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

by Tony Gelme

Headings:

Background
The 2003 Changes to the Marriage Celebrant Program
Effect of the 2003 Changes on the Marrying Public
Marriage Celebrant Training
Perspective from a Marriage Celebrant’s Viewpoint
Uncontrolled or Ineffectively Controlled Deregulation of the Marriage Celebrant Program
The cost to the Australian Taxpayer of this increasingly expensive Government program
Some Considerations in Addressing these Problems

1. Background

Australia’s marriage celebrant program commenced in 1973 when the then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy, appointed the first civil marriage celebrants. From the inception of the program numbers of marriage celebrants appointed were strictly on a ‘needs basis’. That is, the numbers of celebrants appointed were only sufficient to meet the needs of the marrying public. Lionel Murphy in an interview on one occasion said – there should never be so many marriage celebrants that they cannot achieve the expertise and knowledge they and their clients require.

Numbers of marrying couples electing to use the services of civil marriage celebrants increased progressively through 10% in early years to around 66% of the marrying public in 2009. Clearly, the option for an alternative to religious services and Registry Offices was welcomed along with the freedom available for couples to choose where, when and how they wished to have their wedding ceremony.

Australia’s annual number of marriages has not changed dramatically over the years. In 1989 there were 117,176 marriages, in 2008 118,756 – heralded by the media as a twenty year high! In reality a marginal increase.

In keeping with the progressive increase in popularity of civil marriage celebrants, successive Australian governments also gradually increased numbers of celebrants to meet the needs of marrying couples.

However, the Government in 2003 introduced, what has turned out to be, catastrophic changes to the marriage celebrant program. At that time there were around 1500-2000 ‘needs based’ appointed civil marriage celebrants, quite sufficient for the needs of the marrying public. This allowed an average of around 30 weddings per celebrant per annum. Some conducted more, some less and many were able to sustain a full time occupation, while others provided a significant part time service.

2. The 2003 Changes to the Marriage Celebrant Program

Following contact with civil marriage celebrants, marriage celebrant associations and other stakeholders, the government of the day introduced significant changes termed ‘reforms’. Contrary to advice provided by celebrants and celebrant associations, the changes/reforms introduced:

Unlimited appointments to civil marriage celebrancy (changing the needs basis from the needs of the marrying public to one based on the desires, or needs, of anybody wishing to be a celebrant),
Mandatory training prior to appointment as a marriage celebrant (celebrants welcomed the training as they had long been asking for a training/orientation program for new appointees),
The appointment of a Registrar of Celebrants and the creation of a Marriage Celebrant Section within the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, giving the Registrar responsibility for all facets of the marriage celebrant program, with the exception of new celebrant training which was given to National and State training authorities.

The appointment process did not change markedly with the introduction of the changes/reforms. One exception was applicants now had to provide evidence of satisfactory completion of the newly required training – a system of ‘competency based’ training resulting in a Statement of Attainment given by the training body to trainees assessed as ‘competent’.

The Attorney-General’s Department also required a satisfactory assessment under its Fit and Proper Person Criteria.

These hopefully ‘reasonable’ changes introduced a number of unfortunate effects.

As numbers of civil marriage celebrants gradually increased it had a devastating effect on the existing activities of longer term ‘needs based’ marriage celebrants. Those celebrants, many previously occupied full time with a sufficient number of marriage ceremonies each year, found numbers fall as newer celebrants, often only conducting wedding ceremonies for family and friends, depleted the number of marriages available to other celebrants.
Newly appointed marriage celebrants, many believing there was a substantial need for their services and potential for a new ‘career’, found few wedding ceremonies available to them.
Marriage celebrant training was set up by TAFE and other colleges and by newly established entrepreneurial operators. It being a new area, many were feeling their way, in the training of celebrants. Some made good use of already highly skilled marriage celebrants as trainers, while others used people, who had never been marriage celebrants, but held a training qualification (Certificate IV in Assessment & Workplace Training) and, as time went by, also employed newly appointed marriage celebrants with little or no experience as trainers.

Difficulties, arising from these actions, have had serious effects in several vital areas:

The effect on the marrying public – couples experience confusion in selecting a civil marriage celebrant suitable for their needs. Some celebrants, new and old, have been found to be excellent. However, what seems to be an even greater number, are far from satisfactory - lacking experience, knowledge and ability.
The effect on longer term and newly appointed marriage celebrants in finding there is insufficient need for their services and, in the case of many newer celebrants, finding their initial training (2003 – 2010 training regime) to have been totally inadequate. On current figures the average number of weddings per celebrant per year is now somewhere in the range of 4 to 6 and, with ongoing unlimited appointments, will only become more ridiculous.
A lack of effective assessment and selection processes to identify people suitable for appointment as marriage celebrants (the Fit and Proper Person Criteria of the Attorney-General’s Department does not require any interview process, but simply relies on written applications, referees provided by the applicant, a ‘commitment to the institution of marriage’ and evidence of satisfactory completion of required training).
Little or no effective control of training entrepreneurs resulted in - established educational institutions charging an appropriate fee for adequate training by experienced trainers – competing with opportunistic training institutions charging very low fees for minimal training by unqualified and/or inexperienced trainers.

It is necessary to look at the Government’s various justifications for these massive changes to Australia’s previously highly regarded marriage celebrant program. In theory, they sound good.

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 do not also enjoy.
Opening marriage celebrancy to additional operators could add many highly talented people who would make excellent marriage celebrants and help to raise standards.
An open market provides wider choice for couples and opportunities for competition and benefits to the public as a result of that competition.
In other occupations and professions the best survive and the least able do not.
With the introduction of mandatory training, standards will rise and again the marrying public will benefit.
Separate comments from public servants in the Attorney-General’s Department included:

we are actually doing celebrancy and the country a great favour in that we are increasing the number of non-religious Celebrants.
the market will soon sort out the good ones from the bad.
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.

In reality the unexpected effects of the changes has proven quite different and quite devastating. The truth of the matter is the wedding industry, while apparently robust in annual turnover (of which marriage celebrants receive very little), is actually based on a relatively small number of marriages in Australia. It is a tiny market.

3. Effect of the 2003 Changes on the Marrying Public

Marrying is not something people do often (the Government has affirmed its view in the words of the Marriage Act Sec 46 “Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”). So on this special, often only, occasion, many of the approx 66% of couples (who choose celebrant weddings), have little or no experience upon which to draw, in their selection of their marriage celebrant. As a result they often rely on advertised services, and a large degree of trust, that any and every person offering their services as a marriage celebrant is fully qualified, informed and able to provide a high level of service. They also rely on advice and referrals from friends, family and other wedding services with the same expectations.

Mounting anecdotal evidence indicates the marrying public are increasingly suffering poor service, misinformation, lack of ability and increasing disappointment with marriage celebrant services. An effect of massive oversupply of marriage celebrants is that fewer and fewer marriage celebrants can give more than a part time attention to these responsibilities. An economic necessity is celebrants need to earn sufficient income to cover costs and to maintain themselves and their families and marriage celebrancy now cannot do that for any significant number of them. As a result more and more long term celebrants and most newer appointees are, or have become, part time marriage celebrants with other, sometimes more important (to them) responsibilities in their lives. As evidence of this are reports of:

some couples being told at the last minute by their celebrant they won’t be able to attend at their wedding as something more important has come up!
Other disappointing reports of celebrants inability to provide a high level or proper service include – not solemnizing a wedding because of stage fright,
advising a couple incorrectly they had to be in Australia to lodge a Notice of Intended Marriage, for their planned Australian wedding, involving the couple in huge expenditure to travel from Europe when they could just as easily done it from overseas,
celebrants taking bookings for weddings they find (or know) they cannot do and passing them on to other new celebrants while keeping deposits paid - and reports of problems continue.
Reports of wedding documents not being sent to Registry Offices for registration of marriages, or being sent late and/or being incomplete and incorrect.

Another effect of the government’s desired greater competition is prices quoted by celebrants are becoming cheaper and cheaper with the emphasis being on price and little or no concern for ability and service. Prices, now being quoted around Australia, indicate many celebrants are offering prices well below cost to provide the service – a couple of celebrants even provide weddings free of charge to couples! They subsidise the couples’ celebrant cost out of their separate income for people they do not even know! In this now over-serviced tiny market the emphasis on price, rather than quality, highlights the desperation of celebrants to achieve any bookings at all.

How does this affect marrying couples? Too many, having secured the lowest price - and being unaware of important areas of quality, experience, knowledge, value, ability and service – find too late, their important event becomes not a wedding to fondly remember, but one they would rather forget!

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 dependant 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 celebrants' 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 four units on strictly marriage celebrant subjects. 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 were newly appointed celebrants who had done no weddings or very few.

Marriage Celebrant training courses (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, comes into effect in February 2010. There will be 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 to be appointed as their applications are assessed before the February 2010 new training standard starts to have any 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. Comments are added to each of these in red.

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. (Certainly additional talented marriage celebrants have entered the profession/occupation. However, at the same time, huge numbers of people, many showing little aptitude for celebrancy, have entered a tiny market resulting in devastating destabilisation)
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. (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. A remark from a respected professional marriage celebrant, made in 2002, when the changes were announced said – “what happens when there’s a marriage celebrant on every street corner?” That situation is already upon us in various places – not necessarily every street corner, but in some places - several in the same street or nearby)
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, improving the knowledge of people with little or no opportunity to practise their craft is pointless.)
Additional comments attributed to public servants included:

we are actually doing celebrancy and the country a great favour in that we are increasing the number of non-religious Celebrants. (To what end? Is incredible oversupply a necessity or an advantage?)
the market will soon sort out the good ones from the bad. (Not easily in this tiny market of little repeat business. The tradesperson’s services, used by many, soon gains or loses a reputation. The appalling standards of the celebrant conducting few weddings remains unknown to further victims.)
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. (This is the most outrageous nonsense argument. 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 is an expensive and time consuming task and if there is little community interest in such services, it is 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 the problems, being experienced in Australia’s marriage celebrant program, to be addressed and might hopefully find a way forward:

conduct a thorough review of what has turned out to be the unexpected and disastrous effects of the 2003 changes
demand a satisfactory standard of training from RTOs (Registered Training Organisations) or disallow them from training marriage celebrants,
Impose a satisfactory suitability assessment for all applicants prior to their undertaking training,
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),
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.

Dally Messenger III - Celebrancy Blog - guest Tony Gelme

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