Mr McCLELLAND (10:03 AM) —The Marriage Amendment Bill 2002 relates to the substantial modification of the civil marriage celebrants program and it is supported by the opposition. We recognise that the government has undertaken a substantial amount of consultation with marriage celebrants and marriage celebrant organisations—as indeed has the opposition. While I anticipate that there will never be complete acceptance or agreement on the provisions among all marriage celebrants, I think from a long-term perspective that the package of amendments does have merit.

The civil marriage celebrants program was introduced in 1973 by the then Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy. Prior to the commencement of the program, couples had to choose between having their wedding in a church or in a registry office operated by states and territories. It was Lionel Murphy's vision that those people who did not wish to be married in an orthodox religious setting should have the opportunity to be married in a dignified manner by a member of their community, as an alternative to marriage in a registry office.

In those early days, celebrants were selected on the basis of recommendations by members of parliament. That may have been of benefit to both members of parliament and perhaps communities in terms of who they selected, but I think it was conceded that that was pretty ad hoc and far too narrowly selective. That method was replaced in recent years by a policy of appointment to particular areas in response to clearly identified community need, based on data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That data is used to estimate the likely numbers of weddings conducted each year by marriage celebrants in any particular area and is compared with data supplied by celebrants themselves. The program has consistently grown since its early beginnings due to the increasing demand for services by civil celebrants and a corresponding fall in demand for religious services and registry weddings—so much so that in 2001 more than half of all marriage ceremonies within Australia were conducted by civil marriage celebrants. This is a measure of the degree to which Australians have embraced the choice which civil celebrants provide to them.

Of course, many celebrants have moved beyond their traditional area of marriage celebrancy to make themselves available to lead other significant occasions such as births, funerals and comings of age. One would generally accept that these occasions strengthen the bonds between families, friends and communities and that they are appropriate to formalise with the presence of celebrants. They are occasions on which we celebrate the higher attributes and aspirations of people among our families, our circles of friends and our communities, or simply recognise the contribution that one of our number has made during his or her lifetime. These are important occasions and, depending on the nature of the ceremony, can provide people with inspiration, renewal, hope and sometimes even a sense of closure.

I attended one such occasion in June 2002, which was the memorial service for my friend and parliamentary colleague Greg Wilton, who we all remember with fondness. That service was conducted by one of Australia's most experienced and respected celebrants, Mr Dally Messenger—of the famous football name—and it was a fitting tribute indeed to Greg's memory to have the service conducted in the way it was by Mr Messenger. In this way, civil celebrants have an important contribution to make to the life and indeed the health of our nation. Just as celebrants themselves have changed their practices in response to the expectations of the communities that they serve, I believe it is appropriate that the marriage celebrants program move along with the times.

The Attorney-General commenced a review of the marriage celebrants program in 1996 which considered the options and also the opinions and experiences of marriage celebrants, celebrant organisations and marrying couples who use celebrant services. A package of proposed reforms was developed and a consultation process was undertaken with marriage celebrants and other interested parties to finalise the changes to the marriage celebrants program. This is not an easy task. One who has met with marriage celebrants and marriage celebrant organisations would find that, being among community leaders, they are quite strong in their views—perhaps almost as stubborn as politicians—but the consultation process was constructive and did obtain genuine input regarding their views and the direction the appropriateness of the reforms would take. I think it is proper to acknowledge the contribution made by a former adviser to the Attorney-General, Ms Zoe McKenzie, who led consultations with celebrants on development of the reforms. Indeed, the celebrants and celebrant organisations that I met with universally commented on Ms McKenzie's openness, considered approach and courtesy in dealing with them. That is a credit, if I might say, to the Attorney-General and the staff that he employed in those circumstances.

As a result of that consultative process, there were a number of positive changes made to the proposals which the Attorney-General had initially developed. The reforms aim, basically, to raise the professional standards in celebrancy services provided by marriage celebrants appointed under the program. This will be achieved by the introduction of appropriate training, which will be underpinned by a set of competency standards for all aspiring celebrants. Marriage celebrants will also be required to meet ongoing professional development requirements similar to those required by other professionals.

The reforms will broaden and enhance the role of celebrants to include the provision of information on pre-marriage and other relationship services. Celebrants will not, however, be required to assume the role of a pre-marriage counsellor themselves. The reforms will remove the current needs based system of authorisation. This will ensure that aspiring applicants with the appropriate skill and experience, and who meet a `fit and proper person' test, as set out in the legislation, will be able to apply to become marriage celebrants. Indeed, I understand there are a number of people preparing to undergo training in the hope that this legislation will be passed and they will have the opportunity of serving as a marriage celebrant.

All new appointments under the program will be based upon satisfying core competency standards, and this will be achieved through a system of accreditation operating in vocational education and training administered by the Australian National Training Authority. While opportunities for training currently exist for marriage celebrants, there is no current requirement for celebrants to have received formal training or to receive it on an ongoing basis. The program proposes that registered training organisations will develop the practical training course, to be modelled on the accredited framework, and that training will be available from a wide range of training providers. Once an aspiring celebrant completes the training course, there will be an additional requirement to demonstrate to the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants that the person is a fit and proper person to discharge the duties of a celebrant. The criteria will include, but will not be limited to, that a celebrant must be of good standing in the community and whether there is an actual or potential conflict of interest between his or her proposed practice as a marriage celebrant and any other business or related interest.

Existing celebrants will retain their current authorisation status and will not be required to demonstrate that they satisfy the new core competencies. They will have to satisfy the requirements of ongoing professional development. Appointments will continue to be made on a lifetime basis, subject to satisfying the requirements of ongoing professional development and compliance with a code of practice. All marriage celebrants will be required to complete ongoing professional development requirements. It is envisaged that no more than five to eight hours per year would be required for celebrants to be able to keep their skills up to date, in the form of ongoing professional development.

There will be a transition period of five years in the implementation of the revised basis of appointment. During this period, the number of new celebrants will be limited to a 10 per cent increase each year, based on the total number of authorised celebrants in the previous year. So it will be an incremental increase and will avoid, if you like, a flooding of the civil celebrants service.

A new Registrar of Marriage Celebrants will develop a mechanism for complaint handling. Celebrants will have a right to be advised of the complaint against them and to put whatever material they think appropriate to the registrar before a final decision is made on any penalty or other sanction. Sanctions may include a requirement that further professional development be undertaken. They may also include the suspension, if necessary, of a celebrant for a given period of time. Only as a last resort is it contemplated that an authorisation would be revoked entirely. Decisions will be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This mechanism, we believe, will be effective, will ensure the provision of procedural fairness and natural justice, and will replace the current system of complaint handling, which has been criticised by some celebrants as lacking transparency. We believe the new model will be, overall, an extremely positive development.

All marriage celebrants will be required to satisfy a code of practice, a copy of which has been publicly available for some time. The code covers matters such as requiring a celebrant to maintain a high standard of service in professional conduct, compliance with the Marriage Act 1961 and other laws, and a range of requirements for the conduct of marriage ceremonies. All celebrants will undergo a performance review every five years. Reviews may be based on a consideration of any complaints received, compliance with the code of practice and satisfying requirements for ongoing professional development.

Despite consultation, it is fair to say that many existing celebrants have continued to express some concerns about some aspects of the package of reforms. One frequently expressed concern is that the reforms will result in a substantial increase in the number of celebrants in the market, which will put pressure on existing celebrants, particularly those persons who make a modest living from their practice. It would be disappointing if, as a result of these changes, existing celebrants with expertise, experience and the support of their communities, find themselves unable to continue practice because simply their services are not in demand. We have indicated that on behalf of the Labor Party we are prepared to monitor the operation of the changes to the program in this regard, but, as I have said, we consider that the incremental rate of increase in the registration of new celebrants will substantially protect that flooding of the market from occurring.

Celebrants have also expressed concerns about the conflict of interest provisions in the bill. They are contained in section 39C, paragraph (2)(e) of the bill, and that provides that the registrar, in determining whether to authorise a person as a celebrant, must take into account whether the person has an actual or potential conflict of interest between his or her practice or proposed practice as a marriage celebrant and his or her business interests or any other interests.

The Attorney-General has provided me with a copy of a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Family Law Branch of the Attorney-General's Department to celebrant organisations, setting out the way in which the conflict of interest provisions are intended to operate. The letter states:

For instance, the example which is frequently discussed is a restriction on the proprietor of a wedding reception venue also being licensed as a civil celebrant for the purpose of attracting business to that marriage reception venue. We, on the whole, consider that protection against conflict of interest to be appropriate.

The letter goes on to point out that these conflicts of interest provisions are standard provisions, replicated in a number of pieces of Commonwealth legislation and that a similar provision is being enforced to determine an applicant's suitability for appointment as a celebrant for many years. Ultimately, however, it will be the responsibility of the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants to apply that test in a proper fashion. I trust that it will be applied in a way which is consistent with the approach outlined by the department, but we have no reason to believe that it will not be.

One day it may be possible for celebrants themselves to assume greater responsibility for the administration of civil marriage celebrants programs. I think it is fair to say—and I have said this to civil celebrant organisations that I have met—that will only be possible if there is greater cooperation between existing organisations which represent celebrants. Celebrant organisations, such as the Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants, have for some years been working towards lifting standards of professionalism in celebrancy. However, the existing body of celebrants is currently not sufficiently cohesive to assume a coregulatory role. In the meantime, it is appropriate that administration of the program be the responsibility of the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants within the Attorney-General's Department. As I have said, however, the future destiny of that issue of self-regulation, which I think all would concede would be desirable, to a large part depends on the celebrants themselves and their organisations achieving that necessary cohesiveness, at least in terms of their adherence to basic principles.

The bill makes a number of other amendments to the Marriage Act. These deal mainly with matters involving changes to the notice of intention to marry under the act, and to make processes in relation to the form more flexible without interfering with the overall integrity of the notice. In particular, appropriately qualified overseas professionals will be able to witness the notice. Currently, only certain Australian qualified professionals, or an Australian consular official, are able to witness the notice. That process has had a negative impact on overseas persons wishing to marry in Australia.

The bill provides for guidelines to be developed to assist prescribed authorities charged with permitting the shortening of time between when a notice of intention to marry must be lodged and when a couple can marry. It also provides for overseas passports to be an acceptable form of identification for couples as well as birth certificates. It also removes redundant provisions in the act relating to marriages performed overseas by Australian consular officials.

The changes both to the civil celebrants program and to the Marriage Act itself will enhance the professionalism of civil celebrancy in Australia. We believe they complement the moves that already are taking place within the celebrant organisations to enhance the quality of service which celebrants offer to the community. The changes will also benefit those Australians who, in recent years, have sought to be appointed as civil celebrants but who have been unable to secure an appointment due to the idiosyncrasies of the current system of appointment. Most importantly, the changes will benefit those Australians who choose to be married by a civil celebrant as they will contribute to the further raising of this standard of the civil celebrancy service in Australia.