V10 Celebrant Letters - Deregulation and OPD

Topic:

1. Missed the point of the deregulation. I have no qualms about the new program and 'deregulation'. If it were not for this I probably would not have been able to become a marriage celebrant.
2. The decision to deregulate was not a voluntary decision - but one based on economic and legal necessity. In particular the Restrictive Trade Practices Act which is what all of this was designed to stop - restriction of trade. So I for one am glad that the Government removed these illegal restrictions to give me and many others the opportunities to marry family and friends, and make a reasonable living from it as well.
3. If Mr Gelme knows of celebrants who are providing poor service or conduct improper - I can't remember the words he used in his article, then may be he needs to consult the AG department with names and help ensure these cases do not continue. We all make mistakes but if they continue to be a problem then something can be done.
4. Cutting the number of celebrants is not the answer. I firmly believe we need to pay a considerable fee each year eg $500 per celebrant and that will weed out the people who like to be in it or not!!!!
5. So that the AG dept can employ more people to service the Celebrants needs!

Thanks

Name & Address supplied.
24th May 2010

Letter to Editor No 2

An outstanding article which begs the question 'what should be done to address the issue?"

Surely the most obvious solution is a motatorium in new celebrant appointments.  I had to wait years before my appointment and it made me value my appointment even more. Is anyone in government listening?

Name & Address supplied.
25th May 2010

Letter to Editor No 23

Thank you for the article : Effect of Deregulation on Australia’s Marriage Celebrant Program

I am very keen to see the July report as I am totally frustrated with the AG for their continuance of short term, yet successive and monumental  changes to how, we celebrants (old & new) must accept and perform the new legislation/rules. 

The last changes to effect 2010 Cert IV seem autocratic by prejudicing previous skills, reducing them to no importance.   This affects both student celebrants and those authorised before 2010.  If one considers our opportunity to upgrade in lieu of 3 yrs OPD, be prepared to forgo any prior learning or past experience because  it is not accepted as an allowed exemption by the AG (subsequently, the RTO’s) for any of the required units. 

Does this ad hock decision (not calculated as a normal consequence but had to be addressed in their website AFTER it became a hot potato) fly in the face of a Commonwealth government initiative being an Australian Standard – that Vetab certificates issued for any completed study units,  in any State,  makes them uniformly acceptable certificate across all workplaces or can be presented as a valid exemption from any required study?  

The subject of RPL could prove interesting to watch on their website.

What is available to us individually or collectively to ensure procedural fairness in matters which directly involve our professional development and the directives by the AG celebrant’s department?

Is there any mention of a mechanism or a provision in either the Marriage ACT or its Regulations,  for input by the authorised celebrant’s  to the draft discussions before the amended section content rules are legislated?   

Regards

Name & Address supplied.
25th May 2010

Topic: OPD Where Does It Lead?

Letter to Editor No 1

Dear Ms Goold

I agree with you completely.

As a celebrant appointed two years ago, this is my first year of having to complete OPD and it is a minefield.
I’ve been pretty busy for a beginner (20 ceremonies now with another 15 booked) but this is my hobby and part-time gig which fits in well with my young children.  I’ve found the whole new system very confusing.

I’d like to do the cert 4 but take it over a few years – that doesn’t seem to gain you an exemption from OPD as I read it.

I would rather take my time and study each unit in detail than rush and rote learn as many will, just to gain the exemption for the next 5 years.

I certainly support any moves in the direction you suggest.

Name & Address supplied.
25th May 2010