The aim of this recommendation is to balance the intake rate with retirement, de- registration rates, regionally based community need and adequate access to work to improve and maintain skills.It is recommended that the model for limiting numbers involves:

• similar principles for appointment and registration being applied to civil as currently apply to Recognized religious (refer Division 1 – Subdivision A section 31 of the Marriage Act 1961)
• minimum overall average level of 24 weddings p.a per celebrant in each region, and upon the best applicant for an area by interview with a Regional Advisory Panel.

Refer Appendix 3 for information on Regional Advisory Panels.

This will ensure that:

• marriage celebrants gain sufficient experience in conducting weddings to enhance marriage services to their couples and the sector overall.
• The role of civil marriage celebrant is viewed as an important professional role that is conducted on behalf of the government for the community.

Refer to Appendix 1 for further rationale on the recommendations and Appendix 3 for a recommended mechanism for limiting appointments.

Cost Recovery:

It is envisaged that full cost recovery would be obtained from the pre-training and pre- appointment processes and perhaps a portion of the annual fee. The person seeking the training and subsequent appointment would pay an interview fee. MLCS would cover the cost of the interview process.

Read more … see TABLE OF CONTENTS

FURTHER EXPLANATION (Posted 5th February 2012)

The following provides further explanation relating to Recommendation 2 of the CoCA submission on the Proposed Fee to the Attorney General’s Department.

Recommendation 2 appears as above:

It is important to say at the outset that this recommendation

• does not require any celebrant to do a specified number of weddings per year, and
• will not affect current celebrants in a negative way, unless they do not meet the basic Compliance requirements that apply now.

In principle, this recommendation is a new variation of “capping of numbers” based upon

• smaller regions than the 2003- 2008 period ( 5 electorates rather that a state) but bigger than pre-2003
• higher ratio of the average number of weddings per celebrant per year than in 2010, but lower than pre-2003 years
• higher standards of entry based upon a standard pre-appointment assessment, independent of RTOs
• pre-appointment assessment and interview by a Regional Advisory Panel
• the selection of the best person for the role for that region

The original Marriage Celebrant Program set the number of celebrants based upon population, but did not assess the “best” people on the list for the Electorate, rather whoever had been on the list the longest.

• This concept is a combination of “community need” and the “selection by interview” of what normally happens in public or private organisations, when a vacancy occurs.

• It is also based upon the reality that whilst everyone can aspire and train for a particular role in life, it cannot be guaranteed that there will be a matching position just for them when they want it. This is especially so for an important government role.

All the recommendations in the CoCA submission are designed to ensure that those who do gain an appointment, will not be constantly competing with an ongoing revolving door of new marriage celebrants, and needing to spend time and money trying to do however many weddings they wish to do, while at the same time working in  a system where the overall level of work is so low that independent marriage celebrants cannot be fairly compensated for their work.

It needs to be highlighted that this figure of 24 weddings or an average of one per fortnight is the AVERAGE numberof weddings across ALL the celebrants in a year across a REGION, NOT per celebrant.

Currently (RIS 2010) the Ratio of weddings per celebrant per year across Australia is 6.6 weddings
In 1999 the Ratio of weddings per celebrant per year across Australia was 35 weddings
In 1995 the Ratio of weddings per celebrant per year across Australia was 64 weddings

The second box in this section called Table 1 – CIVIL MARRIAGES 1999 shows the actual spread of weddings done by independent celebrants in 1999.

For the AVERAGE of 35 weddings per celebrant in 1999, there is awide spread of weddings done by independent marriage celebrants:
•     about 7% did no weddings
•     about 30% did between 1 and 10
•     about 26% did between 11 and 25
•     about 22% did between 26 and 50
•     about 12 % did between 51 and 100
•     about 2.5 % did between 101 and 150
•     about 1 % did between over 150

Therefore this recommendation is that no more appointments should be made for a particular region until the ratio  across that region is 24 or over.

It means approximately 25 % of current marriage celebrants would need to resign before any more marriage celebrants would be appointed.

And then new celebrants would be selected by interview by a Regional Panel from those on the waiting list for that region.

This recommendation would also allow the Marriage Law and Celebrant Section a number of years to concentrate onbringing in other strategies to increase professionalism.

In its initial response to the Regulation Impact Statement, CoCA stated:

“The major element contributing to ensuing difficulties within the marriage celebrant program was permitting appointment of unlimited numbers of marriage celebrants.

• Contrary to advice received from the marriage celebrant industry at the time and this was addressed by the Attorney, at the time of introducing the radical changes (referred to as reforms), as noting celebrants’ and celebrant associations’ concern over an anticipated massive increase in numbers – (far outweighing any need for their services) given Australia’s limited and basically static number of marriages each year.

• The then Attorney said no substantial increase in numbers was expected given higher training requirements and natural attrition. At that time (pre 2003) couples had no difficulty locating a celebrant to suit them and it was argued there were too many celebrants even then!

• Now, with little change to numbers of marriages in Australia each year, the number of celebrants has grown to in excess of 10,000 and more continue to be appointed. Celebrant numbers prior to 2003 were around 2000 active marriage celebrants Australia wide.

• In keeping with the needs based conditions of the marriage celebrant program no greater number of celebrants was appointed than needed by Australia’s marrying couples.

• The Attorney-General introducing the program, the Hon Lionel Murphy stated ‘there should never be so many celebrants that they cannot acquire the skills and knowledge they and their client couples need’.”

Conclusion

The Coalition of Celebrant Associations experience of the application of the Dept of Finance Cost Recovery Guidelines demonstrates that:

• they are ineffective in meeting the needs of the Stakeholders and

• more importantly, do not ensure that Cost Recovery by the government agencies, who are required to apply these Guidelines, is actually achieved in a Cost effective and Cost efficient manner.

Definition ¹⁵

English legal system doctrine that protects against arbitrary exercise of power by ensuring fair play. Natural justice is based on two fundamental rules: (1) Audi alteram partem (Latin for, hear the other side): no accused, or a person directly affected by a decision, shall be condemned unless given full chance to prepare and submit his or her case and rebuttal to the opposing party’s arguments; (2) Nemo judex in causa sua (Latin for, no man a judge in his own case): no decision is valid if it was influenced by any financial consideration or other interest or bias of the decision maker.  These principles apply to decisions of all governmental agencies and tribunals, and judgments of all courts, which may be declared to be of  having no effect (ultra vires) if found in contravention of natural justice. See also natural law and natural rights.

Efficient⁵ and effective⁶

Between 1973 and 2003 the services provided by marriage celebrants appointed by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department were delivered to the Australian marrying public without the need for a Regulatory function by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.

CoCA asserts that

• since 1961 all marriage celebrants, whether State registered or Commonwealth appointed, are providing marriage
  services on behalf of the Commonwealth Government under the Marriage Act 1961
• since 1961 all marriage celebrants have been required by the Commonwealth Governmenta. to provide those marriage services according to the rules set by theCommonwealth Governmentb. to register those marriages as directed by the Commonwealth with the State of Territory Registry within whose geographic boundaries the marriage takes placec. to use forms and other documentation as set by the Commonwealth and sold via the government printing services or the government contracted printing services

Therefore if Cost Recovery is to be applied for the services that the Marriage Law and Celebrant Section provides then the Marriage Act 1961 provides clear legal authority for costs to be recovered from all marrying couples, not just those using the services of a Commonwealth Marriage Celebrant.

Secondly, the Federal Government has Anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination based upon marital status. It can be argued that Cost Recovery being passed onto the 70% of couples married by Commonwealth marriage celebrants⁸ in predominantly civil marriage ceremonies means these married couples unfairly carry the burden of Cost Recovery, being treated differently from those couples married by Recognised Religious celebrants.

Thirdly, CoCA asserts that, since the High Court of Australia judgement in the Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 ( 20 June 2012) matter,⁹ where the High Court noted criteria upon which to assess whether a person held “office … under the Commonwealth”, there are now strong grounds upon which to state the status of Commonwealth marriage celebrants as “Officers of the Commonwealth”.

As such, that High Court judgement means that the “legal grounds” for specifically singling out Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants for the Regulation measures of
Commonwealth appointed Celebrants brought in 2003 is certainly not “clear”.

CoCA understands the intent of Cost Recovery is to apply the “users-pays principle”. That is that the end users of the government service pay for the benefit they receive. Clearly the Recovery Impact Statement (RIS) ⁸ that the Attorney-General’s Department produced for the Department of Finance made it clear that

The Department of Finance’s Best Practice Guidelines² and the Cost Recovery Guidelines³ also highlight the principle of consultation, the former stressing prior consultation and the latter “appropriate” consultation.

CoCA considers that allowing significant⁴ Cost Recovery Measures to be implemented at budget time, allows the Government to by-pass its own “best practice” guidelines.

As a group of providers, namely Commonwealth appointed Marriage Celebrants, of marriage services to the general public under a Commonwealth Act of Parliament we were extremely surprised to find ourselves targeted for Cost Recovery.

Coalition of Celebrant Associations Inc.
Chairperson  Robyn  L. Caine Ph: 0412294537
Vice-Chair  Ian Deegen
Secretary: Rona Goold P.O. Box 3113 Robertson N.S.W 2577
Phone: 02 48852393 

Charging Policy Team
Financial Framework Policy Branch
Department of Finance and Deregulation
John Gorton Building,
King Edward Terrace
Canberra

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

Dear Sir/ Madam

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cost Recovery Guidelines.

The Coalition of Celebrant Associations (CoCA) is recognised by the Commonwealth Attorney General as the peak body for Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants and is the only national body representing  the majority of celebrant associations in Australia.

As arranged  with your Department, CoCA appreciated the extension granted to it, to submit its response today 29^th August 2012.

CoCA has formulated its response under the following sections:

1. Transparency
2. Consultation with Stakeholders
3. End Users of Government Services/ Products
4. Clear Legal Authority for the imposition of charges
5. Cost recovery – neither efficient nor effective
6. Natural Justice
7. Conclusion

Should you require any further information  please contact CoCA as above.

Your sincerely
Rona Goold
CoCA Secretary
Wednesday 29^th August 2012

DOWNLOAD THE SUBMISSION: CoCA-DF-CRG-Submission.pdf

Finance Circular

No. 2005/09

To all FMA Act Agencies and CAC Act bodies

Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines

Purpose

This Circular replaces Finance Circular 2002/02 and announces the publication of revised Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines (the revised Guidelines).  Cost Recovery (CR) applies to all Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) agencies and also to those Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) bodies that have been notified, under sections 28 or 43 of the CAC Act, to apply the cost recovery policy.

No changes have been made to the CR policy.  The guidelines have been revised to focus more on activities, rather than agencies, and to clarify a few areas (Attachment A contains more detail of these changes).

Target Audience

This Circular is relevant to Chief Finance Officers and relevant FMA Act officials and CAC Act officers with responsibilities for existing or potential cost recovery arrangements.

Application of the Cost Recovery policy

1. The CR policy has been in place from December 2002 in respect of new or significantly amended CR arrangements and is being phased in for all existing arrangements according to a government agreed review schedule extending to 2007-2008 (refer to Attachment B).
2. Many arrangements are not cost recovery for the purposes of the policy. Exclusions include:

• any form of intra-agency or inter/intra-governmental charging;
• charges by government business enterprises. These businesses operate in competitive or potentially competitive markets and are subject to competitive neutrality principles;
• other commercial charging arrangements in competitive or potentially competitive markets that comply with competitive neutrality principles (eg. commercial research);
• general taxation;
• repayments of loans to the Australian Government;
• receipts from asset sales, rental of property, royalties, including the sale of rights to access resources;
• fines and pecuniary penalties;
• payments by customers to non-Australian Government organisations and firms where Commonwealth policies may affect prices;
• receipts from one-off specific policy measures that have explicitly been recognised by the Government as not being subject to the cost recovery policy (subject to the provisions of paragraph 19, requiring the agreement of the Minister for Finance and Administration)  – for example, where the Australian Government introduces a levy to fund an exceptional policy measure;
• charges relating to industry-government partnerships;
• statutory marketing levies; and
• fees charged by courts and tribunals.Key points regarding the application of the Cost Recovery policy
  

3.Agencies should set charges to recover all the costs of products or services where it is efficient to do so, with partial CR to apply only where new arrangements are phased in, where there are government endorsed community service obligations, or for explicit government policy purposes.

4.CR should not be applied where it is not cost effective, where it is inconsistent with government policy objectives or where it would unduly stifle competition or industry innovation.

5.Any charges should reflect the costs of providing the product or service and should generally be imposed on a fee-for-service basis or, where efficient, as a levy.

6.Agencies should ensure that all CR arrangements have clear legal authority for the imposition of charges.

7.Costs that are not directly related or integral to the provision of products or services (e.g. some policy and parliamentary servicing functions) should not be recovered. Agencies that undertake regulatory activities should generally include administration costs when determining appropriate charges.

8.Where possible CR should be undertaken on an activity (or activity group) basis rather than across the agency as a whole. CR targets on an agency-wide basis will be discontinued.

9.Products and services funded through the budget process form an agency’s ‘basic information product set’ and should not be cost recovered.  Commercial, additional and incremental products and services that are not funded through the budget process fall outside of an agency’s ‘basic product set’ and may be appropriate to cost recover.

10.Portfolio Ministers should determine the most appropriate consultative mechanisms for their agencies’ CR arrangements, where relevant.

11.CR arrangements will be considered significant (‘significant CR arrangements’) depending on both the amount of revenue and the impact on stakeholders.  A ‘significant CR arrangement’ is one where:

• an agency’s total CR receipts equal $5 million or more per annum – in this case every CR arrangement within the agency is considered, prima facie, to be significant, regardless of individual activity totals; or
• an agency’s CR receipts are below $5 million per annum, but stakeholders are likely to be materially affected by the CR initiative; or
• Ministers have determined the activity to be significant on a case-by-case basis.

1. 12.All agencies with significant CR arrangements will need to prepare Cost Recovery Impact Statements (CRIS) when:

• reviews consistent with the Australian Government’s review schedule for existing cost recovery arrangements are undertaken; or
• new cost recovery arrangements are proposed; or
• material amendments are made to existing arrangements (a general rule-of-thumb is that price changes greater than the Consumer Price Index would be considered material. However, in making a decision about materiality, agencies should also consider the likely impact on stakeholders); or

• periodic reviews of cost recovery arrangements are undertaken.

13.The chief executive, secretary or board must certify that the CRIS complies with the CR policy and provide a copy to the Department of Finance and Administration. Agencies must include a summary of the CRIS in their portfolio budget submissions and statements.

14.A CRIS will not be required where a Regulation Impact Statement that also addresses CR arrangements against the revised Guidelines has been prepared.

15.Agencies with significant CR arrangements should ensure that they undertake appropriate stakeholder consultation, including with relevant departments.

16.Agencies are to review all significant CR arrangements periodically, but no less frequently than every five years

17.Agencies will need to separately identify all CR revenues in notes to financial statements – to be published in portfolio budget statements and annual reports consistent with the Finance Minister’s Orders.

18.Portfolio Ministers are responsible for ensuring that the CR arrangements of agencies within their portfolios comply with the policy and will report on implementation and compliance in portfolio budget submissions.

19.Where a Government entity considers that a significant cost recovery arrangement that is new, materially amended or which has been reviewed, should be exempted from the CR policy, either wholly or partly, relevant Ministers must obtain the agreement of the Minister for Finance and Administration.

20.The foregoing is an outline of the requirements of the CR policy. Agencies should refer to the revised Guidelines for more comprehensive information and guidance.

Contacts

21.If you have any queries in relation to this circular please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.or visit our website at www.finance.gov.au.

22.Should you be unable to access the revised Guidelines via the Finance website you may request printed copies at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Mike Loudon
Acting Division Manager
Financial Framework Division
Financial Management Group

18 July 2005