❓ Hon Robin Chapple questions the Attorney General regarding the redaction of "Aboriginal" from birth certificates, access to BDM records for Native Title purposes, and potential implications for the State's standing as a model litigant. The answer refers to another question.
AnsweredQoN 3348Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Birth Certificate Registration
28190/1886 (Jane Ring) and the photograph entitled, "Aboriginal Jane - Birth Certificate" which may be found at http://www.robinchapple.com/qdata . This
certificate was requested by a relative family member in 2013. A certificate
was issued on 2 September 2013, and records
the Mother as "Jane". The family member who requested the certificate re-visited
the Births Deaths and Marriage (BDM) office on 12 November 2013 and was advised that the word "Aboriginal"
had been removed as it may cause offense. He inquired about how he could get a
certificate that had not been redacted and was requested to complete a
statutory declaration stating that he would not be offended if the word
"Aboriginal" appeared on the certificate. He subsequently completed a statutory
declaration and was issued with a certificate dated 12 November 2013 that records the
Mother as "Jane (Aboriginal)". I ask: (a) why does the BDM Registrar issue certificates with the
removal of the word “Aboriginal” (or variations such as “Aborigine” or
“Aboriginal native”); (b) is
the redaction of the word “Aboriginal” from BDM certificates occurring at the
direction of the Registrar in accordance with section 57(2) of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act
1998 ; (c) if
no to (b), what is the reason for the redaction and who authorised it; (d) if yes to (b), how has it been determined by the Registrar or any other authorising body that the
appearance of the word “Aboriginal” on BDM certificates is “offensive”; (e) what advice, if any, is provided about the redaction of the
word “Aboriginal” to those requesting the certificates; (f) where the word “Aboriginal” (or similar terms) appears on
handwritten event registrations, is this being entered into the Western Australian Registry (WARS) database; (g) what
is the archiving procedure for the event registrations that have been entered
into the WARS database; (h) is there a Native Title Access Policy to BDM records; (i) if yes to (h), where is the policy document; (j) if no to (h), why not; (k) if no to (h), what access do Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRB) have to BDM records; (l) if no to (h), what access do State Solicitors Office (SSO) researchers have to BDM records; and (m) if there is differential access to BDM records for NTRB and the SSO in relation to Native Title Determination Applications, how does this affect the State’s standing as model litigant?
28190/1886 (Jane Ring) and the photograph entitled, "Aboriginal Jane - Birth Certificate" which may be found at http://www.robinchapple.com/qdata . This
certificate was requested by a relative family member in 2013. A certificate
was issued on 2 September 2013, and records
the Mother as "Jane". The family member who requested the certificate re-visited
the Births Deaths and Marriage (BDM) office on 12 November 2013 and was advised that the word "Aboriginal"
had been removed as it may cause offense. He inquired about how he could get a
certificate that had not been redacted and was requested to complete a
statutory declaration stating that he would not be offended if the word
"Aboriginal" appeared on the certificate. He subsequently completed a statutory
declaration and was issued with a certificate dated 12 November 2013 that records the
Mother as "Jane (Aboriginal)". I ask: (a) why does the BDM Registrar issue certificates with the
removal of the word “Aboriginal” (or variations such as “Aborigine” or
“Aboriginal native”); (b) is
the redaction of the word “Aboriginal” from BDM certificates occurring at the
direction of the Registrar in accordance with section 57(2) of the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act
1998 ; (c) if
no to (b), what is the reason for the redaction and who authorised it; (d) if yes to (b), how has it been determined by the Registrar or any other authorising body that the
appearance of the word “Aboriginal” on BDM certificates is “offensive”; (e) what advice, if any, is provided about the redaction of the
word “Aboriginal” to those requesting the certificates; (f) where the word “Aboriginal” (or similar terms) appears on
handwritten event registrations, is this being entered into the Western Australian Registry (WARS) database; (g) what
is the archiving procedure for the event registrations that have been entered
into the WARS database; (h) is there a Native Title Access Policy to BDM records; (i) if yes to (h), where is the policy document; (j) if no to (h), why not; (k) if no to (h), what access do Native Title Representative Bodies (NTRB) have to BDM records; (l) if no to (h), what access do State Solicitors Office (SSO) researchers have to BDM records; and (m) if there is differential access to BDM records for NTRB and the SSO in relation to Native Title Determination Applications, how does this affect the State’s standing as model litigant?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
23 September 2015
Responded by
Minister for Attorney General
Response time
36 days
(a)-(m) Please refer to Legislative Council Question on Notice No. 3347.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.