You are saying that they did use books and pages. I do not know.
Not really. To be perhaps much more precise in my own answer, I'm saying that I don't know either, but I would just about be surprised if they didn't, certainly in 1964.
And this is based on my own personal experiences (which, granted, is in the United States) of going through public records dating from that era and earlier. All of the public records I've encountered in my own experience were stored in books. And documents referring to those records indexed them by book and page.
I did do at least some online search for Australian birth certificate images, but the problem is that the vast majority of the ones I've found online, even of certificates from say the 1960s or so, seem to be copies that were produced after computerization took over. For example, a certificate of someone born in 1960 that was produced in 2002.
And yes, there were some that I didn't see any kind of book or page reference on.
It seems to me that maybe there are often actual one-page certificates, and then there are records in books. We really need an Australian who knows about public records to weigh in to bring any real authority to the discussion.
You could really help your argument on this point at least if you could post a link to an Australian Birth doc that did mention book and page.
If my argument is that I have seen a few Australian Birth Docs, not many, but a few, and none have used book and page, and you can find one with book and page, it would tend to weaken my argument.
The “why the match” argument is the strongest for me, leaving book and page aside.
Lavender, Miller and 44B 5733 all match.
Why do they match?
Well, of course because one was copied from the other.
What are the ramifications of the match?
Well, it calls the documents into question.
Who benefits from calling the documents into question?
People who want to see to documents called into question.
It is more likely that the documents were intentionally made to match by people who wanted to call the documents into question than the documents were accidentally or negligently made to match by someone who didn’t want them to match.
(Now that I think of it, that just rules out accidental error in the case of the Kenyan doc. Either the Kenyan doc or the Aussie doc could have been made by someone who wanted to call the doc into question.)
We’ll have to see what happens.