|
 OPINION
Dear celebrant colleagues
There is much discussion on celebrant forums about the proposed "Professional Celebrant" Tax, which the AG Department calls a "fee". This quote was made as a response to a comment I made on one of these Forums.
QUOTE: And Rona, in regards to religious celebrants, this is a tough one. I really don't think we can comment on mainstream religions paying or not paying fees. Weddings are a very very small part of their duties as a minister of religion. However, "civil non-aligned religious" celebrants are probably in `both camps'.
1. Why can't civil marriage celebrants have an opinion?
- Are we not Australian citizens?
- Are we not supposed to be concerned about the role of marriage in Australian society, or have we all bought the model that conducting weddings is just a business like any other?
- Remembering that a business's primary concern is to make money, whether that is for the public good or not.
- Besides marriage is not a product that marriage celebrants can "brand and sell" like an every day product such as a loaf of bread.
2. More importantly the government is not defining marriage work as "just a business".
- The government is saying they are going to turn marriage celebrants, who conduct civil and non-aligned religious ceremonies , into a "profession".
Why?
3. Where is the "public service and altruism" component?
- This new TAX will be about having some select people conducting weddings at higher prices for those couples wanting civil and non-aligned religious ceremonies.
- Wasn't the argument that marriage celebrancy was a protected area, the one the Government used to change the needs based system in the first place?
4. Is being able to afford a high "Professional Fee" an indicator of one's competence as a civil celebrant?
- Obviously not, as at an average of 7 weddings per celebrant per year, there are many celebrants already subsidising their marriage work from other income or savings.
- The higher the fee, the more a "professional fee" will favour people of personal wealth or good alternative income.
- Securing bookings depends upon many factors - only one of which may be the rare personal prior experience of the celebrant's competence is doing weddings.
5. OK the argument of passing the high cost down onto the couple is a valid one.
- At an average of 7 weddings per celebrant per year, many civil celebrants will have to find a way to be self-funding to survive,
- unless we are prepared to subsidise wedding work from other income.
- So if we pass this registration fee on, then that does come down to a "TAX" our couples will be paying that those couples having mainstream religious ceremonies will not have to pay!
6. I object on the principle of equity and natural justice.
- Why are civil celebrants and non-aligned religious required to do and say things the mainstream religious celebrants are also not required to?
- Lawyers understand hat the Marriage Act is discriminatory, because they understand marriage is a secular state function.
- That the main stream religious in Australia have been given special privileges under the Marriage Act.
I am 100% for Australian couples having that choice, but provided ALL marriage celebrants are required to play by the same rules.
- Why can't a Catholic priest or a Moslem cleric state Marriage Act Section 46 (Monitum) as we are required to?
- Why can't their couples say the vows as required in section 42? And still do all the other things they need to, as we do to give the couples the ceremony of their choice?
- Why don't civil celebrants have the same rights as religious celebrants under Section 47 to refuse a marriage on the grounds that what is wanted does not up hold the dignity of the occasion or the essential meaning of marriage as defined by the Marriage Act?
- Why can't mainstream religious celebrants not abide by the Code of Practice? Why are their couples treated with a lesser degree of protection and care?
- Why are our marriages threatened with being "not valid" because we may not say certain words, that the religious celebrants are not required to say at all ?
- Why are we being threatened with de-registration because our paperwork or what we look like is not considered up to scratch, when mianstream religious celebrants can do and dress how they like?
- Especially when their paperwork and understanding of the legalities are no better than some civil celebrants who've been poorly trained or have little practice having similar small numbers of weddings as do religious celebrants.
5. All the above is discrimination . There are 25,000 main stream religious celebrants and 10,300 Civil Marriage Celebrants and Non-Aligned Religious now termed "iIdependent Religious" Celebrants
- Spreading the cost of running the Marriage Celebrant Section across 35,300 marriage celebrants will not only drop the overall fee, and be fairer.
- And as a celebrant colleague pointed out, why single out civil celebrants on a "user pays" system?
- Why not charge a 'professional fee" of all doctors so they can fund the country's health services?
6. The profession that can, and is developing, is "civil celebrancy".
An independent celebrant who offers non-religious ceremonies for every celebration and to honour every loss is what is evolving in Australia.
That is a secular role, that would require a very high level of psychological, social and cultural understanding and skill, with group facilitation, group work skills along many others.
re QUOTE: "Weddings are a very very small part of their duties as a minister of religion".
Under this model, Weddings would be a small part of the duties of a secular / civil celebrant.
I see this move to charge a "professional" celebrant fee, as reinforcing the worst aspects of a "profession"
- Exclusion, monopoly and legal recognition:
- Male-dominated:
- Middle-class occupations:
- Inaccessible body of knowledge:
- Indeterminacy of knowledge:
7. When what is needed is "Testing of Competence" BEFORE celebrants are appointed.
That is the only way to ensure a high baseline starting point. And to give independent feedback to RTO regulators about the competence of certain RTOs.
- Public service and altruism:
- Skill based on theoretical knowledge
- Extensive period of education:
- Testing of competence:
Then to repair the problems of the low point entry from 2003 to 2010, what is needed is giving existing celebrants ......
8. the option of doing that "Testing of competence" assessment as a type of OPD, so they can see where they need to improve.
9. the options of doing Units of the Cert IV as a type of OPD, so they can upgrade their qualifications.
10. clearer guidelines of "Conflict of Interest" so offering joint packages with functions houses for birthdays and wedding anniversaries are clearly OK
11. What is needed is clearer guidelines of "Conflict of Interest" for PROSPECTIVE marriage celebrants, that rules out the non-ceremony related wedding work. Because such work does not enhance a celebrant's 'ceremony" practice and skills.
Points 7 to 11 are some of the things I'd like to see the new TAX used to achieve if it does eventuate, along with a rewrite of the Marriage Act to ensure it is fair to all marriage celebrants and all marrying couples.
Rona Goold
Chairperson
Civil Clelebrations Network Inc
Non-profit association for celebrants and other community members
who support the role of civil ceremonies for the common good in a democratic society
See http:///www.civilcelebrationsnetwork.org
|
