V2 Future OPD, Celebrant Training, Peak Body?

The Future of OPD

The OPD requirement was introduced to help raise the professional standards of marriage celebrancy overall.  There have been several changes made to that program over the past 5 years.
The Marriage Celebrant Section aims to finalise and announce changes to the OPD system by end January 2009.

Marriage Celebrant Section (MCS) sought individual celebrants, celebrant associations and interested parties to comment on two proposals previously discussed and to summarise those views into one document to be submitted for consideration by the MCS. Submissions were required to address certain Guidelines for their OPD Proposals

Two proposals for consideration

Option 1 [DOC 35KB]: AGD Development of Option 1 - Limited Panel from Tender Process. AGD maintains preparation of compulsory activity content material.
* how professional standards of marriage celebrancy would be raised would be discussed between AGD and the successful tenderers (eg 3 or 4 successful tenderers)
* direction from AGD regarding legal aspects of ‘ceremonial’ activities is likely
* a certain number of distance education activities would be required. 
* to be managed through consultations, written into tender/contract documents. 

Option 2 [DOC 33KB]: Marriage celebrants complete their non-compulsory OPD by accessing activity/activities of their own choice through Registered Training Organisation (RTO);  AGD maintains control of compulsory activity.
* Celebrants would be responsible for making professional decisions of their own about their OPD.  AGD would have no guarantee that the choices made would be appropriate or sufficient to raise professional

* distance education would be limited only by the limitations of activities provided by RTOs. 
* Celebrants would make their own decisions about their own activities and would have to accept the consequences in terms of content. 
* AGD would not monitor whether the choices made would be appropriate for these celebrants. 
* Those performing religious ceremonies may have access to a wider range of activities appropriate to their religious role, but these will not necessarily be appropriate for their marriage celebrant role. 

Summary of Proposals

Each of the above organisations was invited by the ACCN to submit a summary of their proposal for publication on the ACCN website and in this issue of Your Space.
Click here for summaries of each proposed submission

Basically some submissions :

* supported Option 1 for all OPD (ICC)
* supported Option 1 for Compulsory OPD (HSC)
* supported Option 1 for Compulsory OPD, and Option 2 for non-compulsory OPD (CoCA) (ACMCV) (CCGA)
* supported Option 2 with MCS to approve learning activities (ANCS)
* supported Option 2 with an extension for the MCS to approve learning activities offered by a broader range of educational and other bodies to ensure the OPD system is simple, transparent, flexible to adult learners needs, accessible geographically and economically and responsive to changing community needs. (ACCN)
* Opposed Option 1 (HCN)
maintaining the MCS
- should extend the range of providers, but not in a restrictive manner which takes no account of non-RTO people being able to train effectively,
- consider small number of RTOs would preclude celebrant associations from providing free or low cost OPD as a member benefit
- should not restrict OPD training to a small number of registered RTOs giving them a monopoly and that is likely to PUSH UP the cost of training, and greatly disadvantage celebrants residing outside major suburban centres, who would have to fund travel and accommodation.

The ACCN Proposal
Notes made as part of the ACCN proposal were as follows:
1.         Because of the major changes to the appointment system of marriage celebrants and their consequences on the marriage celebrancy field, it is important to ensure that the future OPD system is not based upon:

• the failings of the current, and soon to be changed, one training “Plan, Conduct & Review” unit criteria for appointment of marriage celebrants
• the perceived failings of those pre-2003 marriage celebrants whose roles were as “the registry office in the field” under legislation and as such worked in a system that did not originally require “more details ceremonial aspects” now expected by many couples to be part of the marriage process (and the Code of Practice)
• consequences from the upheaval the new system imposed upon celebrant associations, particularly in respect to  mentoring practices which were based upon the prior needs based system, and which are no longer appropriate under this current “market forces / small business’” approach to celebrancy ie where marriage celebrants are now trade competitors.
• the impact of the new system upon the pre-2003 celebrant population, which provoked negative responses to this initial phase of OPD from a large sector of competent celebrants who were forced to endure basic knowledge and skills training that did not enhance their professional development.
• The assumption that marriage celebrancy is a profession. Whilst it is reasonable to require professional behaviour of marriage celebrant, it is not fair to marriage celebrants and to the marrying public in Australia to design an OPD system that is not accessible financially, geographically or in time investments to the vast majority of authorised marriage celebrants. (This is not to say that the role of casually occupied marriage celebrant may not develop eventually into a full-time occupation of civil celebrant or family celebrant etc, as foreshadowed by the Certificate IV in Celebrancy)
• An assumption that the only valuable way marriage celebrants can contribute to Australian society is as a “profession” rather than a “trade” or terms meaning the equivalent. The quality of life enjoyed by many Australians is dependent on the work done by people in the trades or service industries, arts (visual or performing) and crafts, and other sectors that would not meet the normal understanding of a “Profession”. It can be elitist and patronising to enforce that template over the evolving role of celebrant in the Australia context. The focus needs to be on celebrants “acting professionally” rather than “part of a profession”.
• Clearly the training at Certificate IV in Celebrancy is at a “trade” equivalent and needs to be so if there are to be a range of marriage celebrants to service the whole of the Australia public. The Fit and Proper Person criteria acknowledges that the marriage  celebrant brings to the role more than just knowledge and skill. The celebrant brings their unique personhood, attitudes and values shaped by educational, socio-economic, cultural and family backgrounds and by their own unique life experiences. Whilst a formal educational can influence attitudes and values, none can ever give the same learning experiences as the “school of life”.

2. If the perception of the overall quality of Section 39 celebrants is based upon the poor performance of post 2003 marriage celebrants as reported by the registries of BDM; the poor ceremonial performance of pre-2003 celebrants and the excessive number of queries to the Marriage Celebrants Section (MCS) then serious errors in judgement could occur.

3. Prior to 2003, civil marriage celebrants were the group that complied most to the BDM’s requirements for the registration of marriages. Nothing has changed to suggest main-stream religious have improved. Prior to 2003 queries that are now required to be directed at the MCS were mostly handled by celebrant associations who considered mentoring to be an essential part of their role in honouring their own appointments as part of a needs based system.

4. Now that the Attorney Generals Department can be confident that the first 5 years of compulsory OPD has established a basic line of knowledge required and provided in-depth guidance to the development of the Certificate IV in Celebrancy, especially as it relate to core units and the Marriage Electives, there may not be as high a need to be for the MCS to be directly developing units. Rather providing some guidance as the focus and types of possible compulsory units to be developed.

5. Also with the new training standard for appointment, it is possible to view the OPD on a five year plan, to match the Registration cycle, rather than on the current annual basis which creates enormous stress upon the MCS, OPD providers, celebrants associations and marriage celebrants.

6. Effective learning environment  are positive and empowering with more emphasis on the rewards of learning (carrots) than the negative consequences (sticks) though there is a place for that too !. The five year reviews and complaints mechanisms available to couples, their families and other wedding participants is that inbuilt mechanism, and should be sufficient given that mainstream religious and registry office staff are not subject to such censures by the Act.

6. Whilst most celebrants are supportive of the general aims of the OPD requirement, it is discriminatory to be requiring * non-aligned and civil marriage celebrants to be performing to a much higher standard than main stream religious or registry office celebrants, and * civil celebrants who are not supported by organization back-up of either a church or a government department, to meet OPD requirements that are not accessible financially, geographically or in time requirements by almost all non-aligned and civil marriage celebrants.

6. The ACCN has a broad vision of the role civil celebrants may play in their communities – one of upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and promoting respect for all people and their individual contributions to their families and their communities. In other words, the ACCN sees the civil celebrants as people who can play an important role in a “civilised” society, upholding democratic principles and being part of a ‘human rights’ education process.

The Attorney General on the 24th November at the 18th Annual Human Rights and Diplomacy Training Program* has fore-shadowed an Australia wide consultation process on the issue of Domestic Human Rights Action, to which the ACCN plans to make a submission on the role civil celebrants can play in promoting human rights and responsibilities.

* Reference; Press Release:
Extract from Attorney- General's Speech - LAUNCH 18th Annual Human Rights and People’s Diplomacy Training Program.

Faculty of  Law  Building,  University of  NSW, Kensington Campus, Sydney on Monday 24 November 2008.

Domestic Human Rights Action.

31.   The Rudd Government is serious about its international human rights responsibilities and obligations.  It provides a framework for sound global citizenship.

32.   But we are equally conscious of, and committed to, human rights at home.

33.   Human rights are protected in  Australia through anti-discrimination laws and a range of other measures.  And we are doing a lot of work to strengthen these protections in areas such as age, disability, immigration and same sex law reforms.

34.   In addition, the Rudd Government believes human rights are of such national significance, that we are committed to an Australia-wide consultation.

We want to hear the Australian people’s views on the protection of human rights.

35.   We are currently working through arrangements for the consultation. And I will have more to say on this at a later date.

36.   Ultimately, the consultation will seek community views on how best to protect and promote human rights and responsibilities.

37.   We want to encourage broad community debate on a range of human rights issues – not only on whether a Charter or Bill of Rights is necessary.

Subscribers wishing to speak with Tony may email him or call, and Tony will return calls at his expense. Thus Celebrant Help Desk is a nationally available service, providing great value for money. Newsletters: September, December, March, May, June.

$36 per annum. For more details: click here

Celebrant Training:

On Friday 12 December, the ISC was formally notified that the National Quality Council (NQC) has endorsed the new CHC08 Community Services Training Package and Ministerial sign-off is complete.

The NQC considered the Case for Endorsement of the package - which was put to them on 29 October 2008 - and agreed to endorse the package out of session. Some minor changes were suggested and will be incorporated into the package prior to it being finalised and forwarded on to DEEWR for upload onto www.ntis.gov.au.

The ISC values the substantial contributions and support received from our industry stakeholders throughout the Review process and looks forward to celebrating endorsement of the new CHC08 Community Services Training Package in December!

For details of the training package, with the final draft course units provided for download in PDF format click here

This set of recommended knowledge and skills sets has been produced after extensive consultation with celebrants and celebrant associations and the Attorney General's Department over the last two years.

As a result of this process, it is believed that this Certificate IV in Celebrancy is at a satisfactory standard for the training needs of celebrants. It would replace the current Certificate IV in Marriage Celebrancy.

After implementation, this Certificate IV in Celebrancy will be subjected to a process of continuous review, along with other training programs in the community services and health sector of the national Vocational Education & Training (VET) scheme.

For regular updates on the Community Services & Health News, please visit the CHC02 Review project web page or subscribe to the ‘cs&h matters’ e-newsletter to have monthly updates delivered to you via email.

Basically it means the new Certificate IV in Celebrancy is now course to be offered via the Registered Training Authorities.

Now we await the Attorney General's announcement as to
* what the new training requirements for the appointment of authorised marriage celebrants will be (we have been told the full Certificate IV in Celebrancy), and
* from when the new appointment criteria will be effective !!

A more unified collective representation of marriage celebrants - COCA

Invited representatives of celebrant associations to a meeting on 16 October 2008 in Canberra, discussed establishing a more unified collective representation of marriage celebrants.

It was agreed by the delegates of the celebrant associations present to form a Coalition of Celebrant Associations (CoCA) and a Memorandum of Understanding (see below) agreed upon to guide the development of the Coalition.

The Attorney General has indicated his willingness to dialogue with this new body about current and future directions of the Marriage Celebrant Program. Your Space looks forward to regular reports from this body as one strategy for their representation of all celebrants, those members of celebrant associations and those who are not.

Associations and their delegates present were:

Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants – Barry Sherwell
ACMCV-  Lyn Knorr
AAMCA now AMC Australia Marriage Celebrants – Tony Gelme
ACMC NSW & ACT – John O’Carrigan
SE Aus CMC Association – Ian Deegan
ACMCSA – Sybil Sleight
MCA WA – Dorothy Harrison
Humanist Celebrant Network – Charles Foley
Association of CMC’s Qld – Delmar Broadbent
Celebrants Australia Incorporated – Robyn Caine (proxy for Judy Brooks)
Civil Celebrants Graduate Association – Nigel Caswell
ICC Alumni and Friends – Yvonne Werner
Professional Celebrants Association – Glenda Ashley.

National Human Rights Consultation

Robert McClelland, Federal Attorney General announced a National Human Rights consultation on the 10th December 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. The consultation will be chaired by Father Frank Brennan, and assisted by Mick Palmer, Mary Kostakidis and Tammy Williams, all distinguished Australians, each bringing a variety of perspectives which McClelland considers will enable them to "perform an outstanding role in canvassing the views of the Australian people" on three issues:

* What fundamental rights and freedoms do Australians regard as requiring protection?
* Are those fundamental rights and freedoms sufficiently protected?
* Should we be doing something to further promote and protect those fundamental rights and freedoms?

The following are extracts from a Press Conference following the Government's announcement of the Consultation.

McClelland: "The Government has no pre-conceived views (on a Bill of Rights), and indeed, I think it's fair to say that the chair, Father Frank Brennan has no pre-conceived views on the matter. He has indicated that he is very much a fence sitter on some of the important aspects including, in particular, what has been an issue of controversy, and that is whether or not we recommend or shouldn't recommend that consideration of a bill or a charter of rights".

"The other members of the committee bring their own skills - obviously each is highly competent. Each will have their own views on varying aspects, but their main role is to engage in a dialogue with the Australian communities. That dialogue, in short, we believe, will not only canvas the views of the Australian community, but will also have a degree of a positive effect in terms of just a dialogue with the Australian community, as to the significance of fundamental rights and freedom, how they are, I believe, part and parcel of the fabric of our community, and should we be doing more to enhance, promote and protect those fundamental rights and freedoms."

"I should say in that respect that the Government has made clear that we would not favour an outcome that resulted in the loss of sovereignty for the parliament to determine these issues of crucial national policy making. But that aside, we've got very much an open mind as to what the outcome of this process will be".

"One option (is) an enhanced scrutiny of bills process. Other options include - should there be provisions in the Acts Interpretation Act or some other Act that requires courts to have a regard for fundamental rights when they're construing the provisions of legislation or regulations. That's also an issue for debate. Another issue for debate is whether our anti-discrimination acts are solid - whether there is more to be done to unify those. Other issues will be, is enough being done by governments at all levels to engage Australians in the concepts of human rights and just what does this mean in terms of a cohesive society?"

"We're celebrating today, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was entered into by very hard men, so - very few women on the international political stage at that time. They were very hard men, but as a result of the traumas of World War II they recognised that the absence of respect or human rights was one of the factors that led to the conflagration of two world wars".

"These were hard people. These weren't pacifists. These had been men leading countries at war, they knew protecting and promoting human rights was fundamental to world peace. I think those principles, while we don't confront the challenge of totalitarianism these days, I think the principles underlying the bill of rights is just as important."

"In terms of the threat of radical extremism and radicalism, I think the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are just as relevant today. All research suggests that one of the most potent antidotes to radicalisation or the development of violent extremism is promotion of religious tolerance and fundamental human rights. And I think these principles are just as relevant to protecting people in this day and age as they were 60 years ago".

"In terms of the immediate issue, clearly the issues of development and comments and so forth are a matter for individual agencies and I won't get into the details. But obviously the Government and I think the Australian people, and without judging these comments have been made or not, but certainly I can say that the comments that have been attributed to the individual, both the Government and the Australian people would find offensive and completely contrary to the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that we celebrate today some 60 years after it was adopted".

".... but the goal of the Government is to encourage respective religious tolerance and the ideals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And we will not be putting any resources into any organisations that do other than promote social cohesion".

"I think we are entitled to pride ourselves on the fact that for the best part of 60 years [indistinct] we have been a leading proponent of human rights around the world. And I think fundamentally we pride ourselves on being a country based on the principle of a fair go".

"But equally I think there are areas where we could do better. I think the fact that we are seeing just completely outrageously unacceptable levels - no level of violence against and children is acceptable. But what we're seeing is outrageous and unacceptable. We're seeing in our region, again, unacceptable treatment of women, whether it's education, whether it's social opportunity, employment opportunities, deaths during childbirth, in the worst case scenarios human trafficking. Much more we can do in our region".

"In the area of disabilities there's much more we could be doing. In the area of the treatment and the living standards of Indigenous Australians, clearly there's much, much more we could have been doing and should be doing. And I think all these issues are issues that legitimately should be part of the dialogue".

Question: A bill or charter, how would you change that situation [indistinct]?

McClelland: "The Government's philosophy is that the parliament is democratically elected by the people of Australia to obviously introduce their policies and their programs consistent with their electoral platforms and commitments, and we don't want to see the centre of gravity shift from the democratically elected parliament to, as competent as they invariably are, to the judiciary, where they don't face that same accountability to the parliament".

"Obviously in applying, construing, interpreting legislation they'll have - they've have regard to, important provisions. How that's done I'll leave to the committee".

"..... as the extent to which the committee believes the judiciary should have a role in the oversight of fundamental human rights and freedoms, is something that they'll obviously consider".