The question has been referred by the Secretary to the Department of Defence for advice as to what action, if any, should be taken with reference to marriages of members of the Australian Imperial Force abroad.

The general position is that marriages are registered in the countries in which they take place and in no other country. It is one incident of emigration that the difficulty and expense of proof of such matters is enhanced; and where emigration has been from individual choice this has not been made a matter of public concern.

In the British army, where soldiers are sent abroad in the course of their public duty, provision has been made by K.R. 1941 for registration of marriages, births and deaths in official registers, which are forwarded to Somerset House, London.

I think that, having regard to the importance of these matters being readily susceptible of legal proof, it is very desirable that action should be taken in the case of the A.I.F. which will facilitate proof of marriages, of those who for the public benefit went abroad, and also, I think that, if registration of marriages is undertaken, it would be desirable to extend it to births and deaths also, as in the case of the British army.

The State legislation providing for compulsory registration of marriages, births and deaths cannot apply to those which take place abroad, and similarly, if the Commonwealth Parliament passed an Act with respect to marriage, under the Constitution, section 51 (xxi), this would not extend beyond the Commonwealth.

It would be necessary, therefore, to invoke the assistance of the Imperial Government, and, as suggested by the Parliamentary Draftsman for South Australia, this might well be done by the Federal Government. If the Imperial authorities could arrange that properly authenticated copies of the records of these marriages should be forwarded to the Commonwealth, these could be distributed amongst the States, each State receiving the certificates relating to soldiers who enlisted in it, and the respective States could pass the necessary legislation authorising their respective Registrars-General to bind up the copies in the general registers, and that when so bound they should be deemed to be certificates within the meaning of their respective Acts, and so as to come within the provisions making certified copies prima facie evidence of their contents. This would not, of course, preclude evidence being given that the facts were not as shown in the certificate, but would save much trouble, expense, and delay.

I see great difficulties in making certain that records were received in every case, but, though incompleteness would greatly lessen the usefulness of the records, it would not destroy their usefulness. I think that it may prove impracticable to obtain records except for those marriages which took place in the United Kingdom, but these would be the vast majority of cases.

Even in the United Kingdom difficulty would be experienced in getting complete records, as the identification of records relating to members of the A.I.F. would

depend on the 'occupation' and 'residence' inserted. It might be well to obtain copies of all registrations during the war in which Australia was given as the place of residence, as a man may easily have given his civil occupation for insertion in the records.

I think the Imperial authorities should be asked to arrange that certified copies should be forwarded by the Registrars, to whom it might be agreed to make some proper remuneration or that persons employed by the Commonwealth might make searches and obtain certificates, the usual search fees, certificate and stamp fees being waived or greatly reduced. The lists compiled at A.I.F. Headquarters, Horseferry Road, from returns sent in by commanding officers would serve as a guide and a check, but to make the register as complete as possible, I think the records should be searched, and an additional check might be obtained from the A.I.F. allotment records.

[Vol. 16, p. 48]