Graham wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:44:39 +1100, Robert G Eldridge wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 03:20:16 +0000 (UTC), Graham >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>The old Great War Index (which is no longer available due to the 100 >>>year rule) lists the birth twice. >> >> Your use of the phrase "the 100 year rule" is I trust not meant to imply >> that there is a general rule in these matters. >> >> I am aware of administrative decisions made by some States and past >> moves to formulate an Australia wide policy but thank goodness it's far >> from an Australia wide universal decision. > > In Victoria a few years ago (about 2000 I think) our Government in it's > wisdom decided that birth records should not be released to the public > until 100 years after the event. Before that it was 80 years. The Great > War Index that had been published a few years earlier contained some of > these records so it was removed from sale. Copies that are "out there" > were not recalled however. > Why "thank goodness?" Because diversity is a good thing? Perhaps the States should allow cars to be driven on whichever side of the road they think best. An Australia-wide standard is better than 8 different ones. Apart from its individual Registrars' abbreviations, its abbreviated forenames and its DOS-age GUI for searching, Victoria takes care not to say prominently anywhere, what its cutoff dates are. You are expected to look up its leaflet. Time has stood still in this State. Doug, Indexing for the Ryerson, now over 3.3 million entries from 199 newspapers. Is your paper one of them? --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---