SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting this bill through its first reading, as on the whole we are in general agreement with what it sets out to achieve. We appreciate the Government’s interest in doing more to prevent identity fraud of the type that led to the conviction of two Israeli spies who had stolen the identity of an Auckland man, in a failed bid to obtain a passport in his name. I have no idea how widespread such identity theft is in this country. But, on the surface of it, it does appear to be rather too easy at present to get hold of birth, death, and marriage certificates in someone else’s name, thereby giving a criminal or spy a strong platform from which to launch fraudulent activity. We therefore have no problems with the Government’s efforts to do more to regulate the access of strangers to information about any individual. The Green Party also supports most other aspects of the bill, which are, in the most part, quite sensible technical amendments relating to how the information collected about births, deaths, marriages, and relationships is managed.

However, we do have some serious concerns about several aspects of the bill. The first concern is in relation to the part of the bill that places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a registrar of the birth of the child. The only exception to that is when there is only one parent at law. That happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction, where one parent is “unavailable”, or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called undue distress to one of the parents. That changes the position from that in the current law, where the obligation to notify a registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth. If this bill goes through, there will therefore be a statutory obligation on the father of a child to make the notification, and an obligation on the mother to jointly make the notification with the father, whether or not they choose to.

Aside from the situation where a woman fears for the safety of herself or her baby, which would probably be covered by the undue distress exemption, there is a range of other situations where women may not wish to have the name of the father of their child registered. One situation is where a woman in a same-sex relationship wants her partner to share parental responsibilities, but wants to conceive naturally rather than by assisted reproductive technology. Another is where a woman has a partner of the opposite sex who is infertile, but chooses to conceive naturally to another man. A third is where a woman simply wants to raise a child on her own without any involvement, financially or emotionally, from another parent. Those are all reasonable choices for women to make, and are choices that some women do make. Yet with the new section 9 of the principal Act proposed by clause 10 of this bill, they are not choices that women will be lawfully permitted to make.

Furthermore, section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence for a person, having had the relevant provision of the Act drawn to his or her attention, to fail or refuse to give any information that is required by the Act to be given. Women who choose to refuse to make a joint notification of their baby’s father to a registrar, unless they meet the narrow exemption criteria contained in the new section 9 proposed by this bill, will therefore be subject to prosecution and to a fine of up to $1,000. That aspect of the bill is nothing short of draconian. It makes criminals out of women who wish to make the choice to raise children without the involvement of the biological father.

I also have serious concerns about the wide ambit of the new sections 82 and 85A, inserted by clauses 33 and 35 respectively. The new section 82 gives to the registrar-general extensive and intrusive powers of inquiry regarding birth information. Those women who choose, often for good reasons, not to have the father’s name included on the birth certificate are likely to bear the brunt of those investigatory powers and to have the father’s name registered, against the will of themselves and, often, of the father as well. New section 85A permits the chief executive of the Ministry of Health to provide health information to the registrar-general for the purposes of correcting what the chief executive considers to be errors or omissions in the registration of births. It also permits him or her to correct information, apparently without consultation with the parent or parents who have notified the registrar of the birth. There is a real danger that, without consultation with those who have notified the registrar, not only will biological fathers’ names be registered against the wishes of the mother and of themselves but errors will be created rather than corrected as a consequence of that provision.

Because of our concerns about those elements of the bill, the Green Party will not promise to support this bill past the initial first reading tonight. We hope the select committee will look seriously and carefully at the implications of what the bill sets out to do in the area of birth registration, and that organisations with an interest in this area will take the opportunity to make useful submissions on the broader implications of this legislation. I think we all have to tread a little carefully when Governments put forward legislation that they tell us is merely technical, and I hope this bill gets the scrutiny it deserves from the select committee and the public alike.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : As both Mark Blumsky and Sandra Goudie have said, National will oppose the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. We have some real concerns about clause 26, which substitutes new sections 73 to 75.

The reason we are opposing the bill was explained very clearly by Mr Blumsky a couple of nights ago: when one reads the explanatory note of the bill, one finds that there was consultation with a number of governmental organisations, but there was no public consultation at all. In particular, as Mrs Goudie said, there was no consultation with genealogists. We say that that is totally unsatisfactory, and we say that the Government has arrogantly proceeded with this legislation without consulting genealogists.

I know that genealogy is a big word, and Mr Cosgrove may need to have it explained to him, but I say this. Genealogy as a form of study has become increasingly important, not only in New Zealand but worldwide, because family history is what ties and binds generations together. It gives people a sense of purpose and meaning.

There are a number of ways in which genealogy is used. An obvious example is in education. Indeed, in preparing for this debate, I read some studies about teachers in Indiana who use genealogy with very young students to teach them the methodology of learning about history and so on. Even in the Utah state prison near Salt Lake City they have introduced a programme—a family history centre that gives new purpose to inmates. They study where they have come from, they are now actively engaged in their own genealogical research, and apparently their experiences leave them humbled as they see what generations before them were able to accomplish. Indeed, I would recommend that to Mr O’Connor, the Minister of Corrections. He could be interested in such a programme, although given his record with regard to the Department of Corrections he would probably muck it up.

Then we have the obvious uses of genealogy for family and friends, coordinators of class reunions, planners of family association meetings, organisers of anniversary gatherings, and so on. They all use genealogical techniques. Legal inheritance is an obvious use, and quality of life, honour, and prestige are all obvious. The historical context of genealogical research needs to be emphasised; it is increasingly used as a historical device. It contributes to migration and settlement studies, as well as to religious and congregational studies. The history of both a particular church and a denomination requires looking at families over several generations. Perhaps, most important in the modern era, there is genetic research. There can hardly be a more worthy endeavour than to at last lay to rest a soldier who has been lost, and the Prime Minister would know about that. There can be hardly a more moving ceremony, as we know from the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior.

So in the space of a few minutes I have touched on some of the many faces of family history, and the importance to New Zealand of genealogical research. That is why genealogy is not just a marginal or fringe activity; it is a very important activity. Those people involved in genealogy were entitled to be consulted, and I know from what my colleagues have said to me, and from my own research, that genealogy is an increasingly important activity.

Of course, Labour does not understand any of this, because Labour hates tradition. It has no respect for the past unless it is useful for electoral purposes. One has only to witness the Prime Minister’s shabby performance in Gallipoli a few years ago.

Some have, indeed, suggested that Labour is tightening up the procedures so those people can hide their own past because they have ancestors who were pickpockets and vagabonds. Well, that cannot apply to Annette King, who is related to Chester Borrows and me, and we come from good stock. If they have ancestors who were pickpockets—and I do not really care whether they do—then that, of course, is minor compared with the Labour MPs of today, who stole $800,000 of public funds that Labour has not paid back.

So this bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a marginal decision, so often, when one looks at legislation—can it be stitched up in the select committee, or have the proper procedures not been followed? And the National Party says, in this instance, that it fails. It is so fundamentally flawed that we say there needs to be a good round of consultation with the genealogical societies. That is why we not supporting it. It is not an aspect of research; it is fundamental to historical research. We think that the arrogant, condescending, and high-handed way in which the Government has dealt with this legislation is unsatisfactory, so we are not supporting it.