The following information has been forwarded to me by a marriage celebrant who is very concerned about the proposed changes that will impact family historians:
I am writing to alert you to proposed changes to the Notice of intended marriage (NOIM) form being considered by the Commonwealth Attorney-Generals’ Department that will impact on other official marriage forms.
The department is inviting feedback from Marriage Celebrants on the draft revised Notice of intended marriage form. To provide feedback by 28 October 2018, visit the consultation page here.
In particular, these items are currently collected and transferred onto Official Marriage Certificates. The proposed changes are removing these items, and thus they will no longer appear on Official Marriage Certificates.
5. Usual occupation
6. Usual place of residence (full address)
11. Father’s name in full (If not known, write “unknown”. If deceased, add “deceased”)
12. Mother’s maiden name in full (If not known, write “unknown”. If deceased, add “deceased”)
I consider that removing these items will impact Family History Resources in the future, especially for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
This information can be confirmed from these links.
– Proposed: Notice of Intended Marriage
– Current Marriage Forms: Notice of Intended Marriage and Official Marriage Certificate
There’s no doubt that this would affect future family historians, and I don’t think you’ll find any current family historian that wouldn’t be disappointed by this news. Afterall, we glean so much information from certificates, so to remove occupations, addresses and parents names will make it harder for researchers and we would have to find alternate records to provide this information.
Current marriage certificates (along with birth and death certificates) are all covered by the privacy period, and won’t be seen by the general public for many, many years (unless it is immediate family member). So to stop these proposed changes is simply planning ahead for when your children or grandchildren get interested in family history. Think of what kind of paper trail there will be by then, probably less than we have had researching, as so much will be digital.
While the note above says that its inviting marriage celebrants for feedback, the Attorney General’s website doesn’t specify that. So if you are concerned and wish to voice your opinion about these proposed changes and removal of information from future certificates, send them an email, you can find their contact details here.
No they cant do this. As stated its the only way of confirming information. Its hard enough when your family name is Davis, Wilson and yes a few Smiths just to make it interesting.
I agree. Removing the proposed information from marriage certificates would make tracing family history extremely difficult in a lot of cases. Is there an official way we can object to the proposed changes?
Ruth, you can write to the Attorney-General using the link above.
OMG – how awful if this happens! My own Ontario, Canada one didn’t have that depth of detail (no idea when that changed as it certainly used to), so to see other jurisdictions moving away from this is very sad. Hope there will be a way to stop it.
I don’t understand why the need for the change as it only deals with the facts which is integral for researching families and their connections. Australian documents are renowned for being very informative so why the ‘cut backs’ in an area so unnecessary
Parents’ names on marriage certificates can be vital if you’re trying to identify living relatives in cases involving medical history, deceased estates, etc (and for ordinary family history, of course).
Not only for family history but In these days where so many people are from blended families, it is even more imperative that we try to keep some kind of records of who is marrying and their lineage.
Leave it as it is, I’m so sick & tired of these Departments doing idiotic things to take away family values. What are you trying to turn our Country into.
It is essential for future research in ANY FIELD, that the information on Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates remains as it is currently written.
We have the best Certificates for researchers in any country, including our own, so why mess around and change things just for the sake of change. There is no justification to hide any of those items, whether it be for Legal / Privacy or other reasons. Those items are already covered by current laws.
May I ask who thought up this dumb idea. Saving ink can be the only reason and even that makes no sense
Bureaucracy gone mad ?
I suppose officials are looking at it from the point of view is this information needed for official purposes. So we need to think along those lines. I would have thought that such details could be useful in court cases, for example where wills are contested. The other issue is will this, if approved, open the door for changes to dearth and birth records?
As a researcher of family history (where do you come from) it is a joy to help people find their ancestors in my case going back to the 1500. For future historions to leave out vital information such has been proposed will be very unfortunate for the future researchers just leave thing as they are why do we have to change just to keep some bureaucrat in business.
Usual occupation
6. Usual place of residence (full address)
11. Father’s name in full (If not known, write “unknown”. If deceased, add “deceased”)
12. Mother’s maiden name in full (If not known, write “unknown”. If deceased, add “deceased”)
These are PUBLIC RECORDS, available for research and to verify the status of any person intending to marry. Hiding information will result in many mistakes in genealogy in the future. Never omit what is recorded . People requesting a copy of a Birth Marriage or Death record, should be sent a photocopy printour of it, not a censored useless document with much data omitted.
I absolutely agree..to remove these crucial records will find it incredibly difficult to fill in the already sparse gaps of one’s family history.
And yes..these are ‘Public Records’..Let’s not go down this undemocratic road!
Public servant having a ‘Utopia’ day!!😡