Click here for the latest news
Are you one of the 93% of civil or minority religious marriage celebrants, who have spent a lot of your time and money to become a marriage celebrant, only to find that the latest Government announcement will very likely make it impossible for you to recoup your set-up costs, let alone continue to develop your celebrancy practice?
Is that fair? Have your say
In the 2011 Federal Budget the Attorney General’s Department has decreed that all independent marriage celebrants will be required to pay a $600 annual registration fee to keep their Government appointment. But not so for the recognised clergy!
Is that fair? If you think not, have your say
This means that after 1st July 2013, if a couple wants your services as an independent marriage celebrant, you may need to add an extra $90 – $100 for your service. This is the extra cost per wedding, on average, which will be necessary to recover this extra annual fee imposed on Commonwealth celebrants. But not so for couples married by Recognised Religious celebrants, as they are not included in this fee impost !
Is that fair? If you think not, have your say
The Government has no evidence to support the assumption that the majority of civil celebrants can earn a sustainable full-time weekly wage equivalent from wedding work alone.
To earn a sustainable full-time weekly wage equivalent from wedding work alone, a civil celebrant would need to average 100 weddings p.a. With 72,000 weddings p.a., that means 720 celebrants and the Government sacking:
• 93% of the current 10,300 civil celebrants immediately, and
• 50% of civil marriage celebrants every year
to maintain this number, as 700+ new celebrants are appointed each year.
Is that fair? If you think not, have your say
The gross annual income of the average civil or minority religious celebrant is less than $3,300 p.a. (i.e. average 6.6 weddings p.a. at a conservative $500 per wedding). The ACCN estimates the hourly rate for wedding work is $1.42 for 10 weddings p.a. and $22.66 for 50 weddings p.a.
So, civil marriage celebrants already subsidise the Government’s Commonwealth Marriage Program, and now these marriage celebrants and consequently their couples are being asked to pay the system an extra $ 4.2 million each year!
Is that fair? If you think not, have your say
See main points
Note: The views expressed in comments published on www.celebrantsequality.org.au are those of the comment writers alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Civil Celebrations Network (CCN) Inc , nor do they represent the views or opinions any entity of, or affiliated with, CCN Inc. Comments are published after review; however, CCN Inc. reserves the right to edit or not publish or take down posts at any time.
You have covered religious discrimination in depth. I’m impressed.
I have listened to argument against (99.9%) and for (.01% – Dru!) for this tax on civil celebrancy, and have already heard of celebrants of my vintage considering early retirement. I don’t believe this present government, even with a change of AG, will back down from the decision already made and factored into the 2013 budget. A change of government will not mean a change of MCS staff, and the result will be the forced retirement of all or most of the experienced celebrants who have put their hearts and souls into offering a community service for very little return. The field will then be left open for
(a) those few celebrants who are making a living wage and
(b) the bright, eager newly appointed celebrants who will be quickly disillusioned.
A small number of celebrants constantly replenished from the bottom, with little experience but lots of theory taught by non-celebrant trainers will not provide the quality of service which the public deserve and once received.
Is the hidden agenda a push for church or registry weddings?
Unfortunately….that’s life. Tax is apart of it. I don’t agree with it and certainly believe it could be smaller amount than $600 pa. But if all CMC’s increase their price to justify the new fee and our services, then we are all on par and no one has to suffer. Not even the Bride, as it will become industry standard and every couple has got the funds in their wedding budget to cover a Celebrant Fee for an additional $100. It’s a like it or lump it scenario – regrettably.
The government has created this problem by registering as many celebrants that were deemed suitable candidates. Now they have created so much work for themselves and created too much bureaucracy that they can’t afford to run the department and they want the Celebrants to fund their mismanagement. We receive nothing from the department other that a list of rule and regulations that we must abide by and all of us do. We fund everything ourselves and very expensive it is too from professional training to office and transport costs etc.They don’t even supply us with the relevant documents we have to purchase those ourselves too. Why don’t they have a marriage ceremony fee that every couple has to pay, religious and non religious.
It doesn’t have to be a huge fee perhaps $100. Couples pay huge amounts for their weddings and the Celebrant proportionally will receive the least. We pay out enough.This fee is discriminatory and it is to cover their own self created expenditure, all of their own making too and hopefully they will get some celebrants to resign in protest and thus reduce the demands of the department. What happened to the real meaning behind civil celebrancy which was to meet the needs of the community. We celebrants are still doing that against all odds and are earning a very small income for the privilege, yet somewhere during all those years the Attorney General’s Dept has turned it into a money making industry for themselves. Take heed we will not be accepting this without a fight.
If the government is intent on improving the ‘quality’ of the service, maybe they should be looking instead at the Marriage Act and endeavour to iron out the anomalies. We are already one of the most heavily taxed countries in the western world and as far as I am concerned this is just another one. This fee is not even equitable – look around at other professional fees, this is grossly excessive!
This fee introduction undermines the AG’s department system. We are charged to train, then annually for OPD, get ourselves insured, advertise in a highly competitive market, pay for permits, and try to keep our fees to clients reasonable. Since beginning as a Celebrant in 2009 my costs are 3 times higher than the income i can make. I consider myself and my service “very professional”, my training and motivation keeps me that way, not the introduction of a “professional fee”. Marriage is not a business it’s supporting our community…….why else does our application place so much emphasis on “Community Standing”.
The reforms cited on the paper from AG’s Department re: strengthening application process for example “do not compute”. Those applicants not up to standard should be sifted out during the training process,(now that’s its been increased). The application process is ok as it is and so too is the amount of monitoring through OPD. Systems are in place through affiliated organisations, surely the AG’s reforms would take these into consideration and not duplicate the work!. Marriage Celebrant Associations already give most of the support and 90% of Celebrant answers. The AG’s Department only needs to keep Celebrants informed of changes to the Law.
The Professional Fee is too much for too little.
I was appointed in February 2010 and have outlayed $3000 to maintain and develop my work, and for all the administration and paperwork supplies, travel to and from to do my course and hotel stays for OPD. All such expenses that I am not in the position to claim on tax. I am at the stage where I am averaging one wedding per two months and that’s what I’m content with, as that is what I’d hoped for when I first started. If I have to pay this fee, continuing at this rate which I am happy and comfortable with would never cover the overall costs involved. It would not be practical for me and I would be forced to step down.
I agree with everyone 100%. This fee is unfair and unjust. Why should I have to pay a fee and not a religious minister/pastor? Don’t they get enough exemptions as it is!
I was registered as a celebrant in Dec 2009 and I have spent well over $2000 gaining and maintaining my qualifications over the past 3 years and have not even recouped this cost through my work as a celebrant to date.I’m afraid that once this fee comes into play I will probably no longer be able to continue working as a Marriage Celebrant. With the current cost of OPD, insurance, and general running the business it will financially not be a viable option for me any more.
Surely there is a better alternative. I have read some excellent suggestions proposed here. Lets just hope the bureaucrats see some sense and consider some of these options put forward.
The Marriage Celebrants should be supported by the Government rather than be discriminated.
I wonder if this budget announced fee of (potentially up to) $600 (without prior consultation with celebrants or the wider community) is even constitutional, especially given that it discriminates so openly against those in the community (the majority) who choose not to have a religious marriage ceremony and those celebrants who provide them with a service that is obviously preferred in the current Australian culture.
For a variety of reasons, an increasing number (now the majority) of Australian couples are opting for a civil ceremony uniquely facilitated by (for the most part) by a very caring and professional civil celebrant. This decision means couples have choice around their venue, readings, rituals, music, the participation of family and friends etc etc, to name but a few.
Meanwhile, their very committed civil marriage celebrants must work in other jobs to sustain their celebrancy practice in a difficult open market environment where consumer expectations are increasing along with celebrant numbers and still feed themselves, their family and pay the bills.
It’s plainly obvious that good celebrants must put in a lot of work these days to meet their clients needs – the law also requires that they don’t just knock up a template ceremony with different names included and turn up on the day without rehearsal or legal documentation in place. They are expected to provide more and more as part of their service for the lowest possible amount. However, celebrants also pay out much of their income to ensure their own ongoing best practice, purchasing not just their annual compulsory ongoing professional development training, but also other training, books and resources around ceremonial practice, use of technology and business practice to ensure their service is constantly improving.
In addition to maintaining a car, an office, sound and ceremonial equipment and working any day of the week on which they can manage to obtain work, many pay significant fees for professional association membership/s so they can be recognised, supported and assisted in a way that the relevant federal government body is unable to do. In addition to the hefty costs associated with setting up and maintaining a small business with appropriate registrations and insurances, most celebrants also take on other types of ceremonial and celebrancy work within their businesses to pay the bills – their advertising, printing and stationary costs are also significant and my tax advice is that nothing can be offset unless income is over $20,000 per year. We don’t even warrant our own taxation classification..
While a celebrant’s work is often undervalued in the community as people want the ceremony to be the least expensive component of their wedding and don’t recognise the time involved in producing a unique and high quality ceremony, it is still personally rewarding work for the committed person and we should allow those who can make a success of their work financially to be rewarded and not further damage the position of those already struggling. It is not appropriate, therefore, to suggest that a sliding scale of payment should exist based on whether celebrants are in the city or country or based on numbers of ceremonies when the fee is at its core discriminatory, unethical and inappropriate.
If the federal government wishes to raise more funds to run any section of any government department or any program they should raise the fees through legitimate and non-discriminatory channels. For example, a small and simple marriage (license) fee could be imposed directly on all couples who plan to marry at the time they sign their Notice of Intended Marriage. The couple or a celebrant could forward the fee and a simple form for a license including the celebrants name and authorisation number to the Department of AGs and this would ensure that the funds are raised appropriately and that no couple or celebrant is discriminated against. It would also ensure that lawful time-frames around giving notice are maintained. This fee could be easily collected, processed and reported upon by the relevant Federal Government section. Let’s keep this as simple as possible.
If a registration fee were ever to be imposed on any celebrant, civil or not, consultation should surely be mandatory with celebrants before a decision is made. In addition, as with most registration fees, it should be obvious to all just what one is getting for their money.
A more appropriate body to impose such a fee might be a national professional body that sets non-discriminatory national standards in line with non-discriminatory laws. It then could offer concrete value for money such as real recognition of celebrants, ongoing and rigorous training, support and advice, including legal advice, marketing to the public of the hard work of celebrants etc etc etc.
Many celebrants that I’ve spoken with indicate that the marriage celebrant’s section in Government appears to have been swamped for some time now with what some may regard as fairly pointless work. For example, the ongoing assessment of a multitude of applications for celebrant registration in a market already over supplied with celebrants. Surely a policy shift is needed here, not the imposition of a fee on a group already discriminated against. In addition, I believe that the staff are busy with compliance activity which includes looking to find celebrants who are non-compliant with outdated (and again discriminatory) parts of the legislation that force the inclusion but only in civil ceremonies of particular wording set out in legislation. The AGs staff there have publicly stated that this represents a large part of their work and that they are struggling under the weight of this work and yet nothing is being done to change the ludicrous nature of the policy and processes begin undertaken.
A registration fee will not change this situation and, if more staff and work is taken on by the section in future without relevant changes being made, the discriminatory fee will only continue to increase while service for celebrants who are only dosign their best, will continue to slip. It just does not make much sense to me and I will continue to try and improve my own information and inform people that this is how I feel. If we all speak up as far as each of us can without being too arrogant then perhaps the fee is not a fait accompli or it could be rescinded in future???
This is an extraordinarily cynical move on the government’s part. The reasons given by the Attorney General’s Department simply do not stack up and are, in many aspects, incorrect. It is nothing more than a grab for money from celebrants who generally earn very little from their work.
Most Country CMC’s have gone into Celebrancy simply to serve their community. Country people have suffered for years at the hands of bureaucracy where they play the numbers game. Due to travel distances it could well turn out that Country people will also find it hard to get Married because they may have to travel to the City to do this. Some Country Celebrants are only earning $3,000 – $5,000 a year (and that’s a good year). For that return, there is no doubt they will resign rather than pay an annual fee of $600. The Government will be forced to fill that gap with more Country Courthouse Celebrants to whom they will have to pay a wage. Hundreds of years ago, only the wealthy got married, are we to return to those dark ages? By all means put $20 levy to go to BDM’s on each marriage this is fair but this must apply to all persons Performing a Marriage.
This proposed fee, is unfair, unnecessary; and discriminates against a section of the authorised marrying community. Why are Civil Marriage Celebrants not protected by the anti-discrimination laws?
1. In effect the Government is proposing double taxation since AG Department officials are paid public servants already remunerated via Consolidated Revenue. It is analogous to charging a sales tax as well as the GST.
2. To enforce this double taxation the ATO would have to create a class of people distinct from the current classification of civil celebrants as general taxpayers – sole traders, solo taxpayers etc.
3. A class action under the Anti-discrimination Act or under Ch 5 Section 116 of the Australian Constitution.
4. DO NOT fall into the trap of making a celebrants’s life more difficult by suggesting more OPD, more onerous OPD, more insurance etc. Nice cash cows for certain people but the onus is on the GOVERNMENT to mount its case, NOT on civil celebrants. This fee has been cooked up in the head of some public servant or other in response to a demand for cost saving measures so the Government can move to surplus in 2012-2013..
To me it is a clear case of discrimination against a certain class of people.
A tax on marriage, as this is, will inevitably be passed on to the consumer by the Celebrant. A fee of the proposed magnitude cannot be absorbed within the usual fee structure existing in the Eastern States.
But, we elect Governments to make decisions and this is just another form of taxation imposed by the elected Govt. so all I ask is that if we have to ‘swallow’ more taxation…
At least… make it applicable to EVERY person who is authorised to marry people in Australia..
NO exceptions for Religions.. for Govt. employment structures.. for affiliations with anyone or thing.. for any reason!
I am a Commonwealth appointed Civil Celebrant..
I should be at least equal to ALL other people empowered to marry others in Australia.
This proposed tax takes an already slanting playing field and makes it unplayable!
Another government policy with no logical thinking behind it. Logic would say if they need to impose a fee it is based on all registrations of marriage and opd is provided for all those conducting marriages not separate one group.
That sounds reasonable to me…. Religious celebrants (priests, clergy, etc) are operating on a non-profit basis, and marrying couples for their church.
Civil Celebrants charge couples for their time and services, and are in the most part operating a (small) business. It is unfair to think that tax-payers should fund the administration of Civil Celebrants private businesses.
I do not think it is enough of an argument to suggest that Civil Celebrants want to be able to “bend the rules a little” and break the law (Marriage Act 1961). I am not sure what this argument has to do with a registration fee for those Civil Celebrants who are able to earn an income from their role as Celebrant.
In actual fact , the model for civil celebrancy was originally based on the “community service” model exemplified by JPs and Local Government councillors.
The “business model” was brought about partly by changes in the tax system which made reporting of what was for some high-earning celebrants a substantial second income more stringent. It also became possible for some civil celebrants to offset expenditure on business-related items via registration for the GST.
HOWEVER in order to obtain the advantages of a small business model a celebrant needs to have an annual business turnover of at least $10,000. With the current glut of civil celebrants and a national average of only 9 ceremonies per year (for those whose main activity is marriages) it would be virtually impossible for a celebrant to generate that much turnover from marriages alone.
For the few high-earners in celebrancy who can offset the cost through the business tax provisions it may not mean much, but most celebrants are not in this position.
If you are lobbying a Labor local member or Senator, remind them that this second tax is not only potentially illicit but goes totally against the spirit of what Attorney General Lionel Murphy was trying to achieve when he introduced the Civil Marriage Celebrant programme.
This is ridiculous. By all means change the laws.By all means increase the fees.
Increase them for everyone!!!. Equality under the law and a level playing field is not much to ask for.
I DON’T and WON’T support this charge!