Celebrants: Excessive Numbers

Celebrants: The Destructiveness of Excessive Numbers

I have been distressed for many years that the policy of balanced numbers, as advocated by Attorney General Daryl Williams, was completely reversed after he resigned from parliament.

Like most of you, I keep my ear to the ground and talk to celebrants and the general public all the time. There are a some quite wonderful celebrants, who by dint of skilled advertising on the internet and good reputation, manage to gain enough ceremonies to earn a part time income. There are a few celebrants who are so well off financially that they are able spend a great deal of money to hire persons with internet skills to do their marketing.

The majority of celebrants, however, struggle to gain two or three ceremonies a year. When they do, lack of practice means that they forget the skillset needed and the procedures required. The public suffers from their lack of ceremonial expertise, and simply time on the job.

There are many bad effects of these excessive numbers.

Celebrants who used to be involved have lost interest; the energy they used to give to celebrancy, now goes to other activities.

All the work done with Ongoing Professional Development and courses of training is mostly wasted because it is not applied. And by the time it might be applied it is forgotten.

In some areas over-competition has become really intense. Degrading and false claims in advertising abound. Bad feeling exists among celebrants. As a result we have lost status and dignity in the community.

Celebrants, who outbid each other in price for ceremonies, find ways to lower standards. Because of the low price they accept, they find it impossible to put their time in to plan and execute a ceremony really well – which is what is supposed to be our ideal. These celebrants find it is not financially worthwhile to observe the high standards we have developed over many years.

When celebrants are not sufficiently involved, and are spread too thin as they are, there are seldom individuals who develop intellectual, political and media leadership.

Some celebrants have developed demeaning “gimmicks” to “get business”. A few get a number of marriages this way and thus cheapen the public image of celebrant ceremonies.

In general, celebrants have lost esteem in the eyes of the general public. I don’t see them looked to now for a range of other important personal and social ceremonies (state funerals, namings, adolescence, dedication of houses, industry transitions etc.) as they once were. I don’t see them looked to as skilled ceremonialists for public ceremonies such as Anzac Day, or university and school graduations, building openings and the like.

The good governance reputation of the Attorney-General and the Department, i.e. the public service, have been diminished in reputation by these excessive numbers.

THE NUMBERS: This is how I see it.

Before 2003, 1600 celebrants adequately catered for the whole of Australia. Many were full- time.. 2000 maybe would have been OK. 2500 would have been excessive.

At one stage, against all advice, a Registrar appointed 11,000 ! A crude bureaucratic fee and compulsory repetitious OPD has forced out some wonderful celebrants. Admittedly it has reduced the numbers – still there are thousands too many.

YOUR QUESTION: What would I do?
1. Place a full or percentage moratorium on all appointments for say 5 years or so. (It was done before.) Make it clear that any “recognised” qualification only entitles people to apply to be a celebrant. Celebrants are then only appointed through an independent vetting, selection and interview process, according to balanced need. Other strategies are also available.

Dally Messenger 11 June 2022