Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills seek to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to implement a range of new fees in relation to registered and prospective Commonwealth registered celebrants under the Marriage Celebrants Program. Previously, Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants were not required to pay a fee to be authorised under the Marriage Celebrants Program.

The bills also makes some minor amendments that relate to the administration of that program. The bills seek to implement an annual celebrant registration fee to existing Commonwealth registered celebrants and also registration fees for prospective celebrants who are seeking registration. The bills will also allow for the imposition of an application processing fee for those seeking an exemption from any of the abovementioned fees.

Amendments in relation to the administration of the program seek to allow an Australian passport to be used as evidence to determine the date and place of birth of marrying parties. The requirement for the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to conduct performance reviews on all marriage celebrants every five years will be removed.

According to the Attorney-General's Department there are currently 10,500 Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants administered by the program in Australia, with an additional 500 being registered each year. Civil ceremonies now account for 71 per cent of all marriage ceremonies conducted in Australia—a substantial increase from two per cent when the program was first established in the early 1970s.

I believe it is worth noting that the industry has considerable concerns about these bills as they are proposed by the government. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is inquiring into these bills, received 113 submissions—largely from marriage celebrants themselves—and it is fair to say that marriage celebrants are not in favour of most of the recommendations within this bill, particularly the additional impost of fees.

The government contends that it is necessary to implement the new fees to recover the costs of administering the large number of celebrants under the program. The other amendments relating to the administration of the program are considered to be noncontroversial.

On 21 March 2013, the Senate jointly referred both of these bills for inquiry and report. However, the Senate report is not due until 5.00 pm today. The coalition is very keen to see what recommendations the Senate committee might make in relation to these bills. Of course, depending on what the committee recommends, we reserve our right to have a look at amending this bill in the Senate, although we do not oppose its passage through the House today.

Sitting suspended from 13:31 to 13 : 35

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Celebrant Administration Charge Bill 2013 and the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013. These bills seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to implement a range of new fees in relation to registered and prospective Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants under the marriage celebrants program, which is managed through the Attorney-General's Department. The bills will also allow for the imposition of an application registration fee for those seeking an exemption from any of the above mentioned fees.

There are also amendments in relation to the administration of the program that seek to allow an Australian passport to be used as evidence to determine the date and place of birth of marrying parties. Furthermore, the requirement for the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to conduct performance reviews on all marriage celebrants every five years will be removed.

Currently, there are three categories of people under the Marriage Act who are authorised to solemnise marriages in Australia. The first category includes ministers of a religion of a recognised denomination under section 26 of the act. These minister are nominated by their denomination—for example, by the Catholic or Anglican churches—and are registered and regulated by state and territory registrars of births, deaths and marriages. In total, there are approximately 24,500 people in this category.

The second category includes officers in states and territories authorised to perform marriages as a part of their functions in registering marriages, of which there are approximately 730 in Australia. Again, they are regulated by state or territory registrars of births, deaths and marriages. The third category, which this bill addresses, are Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants registered by the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants in the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department. This includes approximately 10,500 people who are civil celebrants or who are ministers of a religion whose denomination is not proclaimed under section 26 of the act.

Currently, Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants are not required to pay a fee to be authorised under the marriage celebrants program. Under these changes, the fee will be set at a maximum of $600 in 2013-14, with an application processing fee of $30 for those seeking an exemption from the annual celebrant registration charge, the registration application fee or the annual ongoing professional development obligations.

The impetus to commence charging registration and administration fees is recognition of the changing nature of marriage ceremonies and therefore which category of marriage celebrant solemnises marriages. When the program was established in the early 1970s, approximately two per cent of marriage ceremonies were civil ceremonies. Today, that figure stands at approximately 71 per cent for all marriage ceremonies. Significant attempts at reforms have been made since 2001 to, according to the Attorney-General's Department, improve the transparency of the appointment process and improve the overall quality of the services provided to the public. Ultimately, from 2003 to 2012, the number of Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants grew from 3,632 at the end of 2003 to 10,467 at the end of 2012.

The government announced in 2011 that it would introduce cost recovery for this program and would implement this from 1 July 2013. I find it curious that the government has waited this long to introduce the bill and that we are debating it today, considering that, although the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is due to report on this bill today, 18 June, at this specific point in time the report has not been released. One of my constituents has reiterated to me her concerns about the imposition of a fee on marriage celebrants. Broadly speaking, it is important to consider the nature of the work that marriage celebrants do and the effort that goes into conducting it. As my constituent has noted, celebrants have a lot of expenses to get work. They need to advertise to the general community via the Yellow Pages, websites, social media, bridal magazines and other publications. Some attend wedding expos and other promotional events. There is a lot of expense in advertising each year, as well as insurance, peak body subscription fees to keep up to date and travel and publishing expenses. There is a fairly expensive course to become a celebrant, and then, often, some years waiting to be registered. Therefore, it is extremely important to consider that a celebrant needs to perform quite a lot of weddings each year just to break even.

Given these upfront costs, the feedback that I have been receiving is in favour of the department implementing a fee per wedding. I understand that civil celebrants see the costs in terms of keeping up with new legislation and professional development as reasonable, but civil celebrants feel it is a step too far to then impose further fees on someone who may not be using the services of the department. To quote from my constituents specifically: 'Why would a celebrant doing, for example, 50 weddings a year pay the same annual fee as a celebrant starting out or working part-time doing just a couple of weddings a year?' 'I am happy to pay to attend an annual all-day professional development session, so I am already getting that information at my cost.' Civil celebrants are already paying to maintain their professional standards and therefore want to know exactly what they will be paying the federal department for with a proposed new annual fee.

To their credit the government implemented a consultation process in 2011 on those proposed measures. I have noted some of the concerns of one such constituent who was closely involved in these deliberations. The Attorney-General's Department organised a consultation meeting in Brisbane in November 2011 which I understand was well attended by marriage celebrants. Many issues were raised regarding the imposition of an administration fee on those who act as marriage celebrants on a part-time basis. Those people were very much against the idea. Of course, it must be noted that well-established and full-time marriage celebrants would receive an advantage if there is, in fact, a decrease in the supply of marriage celebrants with perhaps hundreds or thousands dropping out of the program. The most recent anecdotal evidence I have heard is that imposing a fee may make it prohibitively expensive to continue to be involved and many may drop out of the marriage celebrant program.

As I mentioned, to be a Commonwealth registered marriage celebrant one must first complete compulsory training courses, specifically a Certificate IV level qualification, which can be quite costly. A registration fee will be yet another cost to becoming a marriage celebrant. It is worthy to note, however, that for many who are working part-time or are considering starting out the imposition of a fee means that their participation in the marriage celebrant program will simply not be feasible. What I want to see and what the Senate committee should address is that the department needs to fully account for the costs involved in administering the program and, therefore, as part of the formal cost-recovery policy, it should be honest and upfront about how the fees will be used to cover those costs.

I do note that the Attorney-General's Department have said in their submission that these fees will enable the department to improve the services delivered to marriage celebrants while also effectively regulating the celebrants. This does beg the question, of course, of whether the department considers the services they currently deliver to be adequate for the program. The department should identify how they will improve services and, indeed, which services they consider need improving. They also need to consider that if Commonwealth marriage celebrants do, in fact, drop out of the program, what affect will this have on the cost of administering the program. If costs are reduced, is it likely that the department will consider reducing the fees and charges? I do not hear of many examples where a government department actually genuinely cuts the fees it charges even if the associated costs are reduced.

There do remain genuine concerns and questions which still need to be addressed. I will therefore wait to see the report of the Senate committee due on 18 June, today, and the recommendations therein.

Sitting suspended from 13:44 to 16:00

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship and Settlement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013. These bills seek to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to implement a range of new fees in relation to registered and prospective Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants under the Marriage Celebrants Program. Previously, Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants were not required to pay a fee to be authorised under the Marriage Celebrants Program.

The bills also make minor amendments relating to the administration of the program and seek to implement an annual celebrant registration fee to the existing Commonwealth registered celebrants and a registration fee for prospective celebrants seeking registration. The bills will also allow for the imposition of an application processing fee for those seeking an exemption from any of the abovementioned fees. The amendments in relation to the administration of the program seek to allow an Australian passport to be used as evidence to determine the date and place of birth of marrying parties. The requirement for the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to conduct performance reviews on all marriage celebrants every five years will be removed.

According to the Attorney-General's Department there are currently 10,500 Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants administered by the program in Australia and an additional 500 are registered each year. Civil ceremonies now account for 71 per cent of all marriage ceremonies conducted in Australia, a substantial increase from the two per cent when the program was first established, in 1970.

It is worth noting industry concerns about these bills that are being proposed by the government. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee received 113 submissions, largely from marriage celebrants, on their inquiry into the bills. In their submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Marriage Celebrants Australia Inc. said:

In our common commitment to professional and high quality marriage celebrants, both civil and independent religious celebrants, we urge consideration be given to the following points.

1. As 70% of the Australian public are now choosing a civil marriage ceremony, they are being made to pay extra to cover the cost of the planned registration fee. The other 30%, using religious celebrants, will not have this fee imposed upon them. This Government has supported anti-discrimination in law, and yet is supporting this blatant discrimination.

That is, discrimination against marriage celebrants. They continue:

2. MCA (Inc) supports a substantial fee to new applicants for registration as marriage celebrants. The Attorney General's Department (Marriage Law and Celebrant Section) has told us repeatedly that the processing of applicants is extremely time consuming.

Why should established celebrants have to pay for this? It is of no advantage to have more appointments made when the current average of seven weddings per year per celebrant, providing an average gross income of $3,500 per year, is already stretching our budgets. Indeed, in some regional areas marriage celebrants probably perform fewer than that. They probably perform an average of about two marriages a year. Quite often when I attend ceremonies many of these marriage celebrants also sometimes take the role of religious celebrants in conducting religious services. So it is absolutely crazy that the government now contends that it is necessary to implement the new fees to cover the cost of administering the large number of celebrants under the program. The other amendments relating to the administration of the program are considered noncontroversial.

On 21 March 2013 the Senate jointly referred the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 for inquiry and remote. I believe the Senate committee is due to report very soon—I believe it is today. The coalition is very keen to see the recommendations made by this committee and reserves the right to potentially move amendments in the Senate pending the committee's report. On that basis, the coalition does not oppose the passage of these bills through the House.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members for their contribution to the debate. I want all those listening to the deliberations or reading the Hansard transcript o note that the coalition is supporting this legislation—despite the words of the member for Brisbane, she will be voting for this legislation. I would like to thank the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for its ongoing work to consider these bills, on which it is scheduled to report later today. The government will, of course, consider any recommendation arising from the committee report.

The bills implement a 2011 budget decision to introduce cost recovery for Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants in Australia. The introduction of cost recovery will allow the Attorney-General's Department to improve the level and range of services to Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants. These changes will provide celebrants with access to support and guidance in carrying out their duties, which will in turn improve services to marrying couples. The amendments will allow the Attorney-General's Department to provide stronger regulatory and information services to existing and aspiring Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants.

Subject to the passage of this legislation, from 1 July 2013 there will be a $600 registration application fee for a prospective celebrant seeking registration, a $240 annual celebrant registration charge imposed on all Commonwealth registered celebrants and a $30 application processing fee for seeking an exemption from the annual celebrant registration charge, the registration application fee or annual ongoing professional development obligations.

The celebrant administration and fees bill makes some minor administrative amendments to enhance the operation of the program. This includes the introduction of an Australian passport as an additional identity document that a celebrant may use to establish a marrying party's place and date of birth. This has received significant report from the celebrant community. I acknowledge there are a range of views on these reforms within the celebrant profession, a point I noted in my own electorate of Blair when I met with local celebrants. A dramatic expansion in the number of celebrants has taken place since 2003. This is the result of the former Howard coalition government relaxing the cap on celebrant numbers and, thereby, putting financial pressure on many excellent celebrants practising today.

The member for Ryan raised the issue of ensuring transparency in the development of cost recovery. The Attorney-General's Department has provided a cost recovery impact statement as part of its submission to the Senate inquiry into the bills. This sets out in detail the costs that are to be recovered and the department's activities in administering the program. In accordance with the longstanding cost recovery principles, the government will review regularly the operation of these fees to demonstrate they are recovering only the cost of administering the Marriage Celebrants Program. I note that the amount set for the fees and charges will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance.

The member for Ryan noted the extensive consultation the government undertook in the lead-up to the introduction of these bills. These consultations have provided useful input into what services and support celebrants wanted from the department. In response to this consultation, the government will strengthen the application process for prospective celebrants as well as developing new ways of engaging with celebrants online and by telephone and undertaking more targeted monitoring of performance. While no-one wants to pay a new fee, celebrants can take heart in the knowledge that this change will bring immediate and longer term benefits to the profession. It is relevant that this is not something that has come about without warning; there has been extensive consultation around the country since the measure was announced in 2011. Ultimately this package of reforms will ensure that marrying couples are legally and validly married through a professional and caring service, as they should rightly expect on their wedding day.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.