The Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 [Provisions]
Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 [Provisions]
June 2013
© Commonwealth of Australia ISBN: 978-1-74229-869-6
This document was produced by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee secretariat and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Department of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Members Senator Patricia Crossin, Chair, ALP, NT
Senator Gary Humphries, Deputy Chair, LP, ACT
Senator Sue Boyce, LP, QLD
Senator Mark Furner, ALP,
QLD Senator Louise Pratt, ALP, WA
Senator Penny Wright, AG, SA
Secretariat
Ms Julie Dennett
Ms Monika Sheppard
Ms Elise Williamson
Suite S1.61 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600
Committee Secretary Senior Research Officer Administrative Officer
Telephone: (02) 6277 3560 Fax: (02) 6277 5794 Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ........................ iii
RECOMMENDATION........................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
Purpose of the bills ........................................................................... 1
Previous consultations on measures contained in the bills....................... 1
Key provisions of the bills................................................................... 4
Conduct of the inquiry........................................................................ 5
Acknowledgement ............................................................................. 5
Note on references............................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................... 7
KEY ISSUES..................................................................................... 7
Imposition of charge on Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants only ..... 7
Amount of the registration charge........................................................ 9
De-registration as a consequence of not paying the registration charge..... 11
Committee view.............................................................................. 2
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................. 15
SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED............................................................... 15
APPENDIX 2 .................................................................................. 21
WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ................. 21
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation 1
2.30 The committee recommends that the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 be passed.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 20 March 2013, the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 (Administration and Fees Bill) and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 (Charge Bill) were introduced into the House of Representatives by the Attorney-General, the Hon Mark Dreyfus QC MP.1 On 21 March 2013, the Senate referred the provisions of both bills to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (committee) for inquiry and report by 18 June 2013.2
Purpose of the bills
1.2 All persons who solemnise marriages in Australia must be authorised under Division 1 of Part IV of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) (Marriage Act). That Division establishes three categories of authorised celebrants:
- ministers of religion of a recognised denomination, proclaimed under section 26 of the Marriage Act, who are nominated by their denomination and who are registered and regulated by state and territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Subdivision A);
- state and territory officers who are authorised to perform marriages as part of their duties, and who are registered and regulated by state and territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Subdivision B); and
- Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants (celebrants) who are regulated under the Marriage Celebrants Program administered by the Attorney-General's Department (Department) (Subdivision C). This group includes civil celebrants, and celebrants who are ministers of religion whose denomination is not proclaimed under section 26 of the Marriage Act.
1.3 The bills seek to implement a 2011-12 Budget measure, to introduce cost recovery for the third category only from 1 July 2013.3
Previous consultations on measures contained in the bills
1.4 In 2011 and 2012, the Department conducted two public consultations on the cost recovery measure announced in the 2011-12 Budget. The peak representative body for celebrants, the Coalition of Celebrant Associations (CoCA), was involved in both the 2011 consultation and the 2012 consultation.
1 House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings, No. 159-20 March 2013, p. 2186.
2 Senate, Journals of the Senate, No. 143-21 March 2013, pp 3865 and 3867.
3 Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 (Administration and Fees Bill), Explanatory Memorandum (EM), p. 2; Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 (Charge Bill), EM, p. 2.
2011 consultation
1.5 In late 2011, the Department consulted publicly on the introduction of an annual registration fee (2011 consultation). Seventeen face-to-face meetings were held nationally throughout October and November 2011, and over 280 written submissions were received by December 2011 in response to a call for submissions.4
1.6 The Department reported the key issues arising from the 2011 consultation, and advised that these matters would be considered by the Department as it developed the reform.5 As part of its report, the Department also outlined the key stages of the reform, which included the release of a consultation paper in mid-late 2012 to allow interested stakeholders a further opportunity to comment on the proposals.6
2012 consultation
1.7 In August 2012, the Marriage Celebrants Program, Program Improvements through Cost Recovery consultation paper was released (consultation paper), with the Department calling for submissions by 24 September 2012 (2012 consultation). The paper detailed the proposed cost recovery arrangements, as well as proposed key changes to the Marriage Celebrants Program. The Department explained the dual purpose of the reform:
While cost recovery will form an integral part of the Program once implemented, the Department is also determined to provide improved services and value for money to Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants. The benefits of proper regulation of the Program will also flow on to marrying couples as the end users of an improved Program.7
1.8 The consultation paper acknowledged the significant feedback received from stakeholders during the 2011 consultation, particularly in relation to the charging structure and proposed improvement to services:
[T]he Department has considered ways to improve its service delivery to, and regulation of, marriage celebrants. It engaged an external consultant to cost this service delivery and regulation and formulate a charging structure that would prove reasonable, as well as reflect value for money for celebrants. A 'bottom up' methodology was used to cost the charging
4 Attorney-General's Department (AGD), Summary of Consultations on Marriage Celebrants Program Reforms (Summary of Consultations), p. 1, available at: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/ChangestotheMarriageCelebrants Program.aspx (accessed 26 March 2013).
5 AGD, Summary of Consultations, p. 2.
6 AGD, Summary of Consultations, pp 2-3.
7 AGD, Marriage Celebrants Program, Program Improvements through Cost Recovery, Consultation Paper (2012 Consultation Paper), August 2012, p. 1, available at: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/ChangestotheMarriageCelebrants Program.aspx (accessed 26 March 2013).
structure, involving a detailed analysis of the celebrant population and the relevant steps in each proposed [process] with improved efficiencies.8
1.9 The Department advised in August 2012 that the following charges would apply to the Marriage Celebrants Program from 1 July 2013:
- a $600 fee for persons applying for registration as a celebrant (application fee);
- an annual charge of $240 for registered celebrants (registration charge); and • a $30 processing fee for applications for exemption from either the
application fee or the registration charge (processing fee).9
1.10 The consultation paper noted the proposition that the registration charge could be based on a sliding scale. However, 'the Department considered the principles of fairness and equity in how it delivers services to celebrants' and concluded that a flat fee ought to be charged:
[T]he Department carefully considered the argument that many celebrants perform few weddings and should therefore be subject to a lower charge. To do so under a cost recovery arrangement, the Department would be required to demonstrate that it more actively regulates those celebrants that perform more marriages. Given that it can also be argued that those celebrants who perform more weddings may require less regulatory effort from the Department, a sliding charge is unsuitable.10
1.11 The consultation paper indicated also that exemptions from payment would be available to celebrants operating in remote, very remote or migratory areas (as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Remoteness Structure classifications), and those celebrants affected by 'special circumstances'.11 A brief description of what might constitute 'special circumstances' was provided in the consultation paper:
'Special circumstances' are beyond the celebrant's control in situations which a reasonable person would consider is not due to the celebrant's action or inaction, either direct or indirect, and for which the celebrant is not responsible. The situation must be unusual, uncommon or abnormal to celebrants and the profession generally. It might include serious ill health at a level that renders the marriage celebrant unable to perform their duties as a marriage celebrant, family issues or extended periods of leave.12
8 AGD, 2012 Consultation Paper, August 2012, p. 2.
9 AGD, 2012 Consultation Paper, August 2012, p. 2.
10 AGD, 2012 Consultation Paper, August 2012, p. 3. Also see: AGD, Submission 108, pp 5-6.
11 AGD, 2012 Consultation Paper, August 2012, pp 3-4. An indicative guide to residential postcodes fulfilling the Australian Bureau of Statistics' criteria was provided at p. 8.
12 AGD, 2012 Consultation Paper, August 2012, p. 4.
1.12 As in the 2011 consultation, the Department outlined the next stages of the reform, including the development of a Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS). The CRIS is intended to reflect the outcomes of the two consultations and will be made available on the Department's website by 30 June 2013.13
1.13 The Department advised that 72 submissions were received in relation to the 2012 consultation, leading to two meetings with CoCA to discuss the proposed changes.14
Key provisions of the bills
1.14 The key provisions of the two bills are described below.
Administration and Fees Bill
1.15 The Administration and Fees Bill seeks to amend the Marriage Act to:
- create the registration charge (proposed new subsection 39FA(1), item 3 of Schedule 1), and provide for the deregistration of celebrants who do not pay the charge, or who are not exempted from paying the charge, by the charge payment day (proposed new section 39FB, item 3 of Schedule 1);
- allow for the imposition, by way of regulations, of the application fee (proposed new subsection 39D(1B), item 6 of Schedule 1);
- provide for exemptions from payment, by way of regulations (proposed new paragraphs 39FA(3)(a) and 39D(1C)(a), items 3 and 6 of Schedule 1), and allow for the imposition of the processing fee (proposed new paragraphs 39FA(3)(b) and 39D(1C)(b), items 3 and 6 of Schedule 1);
- change the requirements relating to performance reviews of celebrants (proposed new subsection 39H(1), item 2 of Schedule 2), to repeal the requirement for five-yearly reviews and instead institute discretionary and targeted reviews by the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants; and
- increase the efficiency and operation of the Marriage Celebrants Program (Part 1 of Schedule 2).15
13 AGD, 2012 Consultation Paper, August 2012, p. 7. Note: the Cost Recovery Impact Statement was provided in evidence to the inquiry: see AGD, Submission 108, Attachment 1.
14 See: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/ChangestotheMarriageCelebrants Program.aspx (accessed 26 March 2013).
15 Administration and Fees Bill, EM, p. 2. The last two purposes are not related to cost recovery, which is the main purpose of the Administration and Fees Bill. Instead, these two purposes are described as being minor administrative improvements to the Marriage Celebrants Program: see p. 2.
Charge Bill
1.16 The Charge Bill seeks to provide legislative authority for the Commonwealth to charge celebrants an annual cost recovery levy.16 The key provisions of this bill:
- impose the registration charge each financial year in accordance with proposed new section 39FA of the Marriage Act (clause 6);
- provide that the amount of the registration charge is to be determined by the Attorney-General, by legislative instrument, and is not to exceed the statutory limit (subclause 7(1)); and
- sets a statutory limit of $600 on the registration charge for the financial year commencing 1 July 2013, to be indexed annually in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (subclause 8(1)).17
Conduct of the inquiry
1.17 The committee advertised the inquiry in The Australian on 27 March 2013. Details of the inquiry, including links to the bills and associated documents, were placed on the committee's website at www.aph.gov.au/senate_legalcon. The committee also wrote to 26 organisations and individuals, inviting submissions by 26 April 2013. Submissions continued to be accepted after that date.
1.18 The committee received 113 submissions and a number of form letters for this inquiry, which are listed at Appendix 1. All submissions and some examples of the form letters were published on the committee’s website.
1.19 The committee held a public hearing on 24 May 2013 at Parliament House in Canberra. A list of witnesses who appeared at the hearing is at Appendix 2, and the Hansardtranscript is available through the committee's website.
Acknowledgement
1.20 The committee thanks those organisations and individuals who made submissions and who gave evidence at the public hearing.
Note on references
1.21 References to the committee Hansardare to the proof Hansard. Page numbers may vary between the proof and the official Hansardtranscript.
16 Charge Bill, EM, p. 2. 17 Charge Bill, cls 6-8.
Page 5
CHAPTER 2 KEY ISSUES
2.1 Most submitters to the committee's inquiry expressed strong opposition to the bills and, in doing so, supported the views and recommendations made in the Coalition of Celebrant Associations' (CoCA) submission. CoCA is the peak representative body for marriage celebrant associations in Australia.
2.2 Some of the issues raised in submissions and evidence included:
• the perceived 'discriminatory' imposition of a registration charge on Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants, and not on other categories of authorised marriage celebrants;
• objections to the amount of the registration charge; and • opposition to deregistration as the sanction for non-payment of the registration
charge.
Imposition of charge on Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants only
2.3 Most submitters commented on the apparent differential treatment of Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants, compared to other persons authorised to solemnise marriages in Australia, by the imposition of the registration charge on that category of authorised celebrants only. CoCA argued that, by not applying to all categories of authorised celebrants, the bills:
...impose unfair conditions upon which [Commonwealth-registered celebrants'] services can be terminated upon specific grounds not applicable to other categories of [authorised celebrants] even though all three categories provide the same government approved service of legal marriage to the Australian community[.]1
2.4 Both CoCA and the Civil Celebrants' Graduate Association (Monash) (CCGA) questioned the equity in requiring only Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants to contribute to cost recovery. CoCA submitted that, since the Attorney-General's Department (Department) provides services to all authorised celebrants, as well as members of the public, Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants alone should not be funding those government services.2 CCGA similarly considered it 'unfair' to target only one category of authorised celebrant.3
1
2 3
Submission 35, [p. 16]. Also see, for example: Civil Celebrants' Graduate Association (Monash) (CCGA), Submission 49, p. 5.
Submission 35, [p. 19]. Submission 49, p. 5.
Page 8
2.5 Several submitters argued that costs should be recovered directly from all marrying couples, rather than the person conducting the marriage ceremony.4 CoCA took the view that this would, among other things, be a fairer and more effective method of cost recovery, and would allow for the Marriage Law and Celebrants Section in the Department to be funded by all persons using its services, not just Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants.5
2.6 This view was not, however, shared by all submitters and witnesses. For example, the North Queensland Celebrants Networking Group supported the creation and imposition of the registration charge on Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants only.6
2.7 Similarly, the Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants (AFCC) submitted that the proposals in the bills:
- are a practical and equitable way to reduce the number of registered celebrants;
- are consistent with the principle of 'user pays'; and
- will fund improved services to celebrants by the Department.7
2.8 At the public hearing, Mr Alan Milson from the AFCC elaborated on these arguments:
Celebrants do operate as a commercial venture and are paid for their services...[I]t should not be the general taxpayer that pays for the maintenance of a register and the other necessary management of the celebrant program but those that financially benefit from the existence of the program...[T]he reality is that celebrants are the commercial beneficiary of the program and should be the point of payment.8
Departmental response
2.9 With respect to the proposal to recover costs directly from Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants, the Department advised that various options for cost recovery had been considered; however, the option of recovering costs from marrying couples is not consistent with the Australian Government's cost recovery principles.9 The Cost Recovery Guidelines provide that '(u)sers of the Australian Government's information products being cost recovered or
4 For example: Australian Marriage Celebrants (AMC), Submission 44, [p. 4]; Alliance of Celebrants Queensland, Submission 47, p. 2; CCGA, Submission 49, pp 5-6; Association of Civil Marriage Celebrants of Victoria, (ACMCV), Submission 50, [p. 4].
5 Submission 35, [pp 12, 17 and 19]. Also see: ACMCV, Submission 50, [p. 4]. 6 Submission 1, p. 2. 7 Submission 2, p. 2. 8 Committee Hansard, 24 May 2013, p. 6.
9 Submission 108, p. 5.
individuals/groups that have created the need for regulation should pay cost recovery charges'.10
2.10 The Department confirmed that the end-users of the Marriage Celebrants Program administered by the Department are the Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants from whom costs will be recovered. Further, the other two categories of authorised celebrants are not part of the cost recovery model because they do not receive the same support and benefits from the Marriage Celebrants Program:
...significant legislative, policy and administrative amendments [would be required] to recover a fee from a new class of people that [is] currently not subject to significant interaction with the department.11
Amount of the registration charge
2.11 A number of submitters expressed concern with the proposed amount of the registration charge: $240, commencing 1 July 2013. Many submitters described how they expect the amount of the registration charge will affect their personal circumstances.
2.12 CoCA explained that those celebrants with 'other employment or private resources' will be able to afford the registration charge. However, those more likely not to be able to afford the charge would include:
- longer-term celebrants who mentor newer celebrants,
- more experienced celebrants who have caring responsibilities for partners, parents or grand-children,
- full-time civil celebrants who like religious celebrants provide a range of other ceremonies, particularly civil funeral ceremonies.12
2.13 expertise and experience of large numbers of Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants:
CoCA argued that the impost of the charge will result in a diminution of the
The standard of the profession overall will be diminished by the loss of this knowledge and expertise, simply on the basis of a crude cutting numbers measure by the government.13
10 Department of Finance and Administration, Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines, June 2005, p. 40, available at: http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/finance- circulars/2005/09.html#FMG_4 (accessed 28 May 2013).
11 Submission 108, p. 5.
12 Submission 35, [p. 25].
13 Submission 35, [p. 25]. Also see: Civil Celebrants' Graduate Association (Monash) (CCGA), Submission 49, p. 4; ACMCV, Submission 50, [p. 1].
2.14 On the other hand, Mr Milson from the AFCC expressed the view that $240 is a small sum over a 12-month period:
[T]he fee will professionalise the conception of, 'I have got to put this amount of costs into this business, or into this profession, to be able to make a return'. That will adjust the hobbyist out of the profession and also possibly increase costs to an acceptable level.14
Departmental response
2.15 A departmental representative acknowledged the concern of stakeholders regarding the capacity of some celebrants to pay the $240 registration charge. The Department explained that there has been an attempt to address this concern, by costing the charge based on 'what celebrants really want from the [D]epartment' and by providing for exemptions from payment:
[T]he key thing from the [D]epartment's perspective is to demonstrate the value that [the Department] would provide in response to that fee paid by the celebrants. That is something that is coming up in the future, if the legislation is passed on 1 July.15
2.16 The submission from the Department noted that the costing arrangements will be reviewed at least every five years. In this regard, the Department has undertaken to review the costing model before 1 July 2016, in consultation with stakeholders.
2.17 In response to the suggestion by some submitters and witnesses that the Marriage Act should provide for a cap on the number of registered celebrants, or some form of capping mechanism to reduce the number of marriage celebrants, the Department explained that such proposals would not be a viable or efficient way to manage celebrant numbers and ensure professionalism within the industry:
Experience with the 2003-08 'cap' on new registrations...indicates that the cap did not dissuade people from applying to become a celebrant, but rather led to extensive waiting lists for aspiring celebrants who ultimately became registered before the cap expired (due to the increase in the cap in 2006) or at its expiry in 2008. A regional appointment process is also incongruous with the ability of marriage celebrants to marry couples anywhere in Australia once registered.17
Committee Hansard, 24 May 2013, p. 7. Mr Peter Arnaudo, AGD, Committee Hansard, 24 May 2013, p. 11. Submission 108, p. 4. Submission 108, p. 8.
De-registration as a consequence of not paying the registration charge
2.18 A large number of submitters expressed concern with the proposed consequences of non-payment of the registration charge, with two arguments featuring prominently in submissions: first, registered celebrants are authorised for life;18 and, second, deregistration at short notice could adversely affect marrying couples.19
2.19 At the public hearing, Mr Milson from the AFCC informed the committee that he did not consider that registration as a celebrant is a 'life time appointment'; he also expressed the view that registered celebrants are 'authorised to perform marriages, not appointed to a position, and that authorisation is a privilege not a right'.20
2.20 Further:
[Any argument that deregistration will be detrimental to the marrying public] is unfounded as [the AFCC] cannot envisage any situation where a celebrant who has consciously agreed to book and prepare for a wedding with the intention of not paying the fee would be registered.21
2.21 Many submitters objected also to deregistration as a consequence of not having paid the registration charge, rather than deregistration being due to below-par professional performance.22
2.22 In CoCA's view:
[T]here is absolutely no justification for the government to remove the right to continue to practice as a [celebrant] if one continues to be a [f]it and [p]roper [p]erson simply on the basis of the non-payment of an annual fee.
Removing ongoing lifetime appointments (by removing 5 yearly reviews of performance) [and replacing that] with annual appointment based upon ability to pay a fee (rather than poor performance):
• has serious and unnecessary consequences for the marrying public,
• is a disproportionally harsh consequence for the non-payment of [a] fee,
• is discriminatory in its being only applicable to one [c]ategory of [authorised] [c]elebrant[.]23
18 For example: CoCA, Submission 35, [p. 5]; AMC, Submission 44, [p. 2]; CCGA, Submission 49, p. 3; ACMCV, Submission 50, [p. 2]; Civil Celebrations Network (CCN), Submission 46, p. 2.
19 For example: AMC, Submission 44, [p. 5]; CCN, Submission 46, p. 2; CCGA, Submission 49, pp 3-4; ACMCV, Submission 50, [p. 2].
20 Mr Alan Milson, AFCC, Committee Hansard, 24 May 2013, p. 6. 21 Committee Hansard, 24 May 2013, p. 6. 22 For example: AMC, Submission 44, [p. 5]; ACMCV, Submission 50, [p. 2]. 23 Submission 35, [p. 32]. Also see: CCN, Submission 46, p. 2.
2.23 Mr Milson from the AFCC, however, did not agree:
[D]eregistration as a result of non-payment is an uncomplicated, low-cost and less time-consuming procedure to remove non-practising or noncompliant entities and is...a method of retaining the contemporaneousness of the register.24
Departmental response
2.24 The Department confirmed that registration as a marriage celebrant does not equate to a 'lifetime appointment', and emphasised that registration is subject to compliance with certain obligations:
[A] celebrant who does not meet these obligations can be deregistered...The introduction of an annual cost recovery charge imposes a new obligation upon celebrants (similar to existing obligations to undertake annual ongoing professional development, acting in a fit and proper manner and updating the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants of any change in their circumstances).25
2.25 The Department explained that the concerns of marriage celebrants in relation to 'accidental deregistration' have been addressed:
• by allowing ample opportunity for registered celebrants to pay the registration charge (30 days, but 60 days during the first two years of enactment);26 and
• by foreshadowing, and raising awareness of, the potential introduction of the registration charge.
Committee view
2.26 Marriage celebrants operate businesses and are paid for their services. Since Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants are the clear users and financial beneficiaries of the Marriage Celebrants Program administered by the Department, the committee considers that they should contribute financially to its administration and maintenance. The proposals are fully consistent with the Australian Government's Cost Recovery Guidelines and have been the subject of extensive and ongoing consultations, and targeted awareness campaigns, since 2011.
2.27 In the circumstances, therefore, the committee does not consider the amount of the proposed charge to be unreasonable or excessive. The committee notes advice from the Department that the amount of $240 has been costed after taking into account the concerns of stakeholders (as expressed during the 2011 consultation process), balanced with the objective of providing improved services under the Marriage Celebrants Program. The committee also understands that the costing model will be reviewed before 1 July 2016.
2.28 In relation to de-registration as a consequence of non-payment of the charge, the committee agrees that such an approach is an 'uncomplicated, low-cost' procedure that will remove any non-practising or non-compliant celebrants from the register to assist in reducing the number of marriage celebrants in Australia. The committee considers that payment of the charge is a condition of being authorised to solemnise marriages in Australia as a marriage celebrant, and one with which a celebrant must comply if they wish to continue to solemnise marriages – in the same way that other professions and industries are regulated and required to pay registration fees as a condition of providing their services to the public.
2.29 Accordingly, the committee concludes that the bills should be passed.
Recommendation 1
2.30 The committee recommends that the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 be passed.
Senator Trish Crossin Chair
APPENDIX 1 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED
Submission Number Submitter
1 North Queensland Celebrants Networking Group
2 Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants
3 Ms Sheryl Massey
4 Mrs Roslyn McFarlane
5 Mr Brian Davies
6 Name Withheld
7 Mr Mario Anders
8 Ms Jacqueline Hope
9 Name Withheld
10 Ms Lee van Dyken-Schabe
11 Name Withheld
12 Ms Maxine Lowry
13 Ms Mi-Chelle Nixon-Young
14 Mr Ange Kenos
15 Ms Margaret McCormack
16 Mr Craig Moran
17 Name Withheld 18 Mr Greg Cudmore
19 Ms Heather Blackstock 20 Ms Sandra Hill 21 Name Withheld
22 Name Withheld 23 Mr Philip Greentree 24 Name Withheld 25 Ms Jenny Grierson 26 Ms Ruth Pilens 27 Ms Sally Cant 28 Ms Narelle Tudehope 29 Name Withheld 30 Ms Ruth Cason 31 Mrs Jennifer Cram 32 Name Withheld 33 Mr Robert Smith 34 Ms Edith Rice 35 Coalition of Celebrant Associations 36 Ms Gina Callan 37 Mr Gordon Munday 38 Ms Sonia Collins 39 Name Withheld 40 Mr Val Dean 41 Mrs Yvonne Wood 42 International College of Celebrancy 43 Ms Claire Goodwin 44 Australian Marriage Celebrants 45 Name Withheld 46 Civil Celebrations Network
47 Alliance of Celebrants Queensland 48 Marriage Celebrants Australia 49 Civil Celebrants Graduate Association (Monash) 50 Association of Civil Marriage Celebrants of Victoria 51 Ms Dawn Dickson 52 Ms Julie Dober 53 Name Withheld 54 Name Withheld 55 Ms Margaret MacGregor 56 Ms Leisa Stenton 57 Name Withheld 58 Mrs Patricia Howson 59 Ms Sharon Norris 60 Mr Dale Cole 61 Ms Robbie Fincham 62 Mrs Liz Pforr 63 Mrs Lisa Ambler 64 Ms Cheryl Langley
65 Ms Mary Sargent
66 Ms Karen Wilmot
67 Mr Stanislaw Karasinski
68 Mr Peter Hooper
69 Mrs Leanne Smith
70 Name Withheld
71 Name Withheld
72 Mrs Jill Fry
73 Mrs Fiona Romanin
74 Ms Maarit Kasurinen
75 Ms Ann Browne
76 Ms Keri Alexander
77 Ms Sharon Dennis
78 Ms Cecilia Te Amo
79 Mr David Hart
80 Ms Judith Connor
81 Ms Rebecca Skinner
82 Ms Julie O'Kane-Ginn
83 Ms Marie McGrath-Kerr
84 Ms Helen Murray
85 Ms Rona Goold
86 Ms Beryl Stevens 87 Humanist Celebrant Network
88 Mr Trevor Warburton
89 Mrs Janette Butler-Grech
90 Name Withheld
91 Name Withheld
92 Name Withheld
93 Name Withheld
94 Name Withheld
95 South East Australia Civil Marriage Celebrants Association
96 Name Withheld
97 Ms Alanne McIlroy de Baladron
98 Mrs Megan Wilson
99 Ms Michelle Paterson
100 Ms Janice Woolrych
101 Mr Lionel Goodacre
102 Name Withheld
103 Ms Merrilyn Williams
104 Ms Denise Edwards 105 Ms Diane Knevitt
106 Ms Fay Creighton
107 MrsRLBird
108 Attorney-General's Department
109 Mr Charles Foley
110 Ms Julie Weston
111 Ms Meg Boswell
112 Ms Jennifer Tighe
113 Name Withheld
FORM LETTERS RECEIVED
1 Form Letter 1 received from 16 submitters (this number includes variations of the form letter)
2 Form Letter 2 received from 6 submitters (this number includes variations of the form letter)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED
Document tabled by the Coalition of Celebrant Associations at public hearing on 24 May 2013
Response to question on notice provided by the Attorney-General's Department on 29 May 2013
APPENDIX 2
WITNESSES WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
Canberra, 24 May 2013
ARNAUDO, Mr Peter, Assistant Secretary, Marriage and Intercountry Adoption, Attorney-General's Department
BOGAART, Ms Esther, Acting Principal Legal Officer, Marriage Law and Celebrants Section, Attorney-General's Department
DAVIS, Mrs Susan, Registrar of Marriage Celebrants, Marriage Law and Celebrants Section, Attorney-General's Department
GOOLD, Ms Rona, Secretary, Coalition of Celebrant Associations; Delegate, Civil Celebrations Network
MILSON, Mr Alan, Vice President, Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants
NAGEL, Mrs Gail, Public Officer, Coalition of Celebrant Associations; Delegate, Australian Marriage Celebrants
WERNER, Ms Yvonne, Minute Secretary, Coalition of Celebrant Associations; Delegate, International College of Celebrancy Alumni and Friends Association
