DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : As I was saying before the adjournment, the purpose of this bill is to strike a balance between protecting personal information from those who might wish to abuse it, and maintaining freedom of information and the right of the public to access the registers. The registers are a source of information about demographics, health, mortality, and other important information. They also provide an official record of events such as births, deaths, marriages, civil unions, and name changes that can be used as evidence of those events along with age, identity, descent, whakapapa, and New Zealand citizenship. The registers are not there just for the media to gain information or for historians to do their work. They are there for families, for communities, and for all of us, because public registers such as these are an important taonga for New Zealand and they should be treated as such, both in law and in practice.

Although identity theft was one of the drivers behind the bill, that was not its primary purpose and those members opposite who have tried to play down the significant responsibility of the State in protecting the public records from such abuse have not taken their parliamentary responsibility seriously, in my view. It is even more extraordinary to have these denials going on, knowing that the member, Sandra Goudie, who is a member of the select committee that considered this bill, and who has been most vocal in her ridicule, complained to the Minister earlier this year about a woman who had fraudulently obtained a birth certificate of a child and used that identity to claim over $31,000 in welfare benefits. Then she said there was no problem.

David Bennett, the member from Hamilton East, wrote to the Minister in October 2007 about someone using a false birth certificate to obtain a driver’s licence. He asked the Minister: “When would the requirements for applying for a birth certificate become more stringent?”. Well, duh! That is yet more evidence that National Party members do not talk to each other. As recently as last week I heard another National Party member expressing his concerns about identity theft because one of his constituents had experienced the repeated abuse of someone stealing that person’s identity through birth records.

Over the weekend the New Zealand Herald reported that identity theft is on the rise in New Zealand, with 900 cases of identity fraud relating to 400 identities having been uncovered in the past 12 months. The police say that this is just the tip of the iceberg. So, in my view, we would be really stupid to ignore international trends that show identity theft is a growing problem. There are reports from Britain that identity fraud has risen by more than 60 percent in just the past year, and there is no reason to believe that New Zealand will not follow this trend. Therefore it makes sense that the risks associated with open access to registers should be examined, and this is one of the reasons why the bill came to the House in the first place. The call of National Party members to prove that there is a problem, rather than preventing the problem, is quite bizarre. It is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. This Government does not believe that that is good enough and is acting responsibly in bringing this matter to the House’s attention.

The whys and wherefores of the changes made through Supplementary Order Papers have been well rehearsed in the debates on this bill and I do not want to repeat them yet again, although I am sure the member Sandra Goudie is dying to have a go. But it has been an astonishing experience for me. I have mentioned in previous speeches my astonishment at the criticism from the Opposition about the select committee process, but I think it is a tribute to this Parliament that a bill that had opposition from some quarters and, frankly, a bit of a hysterical reaction from others, has been amended to meet their concerns. I feel proud to be part of a Government that is prepared to listen and take on board public concerns, and to work as part of an MMP Parliament to reach a compromise.

I believe that the bill we have in front of us now is a result of that good process of listening to the concerns of submitters, and of collaboration between the parties, other than the National Party. I find it really regrettable that some members have impugned the work of the majority of parties in this House in their cooperative efforts to make this bill one that we and the nation can support. We have seen some amazing hissy fits from National Party members. It is the usual populist “engage the mouth before the brain” rubbish that we see, day in, day out, from that party. There is a good saying, and I will repeat it for the benefit of National Party members: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”, and that is what we are seeing from the National Party.

The final bill is a good compromise between the balancing act that Parliament must strike between the obligations of the State to protect personal information from fraudsters, and maintaining freedom of information and public access. It modernises the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act to take account of technological and social developments, and provides some protections against fraudsters seeking to obtain personal information for illicit purposes. I am delighted to support this bill in its third reading.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I make it quite clear that National stands for freedom, democracy, openness, and transparency. Openness and transparency is one of the hallmarks of democracy, and New Zealand is hailed worldwide as being one of the best examples of openness and transparency. What are we doing with this particular bill? We are, in actual fact, shutting down that openness and transparency. I call that the death of democracy by a thousand cuts, and the population at large sees it unheralded.

Most of the people who were involved with this Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Billin its original form opposed it— completely opposed it. And there were a number of very excellent reasons why. One of the first reasons was that there was no direct correlation between identity theft and access to the Births, Deaths and Marriages register. If members took the time and trouble to read the KPMG report, they would see that for themselves. It was never proven that the premise of this bill, which is around identity theft, was valid. That was found quite clearly during the select committee process, and it was clearly enunciated to all the committee members, including those of the current Government.

The Press Council, amongst others, stated quite clearly that everyone is entitled to privacy of personal space and personal information, and that these rights should be respected. However, the council also said that the right of privacy should not interfere with publications of matters of public record, or of obvious significant public interest. And, quite frankly, much of the information is on the public record. In actual fact, by law records of nuptials are meant to be held in a public way so that everybody is very aware of them. That is what the law requires. So although the bill has been watered down, it still means that we will be jumping through hoops to get access to information that is publicly available in a whole lot of other forums, and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be available in this forum.

I could talk about a number of different submissions, not the least of which was one by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, who had concerns about this bill, and rightly so. Those concerns were expressed and seemed to have been ignored. I would like to mention the submission of David Grant, chairperson of the Trade Union History Project, who also had grave concerns about this bill. In respect of privacy, he felt that much of the information was already public, and that there was no need to shut that access down or to restrict it in any way—which is clearly being done by this current Government, without real justification.

One of the problems that this Government finally came to recognise, but used a sledgehammer to fix, was that if one goes to the Births, Deaths and Marriages register and asks for some information, one can get a copy of an authenticated certificate, without any requirement for identification. That is absolutely wrong. It has been practised for many, many years and should have been clamped down on long ago. But when this Government tries to do something, it does it with a sledgehammer rather than trying to fix it by some other means. One would have to ask what the problem was that the Government was trying to fix. It certainly did not clearly identify that, hence the need to go into a negotiation process about what the bill would actually contain. So because the Government did not practise good problem definition in the first instance—and I have to say that most of its legislation bears the hallmark of poor problem definition—the bill is quite convoluted and requires a lot of substantive changes. Those changes still retain the hurdles for access to information for births. One is excluded from having that information unless the birth took place 100 years ago or more, and for still births it is 50 years ago or more. Marriages and civil unions must have taken place 80 years ago or more before one can start accessing that information. That still means that one has to jump through hoops to get that information.

A number of the reasons that were given by many submitters are very, very valid. There are moves around the world to free up information, following New Zealand’s example, but here we are going in the opposite direction. Why is that? It is because this current Government thinks, in the words of the Privacy Commissioner, that this is “privacy pollution” and that we should not have the ready access that we have had for many, many years. That access to the information also means that private investigators, banks, and genealogists—everybody who has ready access to that information—can actually correct that information. Eighty-six thousand corrections have been made over the years, not by the Department of Internal Affairs or registrars-general of Births, Deaths and Marriages but by external individuals and agencies having ready access to that information. They should still have access to that information.

As I said before, for the benefit of New Zealand First, openness and transparency is one of the hallmarks of democracy, and it should be retained and not lost, at all costs. This was recognised by the majority of submitters to this bill, yet that ready access will now be denied, in spite of the changes that have been made to the bill. This is the reason why National continues to oppose this legislation. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and there could have been other ways to fix the problem without going to the extreme of what has been done here. There is already a raft of legal and regulatory measures to protect people’s privacy, and we know that the Privacy Commissioner is now looking at all the other registers across Government that contain information, and looking at how the Government can shut down people’s access to that information in those registers, as well. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer pointed out, this particular bill is the tip of the iceberg, and it will now roll on to all of those other registers.

Again I say that openness and transparency is one of the hallmarks of democracy, and we should defend that strenuously. Members should not forget that this debating Chamber is a memorial. Our armed forces, our Anzacs, and the people from our Returned Services Associations fought and died for our freedoms and our democracy. That is what we should be defending in this House, right to the bitter end. We should not let that go unrecognised. Of course, this is the new battleground. Our democracy and our freedoms are being undermined, little by little, without the public really being aware of it, in a number of pieces of legislation. This is a constant battleground. We have to be aware of those changes, and we have to fight to protect our democracy and our freedoms, and this is one of those cases.

David Grant, in his Trade Union History Project submission, said that there would always be a balance between what is public information and privacy, that it is very hard to see how information about the date and place of a birth, marriage, or death, and the full name of that person or persons, compromises their privacy, and that it is also hard to see how the confirmation or other of parentage could be deemed a privacy matter for those other than a direct relation. Researchers often access information about all sorts of people they are not directly related to. That is one of the essential marks of historians, and that is why David, as chairperson, spoke pretty strongly on behalf of the Trade Union History Project, and opposed the changes being mooted by the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill.

The media were very concerned. They felt that this bill was also an attack on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that it breached the freedom of the dissemination of information. Another submitter, James McAloon, associate professor of history at Lincoln University, said the bill failed the test of reasonableness. There was submission after submission that gave a range of valid reasons for opposing this bill. The reasons have been reiterated in this House time and time again by National members, but have still been ignored by the rest of the House.

It is very disappointing that nobody values our democracy and freedom as much as the National Party. We will continue to do that, and continue to fight for that in this battleground here in the House. I am very proud to stand here on behalf of the National Party and oppose this legislation.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I do not think I will take my full 10-minute call because I do not think that will be necessary. The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill has been well explained to the House.

I say to the member who has resumed her seat, Sandra Goudie, that she has just given the impression to anybody who might be listening to this debate that access to the registers through the registrar-general’s office is totally denied. She knows that that is untrue. She has given the impression that there is a steel casket around the information held by the office. That is absolutely untrue and she should have made the true position clear.

Sandra Goudie knows that the bill came back to the House unchanged. The Government Administration Committee was made up of equal numbers of Labour and National members. New Zealand First had no influence there. But it was amended in this House. She knows that an access register will be set up so that people can go and get information held by the office. Those people’s details will be recorded, so that other people can find out who has asked for information concerning themselves. It is quite simple.

Historians came before us and voiced concerns about the bill as it was presented, as did genealogists, adoptees, and people who represent adoptees. The select committee listened to them. National members ignored them, but the Minister took their concerns on board and produced a rather lengthy Supplementary Order Paper. We have debated that in this House, and it has in very large measure addressed all of those questions. The historians, genealogists, adoptees, and people who represent adoptees whom I have spoken to are happy, in very large measure, with the new bill and the access arrangements.

If members needed anybody to give them an example of why things need to be tightened up, they had Sandra Goudie. Sandra Goudie engaged somebody to go and get information from the registrar-general’s office, and he or she did that with complete ease. Sandra Goudie illustrated to the select committee that the system needs to be tightened up, but now she has stood in the House to oppose the tightening-up that the bill will do. That just does not make sense. National members stand there and say they are all for democracy and all for being caring New Zealanders, but they give the opposite impression.

This bill has been modified extensively by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper since it came back to the House. That has improved it no end, and it has made it a very workable bill.

I want to conclude with one little change, which New Zealand First steered through. The National Party would not support us even on this. The word used on copies of death certificates—not on actual death certificates, which talk about a burial, a cremation, or what have you, but on copies—is “disposal”. That is insensitive and unacceptable. An elderly lady pointed this out to me. It was unrelated to the bill, but it just happened that the bill was at the select committee at that particular time. I raised it at the select committee with the officials. They took it on board, as did the Labour Government, and it has been corrected in the bill. I think that proves that by listening to New Zealanders members can make minor changes that are of some significance. I am quite delighted by that little change, because it shows clearly that some MPs in this House are prepared to listen to ordinary New Zealanders and their concerns.

I do not think there is much more to say on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. It is a bill that addresses an issue. It tightens up the births, deaths, and marriages registers, but it does so in an acceptable, enlightened manner. Personally, I am pleased with the way it has done that. New Zealand First supports this bill.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I come to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill driven by the principle of whakapapa. I come to this bill with a deeply personal understanding of whakapapa and of what it means for any discussion on births, deaths, marriages, and relationships. My very first utterances in this House, in fact, traced the journey I know of as defining my whakapapa—a journey that began with Toi Kairākau, with Rauru and his son Whātonga, carried through to Tahaiti, to Uenuku, from Uenuku to Ruatapu, from Ruatapu to Rākeiora, from Rākeiora to Tama ki Te Hau. These are my ancestors. They gave me life, and they live in me. So I come to this bill absolutely, utterly believing in the importance of whakapapa and the vital need to know who gave me life.

As tangata whenua we hold in the highest regard the value of whakapapa as the means of defining who Māori are as a people. Whakapapa is the bridge that links us to our ancestors, defines our heritage, and gives us the stories that define our place in the world. Whakapapa helps us to know who we are, from whom we descend, and what our obligations are to those who come after us. It tells us who we are. I recall a warning left by John Rangihau in 1987 that cutting children off from their whakapapa had the effect of making “a child of lineage, a child who belonged only at sea, to be rescued if possible”. He left that legacy to Child, Youth and Family Services, which never understood the depth of those words in Pūao-te-ata-tū - Daybreak.

For tangata whenua the vision of our babies adrift at sea with no one able to throw them a lifeline to reclaim their whakapapa and their identity is a haunting one. We believe it to be critical that all children know whom they belong to. Whakapapa is, and always has been, the basis of Māori culture. The knowledge that a child is Māori, that a child has a Māori heritage, means that the child is a taonga of his or her whānau, hapū, and iwi. In turn, the whānau, hapū, and iwi to which the child belongs have an obligation to care for that child as best they can. We believe that every child is determined by those who have come before him or her. Every child is a product of his or her history and whakapapa. Every child deserves to belong: to know and to understand his or her descent, and to have a meaningful relationship to it.

It was of particular interest to me, in preparing for this bill, to come across a paper published in Human Reproduction in 2007 entitled “A retrospective study of New Zealand case law involving assisted reproduction technology and the social recognition of ‘new’ family”. The paper contrasts what its writers describe as predominantly “… non-Maori) traditions ofnuclear family formation”, which features “less well-known genealogiesand … diverse genetic histories” with “wider extended family formation (whanau); extremely well-knowngenealogies (whakapapa) with well-established genetic connections;and the well-accepted practice of guardianship (whangai)”. The writers suggest that “the letter of the New Zealand law has … remained true to its British antecedentsreflecting a nuclear, truncated and highly biologized view offamily according to Pakeha folk understandings, ignoring Maoridom’straditionally more open family formations.” They conclude “For Maori, this hasbeen a particularly pernicious practice in relation to the lackof recognition of the importance of the concept of whangai,and in cases of adoption and ART,”—assisted reproduction technology—”the loss of whakapapa whichorders an individual’s relationship with the wider social,material and spiritual world and forms the basis of one’sethnic identity”.

We hope today that in supporting this bill we will go some way towards addressing the pernicious practices of the past, and in doing so will help to heal the wounds that have been created as our people have been cut off and alienated from the very source of their identity as tangata whenua.

We in the Māori Party, along with the Greens and United Future, were concerned that the bill in its original form imposed unjustifiable restrictions on New Zealanders’ access to information. We were concerned that by restricting access to records to individuals and immediate family members, the legitimate public research carried out by historians, genealogists, and other researchers would be blocked. We were particularly alarmed at the definition of “immediate family”, which sprang from a Eurocentric model. It would have had dramatic and negative repercussions for those researching their whakapapa. Brenda Joyce from the New Zealand Society of Genealogists’ Māori interest group described whakapapa as “a hereditary right guaranteed to Māori by means of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”. She described birth, death, and marriage certificates as often providing the link that starts people on the journey back to their marae. If those links are broken, tangata whenua will be critically handicapped in researching their whakapapa and supporting Treaty claims. Mrs Amer of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists also made a very good point: that the information contained in birth, death, and marriage registers, as well as illuminating personal family history, can lead to a wider appreciation of history in general.

In the light of those submissions and others, the Government Administration Committee reported that “Many submitters opposed the bill’s intention to restrict registered information to only the individual concerned [and] their immediate family”. It recommended that the bill “retain general public access to the registered information”, which is a move we support. We believe that every child has the right to know who has given them the sacred gift of life. The right to know one’s parents is a right that has been far too frequently denied, and we do not believe it is in the interests of our people to sit silent on such a critical issue as identity.

We do, however, have considerable feeling around the need to protect women and children from the shame and trauma that come with the consequence of rape or incest. Where the child is a result of such an act, there should be other legislative protections in place that prevent them from suffering any further trauma. We also acknowledge that a change to require all parents to be named on birth certificates may require other amendments, to ensure children are safe and properly provided for.

• Debate interrupted.