A special arrangement that allows parents from Albury to have their newborn babies registered in NSW after giving birth at Wodonga hospital will not be extended to those from Greater Hume, after the court refused a mum's pleas.
Wodonga hospital provides maternity facilities for those across the Border region.
Since 1999, the Attorneys General for NSW and Victoria have had an agreement that if an Albury or Wodonga baby is born in the municipality across the border, they could still be registered in their home state.
There have been instances of the NSW Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages giving the same privileges to parents in neighbouring shires such as Greater Hume.
But that was stopped last year.
One Greater Hume mum was provided with a NSW birth certificate after giving birth to her first child in Wodonga in 2017 and, having not moved before having her second child in 2019, planned to do the same thing.
She was told no.
IN OTHER NEWS:
After complaining to the registrar, she got an explanation admitting the NSW birth certificate for her first child was a mistake.
"I apologise that the incorrect information has been provided to you and can confirm that training has been provided to staff and processes have been amended, in accordance with the current agreement and legislation," the registrar said.
The mum asked for the decision to be reviewed at the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
She did not provide a response to the issues as requested, and the matter went ahead in the court without a hearing.
Tribunal senior member Peter Molony said under the specific agreement drawn up in 1999, it is not possible to register the birth of a child in NSW when they are born in Wodonga, but live in Greater Hume.
"No matter how one looks at it the applicant does not live in Albury," he said.
"The applicant's place of residence is well outside those boundaries."
He was not swayed by the mum's first-born child being given a NSW birth certificate.
"The fact that the birth of the applicant's older child was registered by the respondent is not a precedent," Mr Molony said.
"Because the respondent made a mistake or error in registering the first applicant child's birth does not oblige the respondent to repeat the mistake."