Federal Register of Legislation - Australian Government

Primary content

Marriage Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2)

Authoritative Version
  • - F2006L02600
  • No longer in force
SLI 2006 No. 208 Regulations as made
These Regulations amend the Marriage Regulations 1963 to increase the cap on the number of marriage celebrant registrations which can be made in the registration years commencing on 1 September 2006 and 1 September 2007 from 10% to 20% of existing registered marriage celebrants.
Administered by: Attorney-General's
Registered 11 Aug 2006
Tabling HistoryDate
Tabled HR14-Aug-2006
Tabled Senate14-Aug-2006
Date of repeal 09 Apr 2013
Repealed by Attorney-General's (Spent and Redundant Instruments) Repeal Regulation 2013

 

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

 

 

Select Legislative Instrument 2006 No. 208

 

 

ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Marriage Act 1961

Marriage Amendment Regulations 2006 (No. 2)

 

Section 120 of the Marriage Act 1961 (the Act) provides that the Governor-General may make regulations prescribing all matters required or permitted by the Act to be prescribed or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act.

Regulation 37K of the Marriage Regulations 1963 provided a system for capping the number of marriage celebrants registered by the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants (the Registrar) in the first five years of a new registration system which commenced on 1 September 2003.  That limit was 10% of the total number of marriage celebrants registered by the Commonwealth.  The limit was imposed to prevent an excessive number of marriage celebrants being appointed at the beginning of the new system and to protect the existing marriage celebrants who transferred automatically to the new system. 

For the purposes of the cap the country is divided into 16 regions, a capital city and a rest of state region for each of the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, and one region for each of Tasmania, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Island. 

Each marriage celebrant applicant is taken to have applied for registration in the region where his or her place of residence is, as stated in his or her application.  The cap on the number of appointments is applied in each region and is determined according to the number of registered marriage celebrants in each region on 31 August in each of the five years in which the cap will apply.

The Regulations increase the cap on the number of people the Registrar may register each year from 10% to 20%.  This increase applies for the two remaining registration years commencing on 1 September 2006 and 1 September 2007 before the abolition of the cap opens the marriage celebrant market.  

The Regulations also maintain the current position that if there is no marriage celebrant in that region at the end of a registration year, then 1 marriage celebrant may be appointed in that region.

Since the commencement of the new registration system there has been a great deal of interest in registration as a marriage celebrant and there are lengthy waiting lists for registration in all the regions of Australia.

The Regulations omit the definitions of the terms existing marriage celebrant, first registration year and later registration year and subparagraph 37K(3)(b) (relating to existing celebrants as at 1 September 2003) because these were no longer relevant, and set a 20%cap in respect of the two remaining registration years, commencing on
1 September 2006 and 1 September 2007.

Consultation on the proposal to change the size of the cap was undertaken under section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 by the Attorney-General,
the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, discussing the issue with the National Council of Authorised Civil Celebrants Australia and the Australian Federation of Civil Celebrants.  These organisations represent most marriage celebrant representative bodies and associations.  As most marriage celebrant representative bodies have been aware that the Attorney-General was considering this change for several months an additional formal round of consultation with all these bodies was not necessary.