Marriage Law and Celebrant Section – information on changes to the Marriage Celebrant progam
August 21st, 2012 | Posted by in Cost Recovery PlanAs part of the 2011–12 Budget, the Government announced that cost recovery arrangements for the Marriage Celebrants Program would be implemented from 1 July 2013.
The Department is calling for feedback from marriage celebrants and other interested stakeholders on a new Consultation Paper by 24 September 2012. The Paper has been developed after careful consideration of the feedback received to date, assessment of options and costings of the proposed changes.
An outline of the key changes is set out in Marriage Celebrant Matters. In summary, the Department is proposing the following charges from 1 July 2013:
- new application charge of $600
- annual registration charge of $240, and
- an exemption processing charge of $30.
The aim of the changes is to improve the services delivered to marriage celebrants including increased access to the Department, new technology and enhanced information. It will also allow the Department to effectively regulate marriage celebrants through strengthened application, performance review and complaints handling mechanisms. The benefits of these changes will also flow on to marrying couples as the end users of an improved Program.
For more information:
http://www.ag.gov.au/Marriage/Pages/MarriageCelebrantsProgramReforms.aspx
Release of New Consultation Paper – Submissions due 24 September 2012
- Marriage Celebrant Matters Newsletter – First Edition [DOC 2.85MB] – print friendly
- Marriage Celebrant Matters Newsletter – First Edition [PDF 1.27MB]
- Consultation Paper – Program Improvements through Cost Recovery [DOC 151KB] – print friendly
- Consultation Paper – Program Improvements through Cost Recovery [PDF 1,074KB]
Please see the Marriage Celebrant Program Reforms FAQ for additional information.
- Marriage Celebrant Program Reforms FAQs [DOC 123KB] – print friendly
- Marriage Celebrant Program Reforms FAQs [PDF 350KB]
The Department would like to thank those who attended the face-to-face meetings and/or provided the 280 written submissions for their valuable input.
- Summary of the feedback provided during the consultation meetings [DOC 159KB] – print friendly
- Presentation from national consultation meetings [PPT 235KB]
COCA RESPONSE
CoCA will be preparing materials for celebrants to consider the flow-on of these changes and their impact on celebrants and the marrying public.
Your initial comments are welcome as will be your comments when we have all had more time to examine the changes and their impact.
These will assist in creating CoCA’s response to the Attorney General.
COMMENTS:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback.
This is a straight out tax grab, regardless of what is said. Nursing suffered the same fate two years ago and
then this year a 40% increase in annual registration fees.
I agree, (like nursing) there are too many performing this task.
There will be no improvements made, it is, just as has been pointed out a job for the public service. Ultimately,
we are again paying to employ more government staff.
Be forewarned.
One concern that I have is that the issues of training, training providers and celebrants being churned out by these providers does not appear to have been addressed in the paper (unless I have missed it) other than indirectly with the new application fee of $600.
There is an oversupply of training with too many celebrants completing these courses for the number of weddings performed annually (as evidenced by the 300% increase in the number of celebrants being qualified and approved while the number of weddings remains static). Perhaps the dept needs to bite the bullet by pulling back on the number of providers as well as returning to a quota of sorts. I think that the $600 application fee is a measure that is required – although I sympathise with those currently completing the course and waiting for registration.
However, the reality is that there currently just isn’t enough work to provide all registered celebrants with a reasonable financial return and this has been exacerbated by training providers not disclosing the reality of the situation to potential students – in fact, there appears to have been a considerable amount of misinformation in the past, painting a picture of easy money to be made. Nor does the paper mention monitoring of training quality for both the qualification or OPD. It is one thing to monitor and manage Celebrants, however training and OPD providers ought to also undergo at least the equivalent scrutiny.
I agree with S K
Well only in Australia could we have to sets of classes. One is the Civil Marriage Celebrant who is penalised by the Government for its own short comings in a program that was not well thought out.and the other is the Religious celebrant where there is no penalty or fee……..imposed.
The imposition of this fee is totally Discriminatory in the light of what has been determined that we are Officers of the Commonwealth!!!
And based on the 5-6 weddings each celebrants is expected to perform that makes each wedding $40 dearer along with a clause ‘Governments Tax’ on each invoice. My email will carry a notation of this fee.
I fail to see how slugging Marriage Celebrants an annual registration fee is going to:
1. Improve the services delivered to marriage celebrants including increased access to the Department, new technology and enhanced information.
2. Allow the Department to effectively regulate marriage celebrants through strengthened application, performance review and complaints handling mechanisms.
The fact is that these should always have been in place anyway.
I am not happy about having to pay for service that has declined, increased costs of wedding stationery that we have to pay for, OPD from a flawed system based on a former government’s philosophical position on getting unemployed people trained as celebrants via CERT IVS etc.
If I am going to be forced to pay this fee I want to know the truth behind the need for a fee on Officers of the Commonwealth to deliver ceremonies.
Based on the current number of ceremonies that I am doing…by the time I have paid for OPD, association membership and registration, stationery and other associated costs I will be lucky to break even – not all celebrants are able to do this full time and not all have the opportunity to do more than 3-6 per year on average.
I like being a civil marriage celebrant. I am experienced and am good at what I do, but am now considering if this is really worthwhile.
It may do well for us to remember that it is not unusual for many professions to have an annual registration process. It is a registration fee, not a tax on our income. If it were a tax it would be tied to our income and the number of weddings conducted.
Arguably, it is unreasonable to expect to get anything more for our registration fee than the right to conduct marriages. Without being registered we cannot do so. Better service from MLCS may be a by product, but not particularly relevant. In hundreds of weddings I have needed their advice only once. Membership of a professional association mtigates the need to contact them.
That religious celebrants do not have to pay to be registered is neither here nor there. Their clients are not our clients and they are responsible to their religious body. What they do has no impact on us.
Well only in Australia could we have to sets of classes. One is the Civil Marriage Celebrant who is penalised by the Government for its own short comings in a program that was not well thought out.and the other is the Religious celebrant where there is no penalty or fee……..imposed.
The imposition of this fee is totally Discriminatory in the light of what has been determined that we are Officers of the Commonwealth!!!
And based on the 5-6 weddings each celebrants is expected to perform that makes each wedding $40 dearer along with a clause ‘Governments Tax’ on each invoice. My email will carry a notation of this fee.
How come the government has ignored its own peak body’s submission (CoCAs) that would have meant a more more efficient and effective way of recouping costs and actually increase the professional quality of ceremonies?
More jobs for the boys and girls of the public service!
This plan creates more work for the department …. to then have to employ staff who will appointment more celebrants into an over-supplied market.
Which in turn creates more work in regulating existing celebrants … then the need to employ more staff .
And who will ultimately pay – the end user – the marrying public!