queries as to how decisions will be made “to conduct reviews of a sample of celebrants from time-to-time on a particular legal issue or areas of concern”. More information needs to be provided on the circumstances regarding how these reviews will be implemented.

Transitional Arrangements

PCA considers it discriminatory that a transitional arrangements are being provided for celebrants who have clearly decided to not complete their 2012 OPD.

All celebrants who have or are planning to meet their OPD requirements by the end of 2012 have demonstrated their “professionalism” by intending to maintain their registration. The Transitional arrangement appears to cater to those celebrants who had made conscious decisions to not maintain their OPD as well as catering to the concerns of the OPD providers.

PCA does not support the proposed transitional arrangements
.

The submission has been prepared on behalf of the PCA by K. Hayes.

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

AGD_CoCA Joint Standing Committee:
A new structure to be established jointly between CoCA and MLCS -
FOR EXAMPLE

Standing Committee  Members:

MLCS:

• Marriage Registrar
• A Senior Legal Officer

CoCA:

• 3 delegates with no RTO or other educational facilities connections

Independent:

• Person with Adult Education Expertise  – perhaps from elsewhere in the VET Section eg IRG for Client Services

Administrative Support:

• MLCS Administrative Officer

Process:

•     Applications circulated for comment and approval by the panel.
•      Teleconferencing on applications where there is not 2/3 rd agreement on the approval.
•      Annual meeting to review feedback from celebrants and providers

GUIDELINES FOR APPROVAL

1. All OPD applications are to be made according to the approved format.
2. Objectivesof Ongoing Professional Development activities must relate to the knowledge, skills and competencies objectives on the Certificate IV in Celebrancy and/ or the professional duties and support required of Marriage Celebrant.
3. OPD Providers must be recognised educational agencies and/or facilities.
4. OPD Trainers must be qualified to deliver the specific OPD objectives of the OPD activity
5. OPD activities must be delivered in appropriate venues, with appropriate learner/ trainer rations and resources as required by the objectives.
6. OPD Activities will be designated with an approval number.
7. Celebrants will be  required to provide feedback on their OPD activity as part of the Annual Survey of their work.
8. Re-approval of a particular OPD activity is not automatic and will be assessed in conjunction with the OPD provider feedback and celebrants feedback from their Annual surveys.

etc.

Application for OPD Approval Form:

OPD Topic
OPD Code:		Approval	[] Yes [] No [] More required?
Date received		Date approved for OPD Year
Delivery	[] Online [] External Study	[] Face-to-face classes	[] Conference- celebrant- other
Duration of Topic		Max Class size
Target Group for Topic
[] Compulsory[] Elective	Marriage Act, Regs, Guidelines related [] Yes [] No
Main focus of Activity	[] Knowledge [] Skills [] Values Clarification [] Support/ Resources
Objectives of Topic	1. 2. 3. 4.
Objectives relevant to the knowledge, values, skills & support needed by a professional celebrant appointed to conduct marriage ceremonies			[] Yes [] No [] More required?
Learning Activities	1. 2. 3.
Name of OPD Provider
Address  of OPD Provider			Postcode
Contact  Details :	Phone	Fax	Email
Status of OPD providers	[] RTO [] Uni [] CAE [] other		[ ] Approved [ ] Not Approved
Trainers	Names	Qualifications	[ ] Approved [ ] Not Approved
Name  & Qualifications of Trainers	1. 2. 3.	1. 2. 3.	1. 2. 3.
Assessment/ Feedback Measures			[ ] Approved [ ] Not Approved

Post Delivery
Feedback  from Online Annual Surveys
Provider Feedback Report	Required [] Yes [] No	Date Received
Session Details*	*Legal Topics only
Date	Town/  State	No Celebrants attended	Attendance report Certificates given
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Add rows as required
Summary of Assessment/ Feedback from Provider*
Comments for Next Approval Round.
Panel / MLCS Notes: