BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : It is the convention in this Chamber that we acknowledge the work our officials do. When I took a call in the second reading debate I omitted to do that, so I want to put the record right by acknowledging the fine work they did, and I have to say to members that it is not the officials’ fault that we have before us a piece of arrant, bloody nonsense.

This bill should not have come to the House. There was no problem that needed fixing, but the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, and his PC mates on the Government Administration Committee insisted on bringing it to the House despite the public outcry and the words of constructive criticism from the National Party. But would they listen? No, they would not. It is a real stretch to believe that Harry Duynhoven, who is a pretty good bloke, really thinks there is a problem around people accessing information and breaking privacy rules when they engage in historical, social history, and genealogy activities. The Minister in the chair, for goodness sake, is a West Coast boy. Does he really believe he will be upset about a few people accessing information and finding out that someone slept on the wrong side of the blanket?

A number of renowned academics came to the select committee and said to us: “This is wrong.” The Minister and his colleagues in the select committee told us that this bill has had wide consultation—but it has not. That is the truth of the matter. The submitters who came to the select committee said: “You have not consulted us on this, and if you had we would have told you that there is no problem that needs fixing. You are creating a huge problem to satisfy the needs of a very few, and you are making the study of our social history nigh on impossible.” People like Professor Rice—

Darien Fenton: Rubbish!

BRIAN CONNELL: Someone called out “Rubbish!”. I do not know who the member was but it certainly could not have been Darien Fenton because she was at the select committee when Professor Rice, the head of the history faculty at Canterbury University, came to us and said that this bill will impede academic excellence. [Interruption] Now we have the Government pugilist calling out, as well. We have it on good authority that he hits like a pansy, but we will excuse that for the moment. He has nothing to contribute to this debate so I suggest that he just keeps his mouth closed, stays in his corner, and keeps his seconds with him. Otherwise he will end up on his proverbial back. Now, let us get back to the debate.

The advice from Professor Rice was that we would need to change this. The National Party offered constructive criticism at the same time. In fact, in the end we were forced to include a National Party view in the report back, and I have to say it is a beautifully crafted piece of work. The persons who contributed to that, I think, are rising stars in the National Party—I really do. They have a big future. I actually took the time to refer to that report last night in the House. I pointed out to the House why that report was compulsory reading. The Minister, I think, took it home for his bedtime reading and said: “Oh my God, these guys are right.”

Do members know what will happen through the course of this debate? The Minister in the chair will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that canvasses most of the concerns—I stand corrected; it deals with about half a dozen of them. One of the Supplementary Order Papers is nearly as big as the original bill. Do members know why he is doing that? It is because he realises that from the outset the submitters and the National Party were right. But rather than listen to those arguments at the time, he decided that he would slip this Supplementary Order Paper in the back door. Do members know what the problem with that is? It perverts our democracy, because submitters do not now have an opportunity to look at what is inherent or incorporated in the Supplementary Order Paper. That is fundamentally wrong.

I said last night, when I took a call during the second reading debate, that the Christchurch Press,that tabloid that will do anything in pursuit of a populist theme, also came out swinging. It said that the Minister has got this wrong, that there is no problem, and that the legislation is denying people legitimate access to information. [] The Minister in the chair will get an opportunity to speak in a moment or two. He knows that I and my colleagues are right. He knows that the Supplementary Order Paper he will slip into the Chamber should have been put forward during the select committee process. If due process had been followed, we would not have been forced into the position we are in. The people of New Zealand would have had the opportunity to come to the select committee and examine what is being proposed.

That Minister and his colleagues have denied New Zealanders that fundamental right. That tends to be the modus operandi of this Government. Whenever it is stuck and whenever it wants to sneak something in under the radar it slips in a Supplementary Order Paper at the last minute. Well, we are sick to death of it. The “Waimak bantam” was in the Chamber earlier. He rose to his feet—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Yes—Mr Connell, would you withdraw that comment please.

BRIAN CONNELL: I withdraw. That short chap—what is his name? Clayton Cosgove. Mr Cosgrove was in the Chamber earlier. He rose to his feet and cast his stature across the Chamber. Fortunately, it is not quite as big as his ego, but nevertheless he stuck his chest out like a pigeon puff and started to berate members for having the audacity, in their legitimate role as representatives in this House, to criticise the Government, and we are sick to death of it. He came down to the Chamber—and other members have been doing the same—and criticised members on this side for taking the argument to the Government. He made demeaning statements, which I take very personally, about people being on the B team and the C team and whatever. He denies the facts on this piece of legislation. Seven Ministers debated this bill during the first and second readings. How can this matter be important when they debate it—actually, they were filibustering at the time—but be unimportant when we do? That is the attitude—that is what is wrong with what the Minister is about to do.

Government members treat the people of New Zealand with disdain, and it is no wonder that the National Party now has 15 clear points on this Government. Trevor Mallard will be brushing up his boxing skills. He will be thinking of going into the ring as a professional boxer, but, really, he should look for an alternative career. Rick Barker will probably be looking to get back to the West Coast where a few people love him. [Interruption] The junior Labour whip, who is yelling out—I do not know what her name is—is not worthy of comment, because she does not add much to the debate.

The point is that people are sick to death of the modus operandi of this Government. This is the type of legislation that simply should not have been before the House. I ask the Minister to address this question when he gets the opportunity: what is the problem that Labour is trying to fix? All the submitters, bar one or two who were Labour Party ring-ins, said that there is no problem. What the Government is creating, though, is a huge problem. If the Minister tries to answer that question he will simply contradict himself, because he is going to produce a Supplementary Order Paper that actually says: “You were right in the first place and, oh my God, I should have listened to you. I should have listened to Sandra Goudie and Shane Ardern, and I should have listened to Harry Duynhoven.” That is probably not doing Harry’s chances of getting promoted a lot of good, but he is a man of integrity. He knows this bill is arrant nonsense, and he had the courage to say so. What he was trying to convey to his PC colleagues was that there is not a problem. There is nothing to fix here. How can it be that people of such academic renown can come to the select committee and say: “You’re causing a problem.”, and the Government will not listen to them?

Darien Fenton: We did listen to them.

BRIAN CONNELL: Well, that member did not listen to them. I made a suggestion, and the member who just called out denied me the suggestion. I said we should bring some of the academics into the select committee in order to understand exactly what their concerns are. There were officials at the select committee who were spouting the Minister’s or the Labour’s Government’s position—and that is fine, I have no criticism about that; that is their job. But the academics—and the men and women off the street—were also expressing the same concerns. I said we should get those specialists into the same room so that we could be advised of the facts and could then produce worthwhile and constructive legislation.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) : First, let me take a minor point. Brian Connell made reference to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s contribution to the Committee earlier tonight. Clayton Cosgrove was not denying the right of the National Party to put up a position, at all. He was welcoming it. He was simply pointing out that the National Party was blaming Labour for the power crisis in Auckland, which had occurred under a National Government. He was simply highlighting the stupidity of a National member’s contribution; that was all he was trying to do. The member should just accept that this is a place for robust debate, without being personal about it.

I come now to the member’s question about what the problem is. Well, the problem is quite a simple one. Firstly, this bill is about protecting individuals’ identities—protecting individuals from identity theft. If one wants access to somebody’s personal details, one finds that the records system in New Zealand is completely and utterly open. Anybody can walk in off the street and get anybody’s personal details. People do not have to identify themselves, and they can do what they will with the information. We have seen example after example of identity theft.

The most interesting thing about that issue is that some time ago I got a letter from the member who is shouting out now, Sandra Goudie. She was raising a complaint from constituents who were outraged that someone had gone to the Births, Deaths and Marriages register, got details of their family’s personal records, and had them in his or her possession, and the family had known nothing about it. Sandra Goudie wanted to know how that could happen, so that she could explain it to those constituents, who were outraged that their personal information had been obtained. Well, the same member is opposing the changes in this legislation.

Sandra Goudie: That’s rubbish.

Hon RICK BARKER: Well, I will pull the correspondence out and table it for the member later. It shows that she is completely confused on this issue.

So the first thing that this bill is about is protecting identities. The second thing is that up till this date the record has been a paper record, but in the future it will be a digital record. When it is a digital record it can be accessed remotely, and therefore we will have little or no control over who has access to the record. People could have access to all the historical and current data, and from that they could create an identity—a false identity—and use it for a range of purposes. Someone I know said to me that, using the basic details from Births, Deaths and Marriages records, they could within days accumulate tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt against an individual’s name. The State requires people to give us this information; the State therefore has a corresponding obligation to ensure that it does its best to protect that information. That is one tension.

On the other side of it, there is a legitimate case to be made that people should have access to this information in order to know that a person does exist. People should be able to identify that I, Richard John Barker, exist and am still alive. I accept that that is a legitimate purpose. I should not be able to hide that information; it is true. People should also be able to identify whether people are New Zealand citizens. I accept that, as well. The record should be able to be searched, but we should know the purpose for which people are searching it, and who is searching it, so that if there is a problem or an issue in the future, we trace backwards to find out who created the mischief.

The other point I want to make is about historical research. Under the current system, if historians want to access the record, they have to name the individuals about whom they want information. There is no ability currently to search the record for all births in a particular area. One has to know the names of the people who were born in that area, and to identify them. This new legislation will give researchers the opportunity to trawl through this information by area, by region, by time, and so on. They will have a much more powerful research tool than they currently have. This bill will advance the ability of historians to research our records, and I think that is a very good thing. But we have to do it in a way that does not take away the right of individual people to have their records protected. We also have to make sure that when we have this information, we use it sensibly. So I say that there are great benefits in this legislation for genealogists, and there are great benefits in it for historians, but we also have to make sure that we protect individuals.

I accept that the mood of the House was to accept the legislation as introduced. It was sent to a select committee. At that point, some members and parties had some doubts about it, so there were some discussions about it, and they were robust discussions, which is as it should be. This is a democracy; we should have these discussions. I forwarded to the select committee a proposal that would meet the concerns—which I thought were legitimate—of historians and genealogists, who want access to the record; that would meet the concerns of those people who want their identities to be protected; and that would ensure that there was a screen, but a not particularly tough screen and one that we could vary over time by regulation. I wanted the select committee to consider that proposal, but it was rejected. The select committee did not want to consult on it.

Shane Ardern: The time had expired, Minister.

Hon RICK BARKER: Well, the select committee could have come back and asked for more time. Notwithstanding that, that proposal will be put before the Committee in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper.

Phil Heatley: It will be? Oh, good. When will that be?

Hon RICK BARKER: It is on the Table tonight, and we will debate it.

I am confident that a majority of the House now favours this legislation. I thank all those people who have worked through this issue. It is important to find the balance between openness and allowing access to the record, and protection of individuals’ identity from fraud. It is a serious issue to be discussed, and not one to be made light of. This bill is also much-needed in that it updates the way in which we manage the record, to take into account the fact that we are moving from a paper record to a digital record that can be accessed remotely. We needed to do that. The legislation also updates a number of other features.

I thank the committee and officials who worked on it. I thank the other parties who cooperated in negotiating to find an amicable agreement about it. I think the hallmark of MMP is that we can introduce legislation, we can have robust discussions about it, and we can find new consensus about it. I think that is a good thing. I think this bill makes a good point about the importance and value of MMP. I thank all those concerned who have made contributions on this bill so far, and I welcome the discussion on this bill as it goes through the Committee stage.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I rise in opposition to this Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill, for a lot of the reasons that have been stated. I have been wondering for some time, until I listened to the Minister tonight and looked at the number of Supplementary Order Papers, about what was really going on, but I think I have now figured it out. We certainly could not figure it out in the Government Administration Committee. I acknowledge the officials and the work that they did to help us to find our way along a very difficult path in the select committee.

What I think has happened is that Dr Michael Cullen—for whom, I hesitate to admit in front of my colleagues tonight, I have a reasonable amount of admiration for his ability to manage the House process as a politician, and as someone who has survived in this place for a long time—has gone through the legislative time frame looking forward for the next 3 months or 6 months. He has decided that the Order Paper is very thin, and that we need to go back and look at legislation that has a few years on it. Last night we were debating legislation that had nothing wrong with it, but it was passed in 1946. Tonight we are debating legislation that was passed in 1956, and there is nothing wrong with that. What I can see happening is that the Leader of the House has told his ministerial colleagues to get someone, maybe a PhD student, to trawl through all the legislation in Parliament and find something the Government can put up, because it needs something to go on in order to fill up the time of the House. So we have the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill to debate in the Chamber tonight.

The select committee did do its work. We went through a thorough process, I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker. All of the concerns raised during that process were totally overlooked or overruled until the Government members did the numbers, and, hello, they counted their fingers and toes. Rick Barker kicked one of his shoes off and, hello, he found that things were not adding up here.

Hon Member: Six toes.

SHANE ARDERN: Right! Well, he asked where the Government should start, and what should happen now. He went back and started with the point of least resistance. He knew that the Nats had dug in a bit, so he went to the Greens and asked what their concerns were. He ran through their concerns and said two or three Supplementary Order Papers should be able to fix those concerns up. That was a few numbers in the bag.

Then Rick Barker went to New Zealand First, which has Peter Brown, who had quite a few concerns about the bill. He raised them legitimately in the select committee, and he did a fine job of doing that. Rick Barker thought that he had better get Peter Brown’s concerns tidied, so he asked what he needed to do in order to achieve that. And, what do we know, members get here tonight with—well, I do not know how many Supplementary Order Papers we are up to now. I say to the Minister that the Supplementary Order Papers are pretty good. They have on them most of what was suggested to him at the time of the select committee process. Here we are tonight, in the Committee stage of this bill, with something like what was recommended at the beginning, which might have been a bit of useful legislation.

But the reality is this. We had genealogists, we had academics, and we had all sorts of people with all sorts of qualifications—even journalists—appear before the select committee. We had the editors of both the Dominion Post and the New Zealand Herald appear before the select committee, representing the wider journalism fraternity. They said to us in no uncertain terms—in fact, I got myself into a bit of strife by taking on one or two of them—that this bill would make the information that they need to report from time to time much more difficult. They said that they would not have such easy access as they do at present to accurate information for things that are important to the public if this bill was to proceed in the way that had been intended to. Some of the genealogists said that they would not be able to carry out what most people would see as being in our best interests, whether as individuals or as the public at large, if this bill was to pass in the way that it was.

So I am pleased that the Minister has gone back, looked at some of the submissions, and produced the Supplementary Order Papers that he has produced tonight. But at this stage the National Party—now that the Government has denied those who have contributed to the legislation the opportunity to participate in the process in the select committee—will not support such a shonky process. So we cannot support the passage of this legislation. National members are concerned about the lack of a clear problem definition. There was no problem. We asked about the fraudulent behaviour or activity that might take place, and we also asked about potential fraud that could take place, given that we are now moving into a more digital age of recording and computerised information. We asked at that stage about any evidence there was of fraud—any evidence—or where the potential for fraud might be, and we were unable to find such evidence. There was all sorts of speculation—you know; if one stepped out on the road, then one might get run over, and if the moon falls, then the world will go off its apex.

• Progress to be reported presently.

• House resumed.

• The Chairperson reported the debate on the performance and current operations of Crown entities, public organisations and State enterprises; progress on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill; and no progress on the Family Court Matters Bill.

• Report adopted.