Attorney-General's Department - Celebrant Association & Networks Meeting

On Thursday 14th April TUCN was represented for the very first time at The AGs - Celebrant Association & Networks Meeting down in Canberra.

TUCN felt very privileged to be part of the table discussions - even if we only said a side comment of "we highly agree" to one statement all day!

The meeting ran from 930am - to - 4pm+ it was a big day! With loads of conversation and consultation happening across the day and a visit from The Hon. Patrick Gorman MP also. (Media release included in another forum post).

Here are the minutes from the meeting. These are taken without emotion or view point. It is as it was. We are happy to open this forum to healthy discussions around the topics included and highlight that just because it was discussed, it does not mean it will happen, it does not mean a change will occur, it means the AG consulted with Associations and Networks from around the country and we will keep working with the Department on necessary and worth-while changes.

Minutes:

Rosa is the lead with an Acknowledgment

Traditions of question time – “Traditions are important”

Comment sheets are now provided so we can share ideas and concepts if they cant be heard in the meeting timeframe. Rosa will get back to us or her team but it allows the conversation to happen.

**Public register: for improving marcel and the public register

Registration and annual charge: There is no discretion by the register if people pay or not. This is a common way for people to be removed off the register.

If a celebrant deregisters they need to redo the Cert IV and also their couples if they are deregistered.

What are we trying to achieve:  how can we test the fit and proper laws, this isn’t common with legislation but is this an opportunity to check or test skills around legislation and obligations.

Constraints and considerations: Legislative change might be needed for some of this change and so that can take time, and an extended process. The scope will also require IT support and depend on what else is happening in the department.

Current law is 3 months leaning after appointment.

With 60 days pay grace.

With 8 reminders.

Currently in place.

Strengthening the application process

Improving professional standards there isn’t one golden bullet we come to it with a clear view. This is for new aspiring celebrants; historically we had knowledge of the law, Rosa had an idea only, is there merit in testing in before the application process, when, how:

Sarah: we cant rely on the training. The application use to have legals, do the test pay for the test, Mark discussed referee  reports and having a professional person, the attitude of the students can have bad attitudes which RTOs see from a very different perspective. Jill personally doesn’t want this responsibility as she thinks it’s a very different relationship. Annemarie suggested OPD should be done in the first year of registration as they could have studied many years prior. Charles agrees with Sarah, so AG is to test on the law of marriage. Pre-testing. Sarah considered OPD further for timeframe.

Yvonne suggested the VET and the robust Certificate IV that they don’t align. Ange: To know the law, is essential and timeframes vary greatly, ensuring knowledge. Jane believes that it will but the belief that this is important and move the mindset.

Charles suggested that potential celebrants check in with associations.

Rosa: Do you think you can live on the income, do you have to skill to say no when its needed: Becoming a marriage celebrant page to all students.  As this shows the reality of it.

Later in the day comment from Rosa: Questions around Consent, Community commitment, the ability to stand up to public scrutiny…

Application to include: A resume, have you been previously been registered from A to B. This is Not current and may not occur its just discussion.

We are moving on and skipping the Happily Ever (before and) After due to time.

Rosa we are going to speak to this possibly electronically

Notice of intended marriage

Focus with Aaron the NOIM, 3 copies of the NOIM have been provided red 2021 version, Yellow tab previous consultation and possible new NOIM to be released shortly. Highlights in yellow throughout to the instructional language only. Privacy upfront, Instructions below and the next page relates directly to the words in the Act, these are minor changes so the BDM have had time to catch up and prepare, this is a whole scale change to come. This current change is for remote witnessing, Blue is the overhaul version – Blue Sky – there are a number of questions to be raised page 3 of NOIM;

Gender: Sensitive around gender and identity. Some BDM systems force you to select. The systems is not aligning with the form. Federal vs State.

Details of parents: QLD State law is the only state that collects and uses the parental details there is no other need.

Plain English could be better applied to the form for the different LLN skills of clients who complete the form.  Charles challenges the occupation and language used.

Rosa highlighted that our client is the focus of the form.

Aaron moved onto page 4 of the form: add a phone number around who and where is the person placed. Rosa suggested an address and location of when the witness took place.

Rose stated that BDM cant contact celebrants?

Irene highlighted is; where is the person located when the form is signed – are they in the country -you must be in Australia. To remain focused that couples will be overseas for this and you cant confirm their actual location. They can be in Africa and say they are in Sydney.

Jean asked what the concerns are from AG so we can better educate celebrants and so we know what and why.

Instructions works on the NOIM instructions will be available any day now and within the guidelines for NOIM.

Item 5 and 6; Where should it be placed on the NOIM and what is else should be included?

Sarah suggested a reason for the shortening could be option as its used for ABS. The only real use would be to find stats to get someone available to approve shortenings after hours and on weekends for the majority of weddings for the ill.

Room conversation: Item 5 – 8.

Move signatures up, remove parents so page over. Move late notice, and transfer of notice below for flow.

Item 7 Ceremony used: Rites used for stats and planning but this doesn’t happen anymore, a checkbox would eliminate issues happen for stats.

Item 8 Transfer: State the reason of the transfer and is this an obligation by force to the celebrant to transfer for example if a person does the work and another celebrant steps in last minute. It was discussed to remove the Authorisation number as this gets doubled up on the other page signed off the by the celebrant. More work is needed around transfers. The consideration of students getting other celebrants to do other NOIM while pending appointment and this isn’t a legal problem currently but the consideration of taking a “lodgement fee – just words used for this idea” – who owns the form and clarity around this…. The legal celebrant is obviously, there should be agreement around the celebrant not accepting the wedding side if this is the case to support all stakeholders.

A considerable idea is that we get the same privilege as couples to choose if we want to do their wedding.

Rosa, states that things take time, complexity in everything we work through. Build knowledge and time. The message is complexity and it influences all agenda items.

OPD and separate meetings

What are we observing for separate meetings?

Suggestion made around Male dominate cultures. Education is key for understanding. “coercive control”. This hasn’t changed our job role or obligations around pressure, it can be a quick check in and not judge the consent. We do not need to interrogate or increase the level of satisfaction. Lets simplify. Modern slavery and forced marriages.

There was talk around the how but this is the same situation as it was before nothing has changed for our obligations. Strong talk about face to face meetings for the in person meeting on consent.

Celebrants need to consider the records gathered for someone who isn’t of sound mind. Annemarie suggested another tick box on the NOIM or to add a Stat Dec for couples to fill out. Yvonne: forced marriages…

Jean spoke about the stats around the 4 attempts # around consent and attempts on the OPD requirement.

OPD and additional meetings

Including content and training around consent and how to handle, it and forced marriages. Deescalating.

Regulation up date in 2021.

Rosa asked for community on this.

OPD could be increased to include content and additional leaning for old and new celebrants there are 10k celebrants who may or may not have the knowledge. Conferences were mentioned, the point system with other industries, proposal from Sarah that we haven’t heard, mention of the RTO to deliver quality training, obligations for attendance, loads of chat around this which is positive as we understand training and education. Discussion around how celebrants could align with the equivalent of accountants.

Dorothy came online: agreed that RTOs space for training and education around RTOs.

The Marcel Portal only has capacity for 2 OPD requirements as compulsory and the other is Elective. So it doesn’t have capacity.

1991 Charles appointment. 1974 through the American humanist society doing Marriages. Humanist Society having performed 1246 marriages and in his 80s. It took 6 years to get appointed as a celebrant in Australia. Being appointed by the local member at the time, with the focus on women to get appointed. With mostly men as celebrant. On the 31st December this year.

63,000 in his first year he did over 100 ceremonies in his first year amongst many other ceremonies. One of his highlights of his career was putting together a logo, to state gay friendly before the legislation changed, being in the parade for two years. Handing out his resources, books. The joy of the career is his, strength. The love of the couples.

Shortening of time

Irene  and Anthony – shortening of time ideas to get these approval after hours and weekends as this service isn’t available.

A range of suggestions were made, all are discussions only.

Assistant Minister The Hon Patrick Gorman,

A wedding day is the most important day of a couples life. Retold his history of meeting, marrying his wife. Appreciating the work us Celebrants do. Truely Australian is that people get to choose and shape their special days, with us crafting their special days and also guide them on the legal side of the business. .. Its important to hear from us what is and isn’t working, looking for a professional skills, legal correct and informed cultural and ethically, identifying the threshold of celebrants, recognising that not everyone is suitable to be a celebrant, realising that people can use this is a tool before they invest, OPD, lifting standards, forced marriage, consent, modernising the platforms for all stakeholders. Being the best it can be with accessible information. Annual survey for decisions and how can we enhance the program of them and us. Thanks to our commitment to the profession, to the people and the community and to the outcome.

Charles read a note from his association president, strongly stating that he takes interest in our program. The Minister was challenged on the capping of celebrants, The Minister said that there is not expectation on this, also a wedding can be both compliant and deeply meaningful so the two can go hand in hand. We must be compliant, it has to remain a lawful wedding, us celebrants  get to support the both.

Yvonne thanked the Minister for putting forward encouragement and professionalism is going to be considered as high priority, (5 minute one), recognising the teams from the Rosa to management which was resounding.

What is my job as the assistant manager: What would a member of the Australia public expect – a professional experience, having it from a client centred approach, and this is an expected from Commonwealth, and their experience with a celebrant add joys, and to think of things that they haven’t thought of for our clients.

Thank you what we do helps for our clients, to fulfil their dream..

Anthony: Skill set, raising the bar and OPD for 5 hours, 2 compulsory and 3 elective. This will take the support of the Minister to make this happen and to be supported in. What are the expectations are moving forward, instead of jumping through hops and make change, capacity and public service lifting capability is one of his tasks. Is this are specific areas to enhance the PD  and how we enhance, The Minister is very interested.

Real consent… was mentioned specifically…

Web based interface… 5 year goal: Sarah suggested the link to website would be ideal. Anthony suggested the streamline of the site, for the general public such as language.

New Guidelines

We are going to consultation on the Guidelines and this will shape and little bits that need change, the goal that this happens before end of year. This is an online platform for people to contribute; there are some questions that need answering and there may be a placeholder on some. With 6 weeks remaining before end of year to which MLC will do its best to get the draft done.

The Shortening Time reflection again; particularly actual health concerns, Rosa is seeing a welcoming outcome with BDM, and is possibly making gains. BDM are open  to real situations with of course circumstances. Having more conversations around being more prepared. These are aspirational ideas only.  The register in the courts need training they don’t have the skills around the prescribed authority, there are 5 reasons and its very clear.

Go to the local court house, to serve the  public, couples, with shortening of time. Build the relationships.

Meeting Closed.