Zhang v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2026] NSWCATAD 103;

"We want the name of Ada Qiang Zhang that was recorded on the original application form we submitted. We have not used Audrey Qimeng Zhang this name [sic] to register on any government identities such as Medicare yet. We are waiting for new birth certificate of Ada Qimeng Zhang without former name for official use for government identifies."

1. On 19 September 2024, the Respondent amended the first registered name to "Ada Qimeng Zhang", with no previous name recorded on the birth certificate ("the second registered name"). On 2 October 2024, a birth certificate was issued with this name.
2. On 30 October 2024, Mr Zhang emailed the Respondent stating that Ms Peng was "still not very comfortable with this name". Mr Zhang stated that they were "from overseas with different cultural backgrounds" which made it harder to give the child a name. Mr Zhang said that they were "struggling giving the most proper name" to the child. Mr Zhang spoke about how this was negatively affecting Ms Peng. Mr Zhang asked if there was a chance they could use the "correct entry form again to update baby name without any previous name on endorsement". There was no new name proposed in this email correspondence. This was their second application to correct the child's name.
3. On 14 November 2024, the Respondent replied to the Applicants, noting that the amendment to the child's name had been previously completed. The Applicants were advised that if they wanted the child's name changed, they were required to complete a change of name application form.
4. On 9 December 2024, the Applicants submitted an application to the Respondent to correct the child's second registered name to "Audrey Qimeng Zhang" (not a change of name application form). In support of this application, the Applicants submitted health records where this name had been used (as noted above). In the application, the Applicants stated: "We want the name of Audrey Qimeng Zhang that was previously registered. We are waiting for registered old birth certificate of Audrey Qimeng without former name for use for government identities".
5. On 7 February 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Applicants noting that their application for amendment to change the child's name back to "Audrey Qimeng Zhang" had been reviewed. The Applicants were advised that if they would like their child's name changed, they were required to complete a change of name application form, and the process was not a correction.
6. On the same day, the Applicants sought an internal review of this decision to decline their application to correct the child's name on the child's birth certificate. The Applicants submitted records of the child's appointments with the GP and Paediatric Specialist confirming the name of "Audrey" had been "consistently used in all healthcare interactions". The Applicants stated that their "primary concern is that we do not want a former name on her birth certificate, which is why we are requesting a name correction".
7. On 3 March 2025, on internal review, the Respondent decided to vary the decision to decline to correct the child's name. This was because the Applicant had demonstrated that they had use the name of "Audrey" in the community. However, to maintain the integrity of the Register in line with s 6(a1) of the BDM Act, a notation would be included on the birth certificate to show that the child was registered with the second registered name.
8. The Applicants subsequently filed an administrative review application with the Tribunal, seeking a review of this decision.
9. On 9 May 2025, the Tribunal made orders by consent, with the effect of correcting the child's name with no endorsement/notation on the birth certificate. That is the birth certificate would have no indication of the child's second registered name. The child's name was subsequently registered as "Audrey Qimeng Zhang" ("the current registered name").
10. On 10 June 2025, the Applicants applied a third time to the Respondent to correct the child's name to "Aubree Qimeng Zhang".
11. On 15 September 2025, the Respondent decided to decline the application to correct the child's name. This decision was based on the Respondent's Correcting information in the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register and Certificates policy ("the Correction Policy") which states at clauses 2.1 and 2.2 in the version published on 17 June 2025:

"2.1 Correcting a name on a birth record

An alteration to a registered name will almost always require a change of name application. In determining whether a name can be corrected without the need to register a change of name, the Registry will consider evidence such as Australian and international birth registration records, immigration paperwork and other forms of documentary evidence.

In limited circumstances, minor corrections to the spelling or punctuation of a name may be made where there is clear evidence of an administrative error or omission.

2.2 Correcting the name of a newborn child

A correction may be made once to the name of a newborn child where all the following conditions are met:

• the correction relates to a minor spelling or punctuation, or the inclusion or exclusion of a middle or other given name

• the parent/s recorded on the birth registration statement apply for the correction within four weeks of a birth certificate being issued, or within eight weeks of the registration if no certificate has been issued

• the parent/s or guardian/s have not applied for any other identity documents (e.g. Medicare) and provide a statutory declaration stating this fact.

Where these conditions are not met, the parent/s may apply to register a Change of Name of name for the child."

1. Clause 2.1 of the Correction Policy does, in limited circumstances, permit that a name on a birth record be corrected without the need to register a change of name. The Respondent was of the view that these circumstances did not apply.
2. The Applicants sought an internal review of this decision. The internal review was completed on 21 October 2025, and affirmed the decision for the following reasons:

(1) The Respondent needs to ensure that correcting the records brings the entry about a particular registrable event into conformity with the most reliable information available (BDM Act, s 45(1)(b)).

(2) In the Applicants' previous request to correct the child's name, the Applicants provided evidence that they used the name "Audrey Qimeng Zhang" within the community, specifically within the NSW Health system including a Children's Hospital and various medical centres.

(3) These documents were tendered in the previous Tribunal proceedings with the Applicants submitting that "Audrey Qimeng Zhang" was the only name used for the child at the time.

(4) These same documents formed the basis of the previous correction of the Register which was made without a notation on the endorsement of the child's birth certificate.

1. The internal review decision recommended that the Applicants apply to register a change of name for the child. It was noted that this could include a notation on the birth certificate stating that a change of name had been registered, but it would not need to include the former name. A separate change of name certificate could be issued.
2. On 10 November 2025, the Applicants filed an administrative review application, seeking a review of the decision. In their application, they stated:

(1) They have not previously used the child's name as listed on her birth certificate for any government identities such as Medicare and a passport.

(2) The name "Audrey" was used before solely for GP's visits "sometimes".

(3) The name "Audrey" carries a cultural connotation that is in conflict with their family's cultural beliefs.

(4) They want to update their child's name without the previous name being shown on the new birth certificate.

(5) They need to get the child a passport to go overseas for her health check.

1. A person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Respondent made in the exercise or purported exercise of functions under the BDM Act may apply to the Tribunal for an administrative review of the decision under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1977 (NSW) (ADR Act) (BDM Act, s 56(1)).
2. The Respondent's decision to decline to correct the child's name on the Register is an exercise of the Respondent's functions under s 45 of the BDM Act, which provides:

45 Correction of Register

(1) The Registrar may correct the Register -

(a) to reflect a finding made on inquiry under Division 2, or

(b) to bring an entry about a particular registrable event into conformity with the most reliable information available to the Registrar of the registrable event.

(2) The Registrar must, if required by a court, correct the Register.

(3) The Registrar corrects the Register by adding or cancelling an entry in the Register or by adding, altering or deleting particulars contained in an entry.

1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is therefore enlivened with this application.
2. In determining an application for administrative review under the ADR Act, I am to decide "what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it", including "any relevant factual material" and "any applicable written or unwritten law" (ADR Act, s 63(1)). That issue is to be determined with regard to the objects of the BDM Act set out in s 3, which includes the keeping of registers "for recording and preserving information" such as births and changes of names. I am to have regard to the general functions of the Respondent which includes maintaining the integrity of the Register (BDM Act, s 6(a1)).
3. In determining the application, I am also to give effect to any relevant Government policy in force at the time the administratively reviewable decision was made except to the extent that the policy is contrary to law or the policy produces an unjust decision in the circumstances of the case (ADR Act, s 64(1)1).

1. The Applicants have applied for the first name on the child's birth certificate to be corrected - from "Audrey" to "Aubree". The Applicants are requesting a correction to the child's name, and are not requesting that the child's name be changed. This is because they do not want any record of the child's current registered name on the child's birth certificate, or otherwise any records on the birth certificate that the child's name has been changed.
2. Under s 45(1)(b) of the BDM, the Respondent may correct the Register to bring about an entry about a particular registrable event into conformity with the most reliable information available to the Respondent of the registrable event. In the BDM Act, a "registrable event" is defined as follows (BDM Act, s 4(1)):

"registrable event means a birth, adoption or discharge of adoption, change of name, change of sex, death or marriage."

1. The power in s 45(1) of the BDM Act to correct the Register is discretionary. For the Respondent to be able to exercise the discretion to correct the Register, the correction must be about a registrable event.
2. I am satisfied that there is a "registrable event", which is the child's birth.

Would a correction bring an entry about a registrable event into conformity with the most reliable information available?

1. One year after the child was born, and after having made two previous applications for corrections to the Register, the Applicants submit that the correction they seek (from "Audrey to Aubree") aligns with the child's "real and established identity".
2. The Applicants submit that they "realised shortly after" the child's current registered name was entered into the Register that "the registered name did not reflect the name actually used." The Applicants state that they "made a settled decision to use the name Aubree. Since that time the child has been known exclusively by the name Aubree in all aspects of daily life." The Applicants state that the child's current birth registration does not reflect the child's "actual name used in practice".
3. The Applicants submit that they have not used the child's current registered name for Medicare, Centrelink, a passport or any official record. They submit that the child has not developed any "legal, social, or administrative identity" under the current registered name.
4. The child's current registered name was entered into the Register on 9 May 2025. This correction was made after the Applicants made submissions that the current registered name was used for all her previous records including GP's letters, the Children's Hospital and the paediatric specialist. The Applicants provided supporting documents to the Respondent showing that the child was identified in the NSW healthcare system with the current registered name between 21 July 2024 and 8 August 2024.
5. Contrary to the Applicant's submissions in these proceedings, the child's current registered name has been used. The Applicants, by their own previous evidence and submissions, intended to use and actually used the child's current registered name prior to 10 June 2025.
6. It is only recently - one month after the child's current registered name was entered on the Register, that the Applicants claim that the child is now known as "Aubree". In support of this contention, the Applicants submitted an undated childcare application/waitlist record from June 2025 and two records of doctor's appointments (booked online) for the child scheduled in January 2026. The name "Aubree" was used by the Applicants in these records. This evidence, however, does not establish that the name "Aubree" has been used for the child by anyone other than the Applicants.
7. I do not accept the Applicant's current submissions about the child's birth records not being accurate, as the child's current registered name has been used prior to June 2025. In my view, it would undermine the integrity of the Register and be inconsistent with the Respondent's general functions under the BDM Act, to correct the child's first name on her birth record, nearly two years after her birth, when she has a name established in NSW healthcare records.
8. I find that the current birth record for the child reflects the most reliable information available and it is not appropriate to exercise the discretion in s 45 of the BDM Act to correct the child's name in the circumstances of this case. I do not accept that the Applicant's information about what they have been calling the child recently is the most reliable information available. The most reliable information about the registrable event is the evidence of the child's current registered name, including the use of this name prior to June 2025.
9. In Afchal v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2021] NSWCATAD 24, the applicants sought to a correction to the Register in respect of their children's birth record to show the applicants' changed names. The applicants in that case had changed their own name several years after registration of their children's births. The Tribunal was of the view that there must first be an error in the entry about the registrable event before the Registrar can correct the entry under s 45 of the BDM Act. The Tribunal then went on to relevantly state at [42]-[43]:

"42. It is implicit in the applicants' case that they view the information, in their children's birth records, about the applicants' current names as more reliable than the information that is currently held by the Registrar. Whether that is so depends on whether a birth entry is meant to contain information taken as a 'snapshot' of the circumstances that existed at the time of the event, or information that can change over time to reflect circumstances that may come into existence after the event.

43. In my view, and subject to an exception dealt with in [45] below, the 'snapshot' characterisation is the correct one. This is because s 45 talks of 'the most reliable information ... of the registrable event'. It focuses squarely on the event itself, not on what may occur at some time in the future. Future events or changes in circumstances, such as the parents' subsequent change of name, are not part of the record of the birth event. As those circumstances were not then in existence, they could not be included in the birth registration statement, and there is no mechanism to have them included in the birth entry at a later time."

1. It has taken a year after the registrable event of the child's birth for the Applicants to settle on a name for the child. The Applicant's recent decision about the what the child's name should be does not constitute an error that requires correction to the child's birth record.
2. The Applicants want their child's name to be changed to the name they have recently settled on, however they do not want a record of the current registered name on the child's birth certificate. The Applicants alluded to cultural reasons which they did not clearly identify or provide evidence of. I am not satisfied that these are sufficient reasons to enliven the application of s 45(1)(b) of the BDM Act and correct the child's name on the Register. I agree with the Respondent's position, that the more appropriate option in the circumstances is that the Applicants make an application to change the child's name.

1. It follows that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the Respondent's decision to decline the Applicant's application to correct the child's name on the Register.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.