White Paper

Effect of Uncontrolled or Ineffectively Controlled Deregulation on Australia’s Marriage Celebrant Program since the 2003 Changes/Reforms to the Program.

Prepared by Tony Gelme
President Coalition of Celebrant Associations CoCA

PART A - April Issue

1.   Background

2.   The 2003 Changes to the Marriage Celebrant Program

3.   Effect of the 2003 Changes on the Marrying Public

PART B - July  Issue.

4.   Marriage Celebrant Training

5.   Perspective from a Marriage Celebrant’s Viewpoint

6.   Uncontrolled or Ineffectively Controlled Deregulation of the Marriage Celebrant Program

7.   The cost to the Australian Taxpayer of this increasingly expensive Government program

8.   Some Considerations in Addressing these Problems PART B

4. Marriage Celebrant Training

With the desirable requirement for celebrants to be trained before appointment, the quality, scope and availability of that training provided in the period 2003 - 2010 urgently needs to be reviewed. Prior to 2003 celebrants were appointed after satisfying the Fit and Proper Person Criteria of the Attorney-General’s Department (without a requirement to complete any mandatory training). Only a few were appointed to each electorate dependent on the size of the community. In effect, all civil marriage celebrants were appointed on the basis of specific community or ethnic needs, and it often was a matter of waiting for dead man’s (or woman’s) shoes. People wanting to be celebrants were placed on a waiting list. Some waited anywhere from 5 to 15 years before their appointment. Those desiring to be marriage celebrants needed a high degree of determination and love for their desired occupation.

Training of marriage celebrants, prior to 2003, was a matter of the Attorney-General’s Department providing a Starter Pack of ‘Marriage Act’, ‘Information for Marriage Celebrants’ and an initial quantity of official forms and a marriage register. Then, in addition to on-the-job learning, they were well supported by other marriage celebrants, marriage celebrant associations (who provided training workshops and ongoing advice) and by contact with helpful public servants at the Attorney-General’s Department and at Registry Offices throughout Australia. As appointments were electorate based, and limited to community needs, there was little feeling of competition amongst celebrants and they willingly helped each other with advice, procedures, materials and other support for those who were newly appointed and feeling their way. It worked well, although celebrants themselves, over the years, constantly called for initial training and orientation for new appointees. It was considered unfair to new celebrants, and to the marrying public, to not provide some initial training for such an important community role. The marriage celebrant’s call for training was ignored year after year until 2003.

With the introduction of marriage celebrant training in 2003, the competency based TAFE style training course, known as ‘Plan Conduct & Evaluate a Marriage Ceremony’ was a fairly useful program with one unit of 4 components on strictly marriage celebrant issues. There was an emphasis on legal procedures and requirements and on legal compliance. After accreditation and registration every marriage celebrant, new and longer appointed, was also required to complete annual Ongoing Professional Development obligations (around 5 hours per years) and be subject to a formal review within each 5 year period ( a “Clayton’s” review that does not include any personal interview or observation of performance).

Quickly complaints began to surface within and outside the marriage celebrant community. The emphasis on legal requirements, although important, failed to include many other studies necessary for comprehensive training to be a marriage celebrant. Amongst these were public speaking, creative writing, ceremony creation and small business operations. Further complaints materialised as differing standards of new celebrant training became apparent. Some aspiring marriage celebrants benefited greatly from high quality training delivered by experienced marriage celebrants in institutions with a dedication to quality standards. Others were provided with the required Statement of Attainment by entrepreneurial trainers who were not marriage celebrants or who were newly appointed celebrants who had done no weddings or very few.

Marriage Celebrant training course (Plan Conduct & Review a Marriage Ceremony) varied from small classes of around 6 to 12 trainees in either part time courses of about 3 months, or full time courses of 5 or 6 days, conducted by institutions with high standards and well qualified instructors. At the same time new opportunistic marriage celebrant training entrepreneurs offered the same qualification in large classes of between 30 and 50 trainees over two to three days full time, or the equivalent part time or by correspondence, conducted by trainers without much or any marriage celebrant experience.

Combined with no interview, selection or entry criteria for aspiring marriage celebrants, there was an obvious opportunity for, not necessarily suitable people, to qualify as marriage celebrants, without acquiring sufficient knowledge to carry out their responsibilities. Since the initially hopeful days of new marriage celebrant training in 2003, larger, more capable training institutions have found it harder and harder to compete, in providing quality training, at the prices acceptable to students – particularly, when some celebrant training services available across Australia, offer what appears, on the face of it, equivalent training at half the price, or less, of that provided by quality trainers. The situation now is, a number of the better trainers have already gone out of business, more are being forced into going the same way and entrepreneurial opportunistic training institutions are dominating the market. While the entrepreneurial trainer is filling classes of 30 – 50 at a time with people who have gone through no selection process, quality trainers who must charge a reasonable figure to provide required training and maintain standards, are struggling to find even half a dozen people to start a class.

In response to concerns expressed by marriage celebrants and the community the Attorney-General has now agreed to a higher standard of training being necessary before appointment as a marriage celebrant. The new qualification, Certificate IV in Celebrancy, came into effect in February 2010. There are 13 units to complete to acquire a satisfactory pass. Entrepreneurial trainers have already shown little regard for provision of satisfactory training to aspiring celebrants and are already amongst the first to gain accreditation to offer the new Certificate IV in Celebrancy.

There is still no change in the basic Fit and Proper Person Criteria of the Attorney-General’s Department, no effective suitability assessment, or interview process and no reason to believe trainers with a track record of failing to observe quality standards, or satisfy competency assessments, will be any better in providing the new Certificate IV in Celebrancy.

There had been a hope a higher training standard may weed out some of the more unsuitable aspiring marriage celebrant trainees and help to slow the ongoing influx of new marriage celebrants. Where there were around 1500 to 2000 civil marriage celebrants in 2003 and people had no difficulty locating an experienced and able celebrant for their wedding, there are now around 12,000 marriage celebrants, with many more appointed as their applications were assessed before the February 2010 new training standard started to have effect. The availability of civil marriage celebrants has already exceeded saturation levels (when there were 1500 and 2000 celebrants, averaging 30 weddings each per annum in 2003, now in February 2010 having 12,000 celebrants – and no more weddings – tells its own story).

While mentioning training it is also relevant to mention - mandatory Ongoing Professional Development for all practising marriage celebrants – has received much criticism from celebrants as often being irrelevant, or delivered unprofessionally, or of a standard such as “teaching your grandmother how to suck eggs”.

5. Perspective from a Marriage Celebrant’s Viewpoint

As a result of massive oversupply, lower initial training standards and no significant increase in marriages in Australia, marriage celebrants have fewer opportunities to practise their craft, to improve their knowledge and to gain and maintain the expertise they and their clients so desperately need.

As previously mentioned, massive oversupply has led to the majority of marriage celebrants becoming part-time. It has also developed intense price competition where “cheap and cheaper” has become more important than quality, service, value, etc. As a result few marriage celebrants are making enough to make ends meet. Many are providing marriage celebrancy services (which can entail up to 10 to 15 hours per wedding) at less than cost. With required operational costs including costs of training, vehicle, insurance, overhead and general expenses, most have insufficient income to meet outgoings.

The public, while knowing little or nothing about the qualities of marriage celebrants has been quick to learn they can easily “get a deal”. They are also unfortunately beginning to realise many marriage celebrants are not very good! As more and more disappointed couples suffer unfortunate experiences with their wedding days, the reputation of marriage celebrants continues to fall. Even the very good, knowledgeable and talented marriage celebrants have daily requests to lower their prices and provide minimal services. Where once marriage celebrants were proud of their calling, delighted to offer outstanding services and provide wonderful lifetime memories, many are now feeling ashamed of their profession and no longer have the same dedication and feelings about their craft.

And it continues – more and more marriage celebrants – often with less and less ability. Far too many celebrants with nothing more to offer than a price! No increase in the numbers of weddings in Australia, less opportunity to practice and improve their skills. In all a depressing occupation with no hope of improvement unless and until government policy changes – unless government sees the reality from the public’s point of view – the quality trainers point of view and the marriage celebrants’ point of view.

6. Uncontrolled or Ineffectively Controlled Deregulation of the Marriage Celebrant Program

What is the effect on marriage celebrancy in Australia in terms of the government’s justifications? It is accepted the government, the industry and training bodies have implemented various degrees of quality control, although the overall effect has been disappointing and largely ineffective.

Earlier remarks introduced the following remarks attributed to government sources.	Counter Responses
Marriage celebrants, appointed by the government, should not have an unfair advantage or protection to their business operations that other business operators in other occupations don’t also enjoy.	There are many occupations where numbers are limited – taxi drivers, police officers, scallop fishing, judges, parliamentarians, etc. There’s also a commonsense argument in respect to marriage celebrant numbers. “Common sense ain't common” Will Rogers. With so few marriages in Australia – why appoint limitless numbers of marriage celebrants?
Opening marriage celebrancy to additional operators could add many highly talented people who would make excellent marriage celebrants and help to raise standards.	Yes certainly additional talented marriage celebrants have entered the profession/occupation. However, at the same time, many new celebrants showing little aptitude for celebrancy have also entered a tiny market, giving these people little or no opportunity to practise their craft.
An open market provides wider choice for couples and opportunities for competition and benefits to the public as a result of that competition.	Yes, there is now wider choice – an ever increasing and confusing choice. Yes there is greater price competition, rather than quality competition and we are seeing lower standards of service and performance from celebrants because poor training and fewer opportunities to conduct the weddings for which they were appointed.
In other occupations and professions the best survive and the least able do not.	Marriage celebrancy attracts a huge number of people for whom marriage celebrancy is a week-end or post retirement interest (or hobby as defined by the Australian Tax Office), thus business theory can not be applied to a sector where a large proportion of operators are not businesses. Also the reality of a tiny market determines survival. With the market having exceeded saturation point, in respect to marriage celebrant appointments, even those who conduct weddings badly for friends and relatives deplete the market to a practically and commercially unviable level for other celebrants.
With the introduction of mandatory training, standards will rise, and again the marrying public will benefit.	Training is essential for new celebrants and ongoing professional development is essential to maintain and improve skills and knowledge. However, the training standard of one unit of the Cert IV in Marriage Celebrancy was far too low, and improving the knowledge of people with little or no opportunity to practise their craft is pointless
Additional comments attributed to public servants included:
The market will soon sort out the good ones from the bad.	This premise does not apply in a market of little repeat business. The tradesperson’s services, used by many, soon gains or loses a reputation. The   standards of a poorly performing celebrant conducting few weddings, remains unknown to other potential clients.
Celebrants argue from a point of view of Marriage Celebrancy!  We (government) know there will be an increase in the number of other ceremonies that will be done by all these new non-religious celebrants.  We are essentially providing an increase in the number of Celebrants who will make new celebrant businesses extending outward from Marriages.	Firstly, we are talking of Australia’s marriage celebrant program – not what other ceremonies or services marriage celebrants might or might not undertake. Secondly, the core ceremonies of Australian community life are marriage ceremonies and funeral services. There is minimal demand for other ceremonies. To develop a demand and need for additional ceremonies will be an expensive and time consuming task and if there is little community interest in such services, it will be a waste of time and money.  If the government “knows” there will be an increase in the number of ‘other’ ceremonies, would the government please provide further details and evidence of this – along with promotional funding?

7. The cost to the Australian Taxpayer of this increasingly expensive Government program

The actual cost of this continually developing and changing marriage celebrant program is unknown. What is known is prior to the 2003 changes just one person administered the program within the Attorney-General’s Department with the occasional assistance of part time staff. It is understood 14 staff positions are now assigned to the Marriage Celebrant Section under the Control of a Section Head, the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants. It is believed there are around 4 or 5 full time staff currently employed within the 14 staff positions allowed, plus occasional part time staff.

However, administration of around 12,000 marriage celebrants (and increasing) is far different to administration required for the lesser figure prior to 2003. Previously there was no training or OPD administration, few applicants to assess and far fewer complaints to investigate. Additionally, with changes to the Marriage Act 1961 in respect to marriage celebrants, there is a tremendous amount of additional compliance required from each and every marriage celebrant.

The Attorney-General’s Department is required to determine ongoing professional development (OPD) requirements for marriage celebrants, to assess providers of this OPD training and keep records of every celebrant’s compliance in annual training.

Is there hope costs to the taxpayer may reduce with the passage of time and improvements to administration of the marriage celebrant program? Probably not - more likely it will increase! With changes in Government policy, there is no limit on appointments of marriage celebrants envisioned. While there may be 12,000 marriage celebrants now in 2010, there may well be 20,000 and more within a short time. After all there has already been an increase of over 10,000 in just 5 years! It appears the Government failed to appreciate the popularity of being a marriage celebrant to members of the public. Applicants continue to come forward in their hundreds and thousands.

Another, yet to be explored aspect of the popularity of Australia’s marriage celebrant program, is the large number of previously unemployed applicants, who have had their marriage celebrant training funded by Centrelink and other employment agencies. It is thought unemployed people on Government/Centrelink lists may, as a result of their training and appointment, be listed as self employed. However, the reality is most of these people probably do not have the funds to set up a marriage celebrant small business and are unlikely to earn enough to survive even if they had, in this massively over-serviced sector. It is likely they continue to be supported by Centrelink despite having their probably, inappropriate training, funded by the Government. It appears Government costs may have been increased by funding inappropriate people to become marriage celebrants.

8. Some Considerations in Addressing these Problems

The following may form the basis for solutions to the problems,  to be addressed and might hopefully find a way forward:

1. Conduct a thorough review of what has turned out to be the unexpected and disastrous effects of the 2003 changes
2. Demand a satisfactory standard of training from RTOs (Registered Training Organisations) or disallow them from training marriage celebrants
3. Impose a satisfactory suitability assessment for all applicants prior to their undertaking training,
4. Insist on a genuine Fit and Proper Person assessment. If applicants fail to completely satisfy the Registrar in any respect  (particularly training), they should not be appointed (the Registrar of Celebrants and the Marriage Celebrant Section of the Attorney-General’s Department appears to appoint just about every applicant, even though much of the training is totally inadequate and applicants may be deficient in other important aspects as well. (Sufficiently rigorous enquiries are not made by people in the Attorney-General’s Department),
5. Impose a moratorium on further ongoing appointments until an assessment is made of future needs for celebrants – regardless of the necessity to disappoint the many hopeful aspiring celebrants, in the training and application pipeline, and the attendant damage to commercial operations based on recruiting students to marriage celebrant training courses. (Of course those trainers/RTOs not relying entirely or mostly on marriage celebrant courses will experience little effect to their operations). It is noted Government representatives have already pointed out this would require a change in legislation. However, it is believed an opportunity exists to enact this decision – if made.