Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. This bill amends the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act 1995, which, as the name suggests, provides for the registration of information about births, deaths, and marriages. Information on adoptions, changes of name, sexual assignment and reassignment, and civil unions are also registered under the Act. The Act provides for access to the registered information. These functions are administered by the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

This bill has three main objectives. Firstly, the bill defines the purposes of the registers held under the Act and introduces a new framework for providing access to the information that is consistent with those purposes. This new framework incorporates privacy safeguards and sanctions, but also recognises that there are a range of legitimate reasons why people want to access the information. Secondly, the bill enhances the registrar-general’s ability to ensure that registered information is accurate, complete, and meets the purposes for which it is collated. Thirdly, the bill modernises the Act to take into account the new functions that the Births, Deaths, and Marriages registry performs, and other social and technological changes that impact on the registry’s work. In recognition of the extension of the registry’s functions, the bill will change the name of the Act to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995.

Information about births, deaths, and marriages in New Zealand has been officially registered for nearly 160 years. During this time the nature of the information collected about those life events has increased. In addition, new registers such as the register of donors and donor offspring under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act and the civil union register have recently been created. Clause 13 of the bill creates a new register of name changes by overseas-born people who are New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, and provides for certificates of those name changes to be issued. People must be able to access and obtain evidence of information that supports their identity and family history. It is vital, therefore, that people can trust that their personal information is being held securely, and that it is being used only for purposes that are consistent with those for which it was collated. Clause 6 of the bill sets out the purposes of the registers. They are a source of information about demographics, health, mortality, and other matters important for Government, as well as an official record of events, both for evidential and research purposes.

Clause 26 is a key provision that establishes the main aspect of the new access framework. In general terms, individuals will be able to access their own records and those of their immediate family members, and they will be able to authorise access by other people—for example, genealogists. Access requests made by other people will have to be for legitimate purposes, such as for administering estates. Clause 38 creates an offence of making a false statement in order to obtain access to information to which a person is not entitled. Open public access will still be available for historical records. These include records of births that occurred at least 100 years ago, marriages and civil unions that occurred at least 80 years ago, and deaths where the deceased person died at least 50 years ago or was born at least 80 years ago.

This graduated approach to death records means that when a person has died later in life, the death record will be available to the public at an earlier stage than that of a record of a person who died at a younger age. This recognises that death records contain information about the deceased person’s spouse or partner, and parents, who may still be alive, and that the records contain information, such as the cause of death, that can be sensitive for family members.

Clause 30 enables the registrar-general to provide Internet access for those historical records. This facility will be particularly useful for family history research. Similar access provisions exist in Australia, Canada, and many states of the United States of America. By allowing general public access to historical records only, there will be less risk that people will be able to use the information relating to living or dead individuals for fraudulent purposes.

Of course, that in itself will not prevent identity crime; personal information is available from many other sources. Nor will it remove the need for organisations to have robust processes for verifying the identity of people with whom they do business. A birth certificate is not, after all, proof of the holder’s identity. It is only proof that a birth took place. However, the bill will make it more difficult for fraudsters to obtain information that could be used for illegal purposes. This is reinforced in clause 38, which provides for increased penalties for offences involving the misuse of information.

Clause 26 repeals the Act’s provision relating to the maintenance and production of indexes to the registers. Indexes were designed to facilitate the researching of paper-based records, and are no longer necessary as the registry’s records are now computerised. Individuals and organisations that have already purchased indexes will still be able to use them for their own purposes, but clause 30 creates the offence of publishing that information on the Internet. This will also help to limit the opportunity for the information to be misused. Death information is currently obtained by some non-Government organisations in order to remove the names of deceased individuals from databases and mailing lists—a practice that avoids the pain caused to family members if correspondence is sent to a deceased person—and clause 26 enables this practice to continue, but only on strict terms relating to the way the information can be used and prohibiting publication of the information. The processes for supplying this information are similar to the Act’s current information-matching provisions applying to Government departments.

Several of the bill’s provisions enhance the registrar-general’s ability to ensure that there are complete and accurate records in the event that they are registered under the Act. Clause 30 provides for the registrar-general to be able to obtain address information from the Ministry of Social Development, to help to locate the mothers of children whose births remain unregistered after a lengthy amount of time. This clause also enables the registrar-general to share name change and death information with overseas counterparts. This will help reduce identity crimes by ensuring that birth records are notated with the fact of a name change or death that occurred in another country. Clause 35 provides that the Ministry of Health can give the registrar-general information about a birth or death that has not been registered, or that has been registered incorrectly.

This clause also enables the registrar-general to update records held under the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, by using information such as name change or death information held by other registers. This will help to ensure that donors and donor offspring can identify each other with the most up-to-date information.

The bill amends the Act to give better recognition of de facto relationships. Clause 10, for example, requires both parents to sign their child’s birth registration form, regardless of their relationship status, unless it would be impossible or inappropriate to require both parents to do so. This will help improve the accuracy of the information provided, and will reduce claims that a person has been wrongly named as a parent. Enhancements are also made in the bill to improve the registrar-general’s ability to collect and disclose information by electronic means.

This bill is relatively predictable, but important. It covers a number of matters that will enhance the functions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry. It will ensure that the registry continues to be the trusted custodian of the life event records held by it. I commend this bill to the House.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am very pleased to speak on National’s behalf on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. I commend some of the very sensible changes being put forward in it, but I also have to express some grave concern about the bill. The Minister Rick Barker is quite right; this is a very, very serious bill.

What is happening here, among some of the very sensible changes, is the fact that the changing of the purpose of the legislation being amended, the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act, is being glossed over quite considerably. If we look at the original Act, we see that there are only three parts to its purpose, comprising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). Paragraph (a) is about the fact that information is recorded—that is fine; that stays the same. Paragraph (b) is about access to information. The current Act allows for the ready access of information by the New Zealand public, and that is as it should be. That has been a time-honoured tradition in this country. Paragraph (c) is for the provision and effect of information. So that is a very sensible purpose, which is already in the current Act.

But what is happening in this bill is that the purpose is being modified considerably. The bill now states that access will be regulated, and that the provision and effect of information will also be regulated. This has very serious consequences for the public, who will be absolutely dismayed by such a consequence. I am surprised that the Minister is now looking at regulating access to information and the provision of that information, when the Minister’s own department states that its strategy includes the introduction of new technologies that allow greater access by applicants through the Internet.

But that is not happening in this bill, because if we look at clause 26, we see it substitutes sections 73, 74, and 75 of the principal Act. In fact, it will preclude all of those thousands of members of the New Zealand public who want access to information from birth, death, and marriage certificates, which are historical records. They will not be able to access readily that historical information. Under clause 26, the changes being made to sections 73, 74, and 75 of the Act are such that it will make it virtually impossible for anybody to have that ready access.

That is the crux of what this bill is about. It is turning on its head the public’s understanding of their access to the information on birth, death, and marriage certificates. They will no longer have that ready access. The New Zealand public needs to wake up and to make themselves very aware of what is behind the introduction of this amendment bill. That is in spite of the fact that the Minister’s own department stated that the public would have greater access through the Internet as a result of changes being made in his department.

I can tell members about some excerpts indicating that the New Zealand public reckon that the records are the records of the people, and that the Government is merely the custodian of those records. The New Zealand Parliament has its foundation based on the Westminster system. England has a record of its ancestry that is second to none, through its careful retention of its historical records and the recordings made and kept by its citizens. England has to make public records available to the people at a reasonable cost, so that they have the opportunity to research freely their past and that of others. That access is freely available to them.

I know there are some outstanding contributions to be made by my colleagues, so at this point I will be happy just to declare that National will be opposing this bill on the grounds I have mentioned.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and I look forward to the Government Administration Committee, of which I am a member, considering the bill and reporting it back to the House in due course.

Identity is an important issue for New Zealanders. It is about who we are and what we are, and our histories and our families. Records of identity are important to us because they provide the basis for determining individual entitlements and help us trace our lineage and establish our identity. We want to know that identity information is being used responsibly, that it is up to date, that it is accessible, and that it is accurate. We need trusted records that are up to date and modern.

Sandra Goudie: What’s been the problem to date? There’s been no problem to date. What a load of rubbish.

DARIEN FENTON: I listened to the member’s speech and I ask her to do me the courtesy of doing the same. In its statement of intent for 2006-09 the Department of Internal Affairs told the Government Administration Committee that it currently registers over 102,000 births, deaths, and civil unions. It issues over 200,000 birth, death, marriage, and civil union certificates and printouts. That is a big job and we need up-to-date legislation to ensure that these records continue to be the best they can be.

Many of us in this House have been involved in tracing our family history—even the member opposite, I am sure. Sometimes that has surprising results and some of us discover family backgrounds we knew nothing about. I am sure we can all tell a story about a skeleton in our closet we did not know about, or someone we recently found out we were related to. We may not have known about that person and we may not be so comfortable about it. Of course, in New Zealand it is not hard to find lost relatives. At a 50th wedding anniversary, over the weekend, of a distant cousin on my Irish side I found hundreds of whānau I have never met before. I am sure they are all registered somewhere, and it is very interesting.

Some stories are really heartbreaking. For example, we found out that my grandmother on my husband’s side had changed her name from Burkheimer to Burke during the First World War to hide her German ancestry because of the antagonism towards New Zealand citizens who could be identified as having German blood. Many of us will have dealt with Pacific Island citizens and citizens of other countries who have had terrible trouble accessing their records at home. Sometimes those records had been kept in one place and were blown away by a hurricane or destroyed in a civil war, and so on. That means those people are not able to access simple things like pensions.

It is amazing how those records have an impact on our personal decisions. When my son was born I was living in a de facto relationship with my partner, John. We discovered, when we went to register our son’s birth in Whangarei, that because we were not married his birth certificate would record that he was illegitimate. That was not so long ago. Members know what it is like with children, they grow up fast, and my son is now 27 years old. We were shocked that that societal judgment would continue forever more on our son’s record. We decided to get married because we could not predict how such a thing would be viewed by future generations. We got married at the Whangarei registry office when my boy was just 6 weeks old, and he had what was then the fairly unusual experience of attending his parents’ own wedding. He was not a witness, of course; he was too young.

Of course, if I could have looked forward to the 21st century I would see that the word “illegitimate” would become obsolete, that we could enter into a civil union rather than a marriage, and that society would judge neither us nor our son. In fact, if I could have looked forward to this Labour-led Government I would be able to see that life would be very, very different. However, let me put on record that my marriage has lasted 27 years and my son has grown into an intelligent, hard-working citizen with a strong social conscience, so I have no regrets. May I add, he earns more than his mother so he is making his contribution.

Another issue that many of us have become aware of recently is the increasing use of identity fraud or identify theft. This makes it even more essential that we have up-to-date, relevant, and modern systems of information collection. At the moment any member of the public can obtain the registered information of almost anyone else, and that is not acceptable. Even in New Zealand we have heard the sad stories of the names of babies being collected from gravestones and used for identity fraud. Our identity and personal information are valuable. Criminals can find out our personal details and use them for their own ends to open bank accounts, and to get credit cards, loans, State benefits, and documents such as passports and drivers’ licences in our name.

In the United States and Canada, for example, many people have reported that unauthorised persons have taken funds out of their bank or financial accounts, or, in the worst cases, have taken over their identities altogether. Can members imagine someone else pretending they were them, running up vast debts and committing crimes while using their names. In many cases victims’ losses may include not only out-of-pocket financial losses but substantial additional financial costs associated with trying to restore their reputation in the community and correcting erroneous information for which the criminal is responsible—for example, never being able to access a loan again.

In one notorious case of identity theft the criminal—a convicted felon—not only incurred more than $100,000 of credit card debt but also obtained a federal home loan and bought homes, motorcycles, and handguns in the victim’s name. He also called his victim to taunt him, saying he could continue to pose as the victim for as long as he wanted because identity theft was not a federal crime at that time, before filing for bankruptcy, also in the victim’s name. While the victim and his wife spent more than 4 years and more than $15,000 of their own money to restore their credit and reputation, the criminal served a brief sentence for making a false statement to procure a firearm but made no restitution to his victim for any of the harm he had caused. We want to avoid that as much as we can in New Zealand. We have not seen this on any great scale; let us not go there.

This legislation introduces measures to protect individual privacy and reduce the likelihood of identity fraud. It amends the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act 1995 and proposes changes, especially concerning public access to the births, deaths, and marriages registry information. This means that people will be able to access only their own records or those of their immediate family, or those of other people only with their consent. It will be an offence to try to obtain information by falsely claiming to be authorised to access a person’s record. The new access provision will preserve open access to historical information, and any restriction on records will not apply to those over 100 years old.

Changes in new technology provide us with many opportunities, and this bill reflects this by enabling the registrar-general to provide Internet access to historical records. This will make it easier for those on a quest for family information, but the graduated approach to death records recognises that some sensitive information, such as that of a spouse or partner who may still be alive, or the cause of death, may be sensitive for family members.

I am particularly pleased, given my experiences that I have related to this House as a young mother, that the bill removes discrimination against people in de facto relationships and includes a provision that requires both parents to sign the child’s birth registration form regardless of the relationship.

The bill is technical but important. It reflects the privacy and security needs of the 21st century. We have made significant security enhancements to the New Zealand passport and citizen application processes, and this bill builds on that. I look forward to receiving submissions in select committee and working with the other members—including the member opposite—on the Government Administration Committee to return this bill to the House for its second reading.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) : In the interest of facilitating business through the House I will save most of my comments—if the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill does go forward tonight—for the second reading, Committee stage, and so on. Before I start I want to—

Hon Member: Is this going to be the highlight of your career in Parliament?

MARK BLUMSKY: Absolutely, this is where I am going to make a difference. The previous member who just spoke, Darien Fenton, mentioned the length of marriage. I take the opportunity to congratulate the member on the length of her marriage, and also to congratulate her husband on his courage, bravery, and the sacrifice that he has made.

Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member referred to courage, and that is not acceptable in this House, as I understand it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The usage was not in the manner that we have banned in this House.

MARK BLUMSKY: The word was used in admiration for her husband, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know.

MARK BLUMSKY: National is opposing this legislation for a number of reasons, which I will very quickly allude to. There is some good in this bill. I think the fact that the name of the bill has been changed and the word “relationships” has been brought in is a plus. The fact that 6,000 births are not registered is an issue that needs to be addressed. Mind you, feedback today indicated that an education process needs to be undertaken for Polynesians, and maybe that will get thrashed out in the select committee process.

Issues that have created concern for me, just reading through the bill, are issues with business compliance costs. It states quite clearly in the explanatory note that business compliance costs will be involved. There is neither scope nor feel for what those will be, but it is yet another cost that will be put on private sector organisations that want to be involved.

Secondly, another of the issues I have is that when one looks at the consultation undertaken, one sees that the notes make it very clearly known that there has been a lot of consultation with “Government agencies”. But the line that worried me the most was “Public consultation has not been undertaken.” So there has been no discussion about this bill, none at all, with anyone other than Government agencies.

I took an opportunity this afternoon to talk to the New Zealand Society of Genealogists and asked whether it had any issues before the bill before the House. I can assure members now that that the society has issues—issues that it has put on a note to me—which need to be brought to the fore, and which will certainly tidy up this bill. I will take the opportunity in the further processes of the bill, if it passes this first reading, to bring up those issues that the society has raised. Thank you for the opportunity.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I listened with interest to the member who has just resumed his seat, Mark Blumsky. He raised in a vague sort of way some concerns, but said that National would not be supporting the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. I thought, if there are concerns, it would pay to address the bill, tidy the thing up, and then possibly support it.

Mark Blumsky: And we may do that.

PETER BROWN: Well, the member is going to vote against the bill tonight knowing that there are concerns about it.

If one is in doubt about what a bill stands for and what it is meant to do one should, perhaps, always read the purpose clause, and I will read it. It states: “The purposes of this Act are—(a) to require the recording and verification of information relating to births, deaths, marriages, civil unions, name changes, adoptions, and sexual assignments and reassignments, … ”.

Now I do not know really what it means by “sexual assignments”. I certainly do not know what “reassignments” are. I could only conclude, going back to the customs legislation, that when one of the National Party members Mr John Hayes said that from time to time he goes down Cuba Street spying on bike riders that that is a sexual assignment. Is it a sexual assignment if he is sent there by his leader? It would not necessarily be a sexual assignment if he was doing that as a hobby. I know that the member who has just resumed his seat has a sort of inkling to go to Cuba Street from time to time.

Mark Blumsky: I live in Cuba Street.

PETER BROWN: He lives in Cuba Street, well there you are! That is the reason. But I am at a loss to understand, and I say this very seriously, what this bill means by “sexual assignments”.

Mark Blumsky: Are you going to oppose it as well?

PETER BROWN: No, I am going to support this bill because I want to find out what this is all about. I think one of those members on the Government side will stand up and tell me. But there are a number of concerns that need to be addressed.

I have some notes here, and I understand from my reading of this bill that, for example, both parents will have to sign a birth certificate. That makes sense to New Zealand First for a number of reasons, and this bill will provide the law that compels people to do that.

The bill tells me that a register will be created to record name changes by people born overseas who are New Zealand citizens or who are permanent residents. Those people will be issued with certificates rather than copies of the declaration form, as currently occurs, and that seems to be a worthwhile step.

Another point is that individuals will be able to access their own records and those of their immediate family. They will also be able to authorise other people to access these records for genealogy purposes. Currently, I am told, a person can generally access anyone’s registered information. I find it appalling that people’s records can be accessed by just anybody. That matter needs to be tightened up.

The bill addresses a number of other issues, but there is another worrying concern that I have, on behalf of New Zealand First. It is the definition of “immediate family member” in clause 7(3). It reads: “in relation to a person,—(a) means the person’s mother, father, son, daughter, sister, brother, grandparent, grandchild, spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner; and (b)”—and I have real concerns with this—“to avoid doubt, does not include—(i) a stepparent, stepchild, stepgrandparent, stepgrandchild, or stepsibling of the person;”. It then goes on to list former spouse, civil union partner, or de facto partner of the person.

I say to the House, with some seriousness now, that I know of a situation where the father of a young daughter lost his wife. He married again—a young woman—and he and his new wife are looking after the daughter as their own. The daughter is a terrific young girl, and the mother and the father are terrific people. To say, by law, that they are not immediate family members does not sit comfortably with me. That is totally wrong, and I want this bill to go to the select committee so that that issue on its own can be addressed, because if that is the way this country is going, then it is going the wrong way.

Chris Auchinvole: That’s right!

PETER BROWN: Well, I’m glad the member over there is awake; I thought he was snoozing. I ask him to help me get this right, because although there is some good this bill will do, we are not going into this sort of garbage. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee, but we will be looking to fine-tune some of the detail. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : The world of Māori is rich with metaphor and allusion as to the connections between birth and death, and everything in between. We have many ways of saying “As one day ends another one starts”: Ka tō he rā ka rere he rā—“When a sun sets another rises”. Although this is literally applied to the setting of the sun and the rising of the moon, it also refers to the cycles of life. And then, of course, there is a more familiar whakatauākī: “Hinga mai rā he tētē kura, ara mai rā he tētē kura”—“As a dead frond falls off the fern, a young shoot uncoils.” This is taken to mean in Māori: “As one chief falls, another rises.”

As we come then to the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill, it makes perfect sense to us, the Māori Party, to be discussing it in the context of cycles of life and the interconnectedness of people, land, and ancestors. These matters of life and heritage, of mana tupuna, and of whakapapa, are utterly central to any understanding of what it is to be Māori.

Our identity in 2007 is intimately and regularly connected through to those from whom we are descended and, with that, our obligations to those who come after us. Our people treasure the capacity to recite whakapapa genealogy, tracing descent from Te Kore te Pō, and eventually through to Ki Te Ao Mārama.

In such a world view, issues of identity are incredibly complex, and it is debatable whether any legislation will be able to deal adequately with the delicate nature of real-life situations. Take for example the broadened powers for the Registrar-General to obtain evidence that a registrable event has occurred and that accuracy must be verified.

In the situation of birth, the bill stipulates in the new section 9 that both parents must notify a birth unless there are exemptions. These exemptions include that the other parent is unavailable or that requiring the other parent to sign the register would cause unwarranted distress. Unwarranted distress is an interesting concept. What sort of unwarranted distress could one imagine a child who does not know one of his or her birth parents goes through? How does one weigh up whether the unwarranted distress of getting an unwilling parent to sign a form is worth incurring, if it prevents the unwarranted distress of a child who believes he or she is parentless?

Another definition that stood out is that pertaining to the interpretation of a child having only one parent at law. This is further explained as a child being born as a result of an assisted reproduction procedure, such as donor insemination. It becomes even more complicated if the other parent is deceased or missing, which, again, justifies grounds for an exemption. Surely, a deceased or missing parent does not cancel out that parent’s whakapapa or connection to his or her child, nor the child’s need to name and claim that parent as his or her own.

These are very complex issues. Exempting parents from the signing of birth registrations will in effect deny the child’s entitlement to his or her own whakapapa. Is this in the best interests of the child or is it in the best interests of the adults involved? Although we can appreciate the many variables introduced as exemptions in this bill, we cannot allow discussion of this bill to take place without emphasising the sacred significance of one’s genealogical blueprint.

Yet it is because of the unique status of one’s whakapapa that we will be supporting the bill through the first reading, to enable privacy safeguards to be established, which is the stated purpose of the bill. The rapidly increasing problem of identity crime, identity fraud, and identity theft is being demonstrated in the gaining of money, goods, drugs, and other benefits through the use of false identity. A recent fraud report from KPMG describes identity crime as being one of the most pervasive developments occurring in Aotearoa in recent years. Indeed, it is so pervasive that the security index survey commissioned by information technology company Unisys found that more than half of New Zealand respondents were most concerned about identity theft and about people getting hold of their credit card details and misusing them.

Modern technology allows people to more easily create sophisticated alter identities faster and online. As was discussed last night for the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill, it has become a simple matter to falsify documents over the phone or on the Internet. The Māori Party is always willing to upskill and share our new knowledge accordingly. In researching the background to this bill I uncovered a whole new phenomenon called phishing—with a “ph” not an “f”. Phishing websites trick people into giving out personal information. According to Visa, the number of such websites has tripled over the past year. Phishing attempts—emails purporting to be from banks or auction sites in order to steal people’s identify information—are reaching about 15,000 a month across the world.

True to our number 8 wire mentality, New Zealanders up and down the motu are doing what they can to avoid being victims of identity crime. According to Baycorp Advantage—now Veda Advantage—three in four people now take steps to protect themselves from identity crime, and the ideas are nothing if not innovative. New Zealanders are locking their letterboxes, using shredders to dismantle household paperwork before it is chucked in the bin, or simply guarding their purses and wallets with more vigilance. In fact, the sale of shredders by the Warehouse has been rising by 25 percent each year with the intensified need to chop precious papers into tiny flecks.

The key issue behind identity fraud is, of course, the corruption and offensive nature of the crime. It is a crime that is extremely costly both in terms of invading one’s personal identity and on a purely financial level. In 2006, respondents to a KPMG fraud survey reported some 546 cases of fraud by loans gained through falsified identity. All in all these cases totalled a value of $2.8 million.

I started this call tonight referring to the intrinsic value of identity as the jewel in the record of whakapapa. Conversely, to abuse and misuse identity through fraud and identity crime is a breach against whakapapa. We absolutely support the need for full information to be available at the time of the registration of births, deaths, marriages, and relationships. We believe it is critical that Māori are able to access information about whakapapa, and would hope that in the bill the notion of whānau—in the sense Peter Brown mentioned—can sit alongside that of “immediate family” for this purpose.

We also want to place on record the importance of being able to access such information for family historical research and genealogical study. We will, therefore, vote in support of this bill, and in doing so hope that the very sensitive and complex issues we have raised about the tracing of whakapapa and the due access to records will be given sufficient attention before the bill returns to this House. Thank you.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I, too, speak in relation to clause 10 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill, which deals with the need to register the names of both parents at birth. I take a slightly different angle from that of my friend who just spoke for the Māori Party, Dr Sharples. I accept, entirely, what he said, but my experience as a lawyer is dealing with adopted children and the parents of adopted children. Although the stress for a parent to adopt out a child is unremitting and never able to be fully eased, the distress for a child who has been adopted is, perhaps, even more painful.

I can remember making a journey on behalf of a client to a town a way from Napier, with a client who had accessed her Department of Social Welfare file and ascertained, as well as anyone could from that, the name and the address of the mother. With this client we approached the mother. The physical characteristics were the same. We confronted this woman and my client said that she thought she was her daughter. The woman—and all characteristics indicated she was the mother, but she had been in denial since the birth—said that she had never had any children. The impact on the adult child seeking to identify who her genealogical forebears were when the woman—who all objective evidence pointed to as the mother—stood in front of her and said that she had never had a child, was totally devastating. So I accept that clause 10 of this bill, which makes the parents of a child primarily responsible for registering the birth, is very important.

I take up the point made by Dr Sharples about what is unwarranted distress, and I ask him just to read that against the provisions of subsection (2) of new section 9. The whole of clause 10—particularly new section 9—sets a very high standard. So any Family Court on appeal, when considering what is undue distress, would take a very high threshold to be satisfied there was unwarranted distress. We are not talking about embarrassment; we are not talking about inconvenience. We are talking about the absolute top element of distress having to be established.

• Debate interrupted.