CoCA still maintains that  this approach, which provides taxpayer  support to State Registered celebrants (mainly recognized religious), yet charges Commonwealth celebrants (mainly civil) is discriminatory.

The August 2012 Discussion  Paper states:

While  the Department is required to perform some administrative work in relation to categories (a) and (b) (eg maintaining the List of All Authorised Marriage Celebrants and proclaiming recognised denominations), the cost of doing so will not be  subsidised by the annual registration charge.

CoCA’s proposed model applies the same principles to all marriage celebrants – civil and religious, state and commonwealth. It is a model that was not possible to put in place prior to the 2003 changes before training programs were in place, and certainly unable to be foreseen in the middle of the last century when Sir Garfield Barwick created a very practical and common sense law to meet the needs of the nation at that time.

CoCA’s Cost Recovery Submission aimed to minimize discrimination by basing our recommendations on similar principles to those applying to the appointment and regulation of the Recognised Religious and State Registry Marriage Officers, and conversely recommending that similar requirements for ongoing registration as a celebrant be applied to all celebrants – state and commonwealth alike.

We strongly believe CoCA and its associations have identified all the elements to bring in a new model that both removes the entrenched religious discrimination in the Marriage Act, which Departmental staff agree is there, yet at the same time allow religious freedom and respect for all marriage celebrants and the couples who choose their services.

We believe our CoCA model would remove the unfair dismissal conditions about to turn Commonwealth celebrants into annual contractors, yet leave
Recognised Religious Celebrants, some of whom are ignorant of Marriage Law, still able to do marriages and to continue see their religious marriages as the “real” marriages and the State’s involvement as secondary.

CoCA is also gravely considered that the standing of Independent Marriage Celebrants will decrease even further in public arena. It will only take the odd media story for couples will come to understand the instability of Commonwealth marriage celebrants as “annual contractors”, that they may
not only have to check whether such a celebrant is registered when they book them, but that they may also have to check they are still registered at times
closer to their marriage.

Rigorous compliance demands have not and will not improve the celebrant program or professionalism overall whilst the sector continues to appoint
unlimited numbers of celebrants, the difficulty of guaranteeing uniform training standards in the VET sector, and inadequate selection processes to name a few key counter forces.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

An Independent Review or Inquiry of the 2003 changes to the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrant Program as foreshadowed in 2003, with the view to ensuring that State and Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants are treated fairly upon the same model “celebrancy as a profession” whether providing religious or civil ceremonies.