Download Comparison Document

Cost Recovery for Increased Professionalism: 1. Overall Comments: In February this year, CoCA presented its submission on Cost Recovery with the AG Department’s stated aim of Increased Professionalism. Basically CoCA aimed to modify the effect of the 2003 Model of Appointment – basically an “Open Market: Just a Small Business Model” – to modify the current model towards a “Professional” model. This current model is based on the premise, that unlike religious celebrants, civil celebrants are just small businesses. A business model supports anyone wanting to start a new small business has having the right to do so, and the…

When the principles upon which this program was based were changed at the beginning of the last decade, civil celebrants were challenged by the then Attorney General, Darryl Williams to form a ‘peak body’ to gain self regulation. This challenge was picked up by many associations and individual celebrants alike. The National Council came into being at the instigation of a large number of associations. Meetings in Canberra were attended by Attorney Phillip Ruddock and his dept. Following  change of Government, further support was sought from Attorney General Robert McClelland who again reinforced the necessity of all celebrant associations forming…

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…

Meeting Cost Recovery Guidelines Equally concerning is the fact that the most cost efficient and effective mechanisms have not been proposed for the MLCS staff to regulate this program. CoCA considers that failure to limit the number of new appointments to a level to ensure celebrants are able to do sufficient wedding work to maintain and improve their professional skills especially in ceremony design and delivery ( now a legal requirement under the Code of Practice) establish an independent post-training pre-appointment standardized assessment of the knowledge and skills of prospective appointees by trained assessors tighten the definitions and guidelines in…

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. 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…

CoCA has attempted to highlight problems with its role in “monitoring” the OPD program previously with the Department. CoCA has had no part in the selection of OPD providers nor activities, nor in gaining access to any of the feedback and evaluation information that the OPD providers themselves have. This makes it difficult for CoCA to play any meaningful role, even though as the peak body CoCA is in a key position to play a much more active role in approval and monitoring of OPD. CoCA’s position is that: The current OPD system is neither cost effective, nor efficient 10,000…

CoCA considers that the Attorney General’s Department has not given due consideration to its responsibility to ensure all Australian marriages are valid. It is clear that Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants are not the only group of marriage celebrants whose performance could be improved. Recognised Religious Celebrants could benefit from more training and/or supervision in marriage law. A Marriage Licence, obtained from a universally accessible source such as Australia Post, would raise income from all marrying couples equally. The Funds so collected could then be distributed proportionally between the Commonwealth and the state/ territories. Such an approach would be not only be…

Re 4.1 Application fee for new Celebrants It is proposed that payment of the application charge will support an efficient online application process, which incorporates the following strengthened assessment measures: use of interviews of  applicants via Skype or telephone applicants will be required to supply a sample completed Notice of Intended Marriage form to assess their suitability to comply with written legal requirements (based upon a sample scenario provided by the Department) a criminal record check, and discussion with an applicant’s referee/s to clarify any issues or concerns. In principle CoCA support a separate Application Fee under Cost Recovery for…

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…