Hutchison Paul: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16117. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to speak on this Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill the title of which I understand the Government Administration Committee has recommended be amended to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”.May I from the outset just acknowledgeRowen Sullivan and her enormous determination and commitment to ensure that this almost impossible task has actually become a reality or is becoming a reality. It was a great pleasure for me tonight to meet her adoptive mum Doreen Shields. I had not met her before. I just happened to be in the parliamentary cafeteria. It was clear from the outset what a warm and lovely person she is and how wonderful it is forRowen to have an adoptive mum of her lovely character.Of course I want to acknowledge her biological mother and also the sponsor of this bill Louisa Wall. There is no doubt as I think Kevin Hague pointed out that here is someone who has brought two really important human rights issues to Parliament in a very short space of time. It is a great contribution. Might I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee members who dealt with the bill because listening to them they all have been deeply moved by this situation and it has been hugely interesting and moving to hear their contributions.I guess in many respects the bill is driven by a young woman’s desire—in fact an overwhelming desire—to have her biological mother’s name appear on her birth certificate. That is something that most of us all of us would absolutely just take for granted. I think I heard in the first reading of the bill that her own words were: “I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her …”. That is indeed a sentiment that any child would want for their parents.I do recall in the first reading of this bill a remarkable coincidence in hearing a documentary about a young Indian man who was about the same age—about 19 or 20. He had been born in provincial India in very poor circumstances and had gone down with his brother to the local railway station to sell beads or something similar to pay for rice to feed the family. Somehow he had been separated from his brother. In a panic he hopped on a train that took him 3000 miles away and eventually he wound up in South Australia and was adopted by again some very loving people. But he had recurring nightmares about wanting to see his birth parents. He happened to be a very bright individual who was talented in mathematics and in the new technologies and particularly in GPS. For over 3 years he used to wait up until 2 or 3 in the morning figuring out the possibilities of where his biological parents came from in India.To cut a long story short after 3 years he reckoned he had cracked it. He went back to India and methodically went to the places where he had most likely been born and eventually he found his parents. This brought absolutely profound joy both to himself and his family and to his adoptive family.But the point of making this analogy is the drive that all individuals have to know about their parents and to have that transparency and ability to find them and not have hurdles put in their way. So the bill’s purpose undoubtedly would require the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details ofRowen Sullivan’s deceased mother whose name is Diane Sullivan on her post-adoption birth registration entry.I note that the Government Administration Committee organised a variety of amendments to this bill. The one I mentioned earlier relates to the title that correctly is changed to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill” because it could have been misleading as its passage would not directly effect change toRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate.There were a couple of other amendments including the committee’s recommendation of inserting a new clause 4 which would make it clear that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are for all purposes the parents ofRowen Sullivan.”I think it is worthwhile to just make mention of the enormous transition that we have been through over the last few decades in this area of both human rights and in the area of assisted human reproduction and the huge debates that have led us to believe what 30 years ago was regarded as impossible can now be normalised.Last Friday I was at the 50th anniversary of the founding of National Women’s Hospital. A fellow by the name of Dr Freddie Graham famous for introducing in vitro fertilisation into New Zealand went through the changes in birth technology in New Zealand over the last 20 to 30 years. He explained how Professor Dennis Bonham used to secretly organise sperm donation in the 1960s. The reason for that was that the hospital board would not let it happen. He had his own private practice and they literally used to mix up the sperm so they could not identify who the parents were because of the legal ramifications that might occur in terms of making a claim through the legal process. However a young social worker by the name ofJoi Ellis persuaded the academic department that it was wrong not to be transparent. Over a period of time others joined her including Professor Ken Daniels.Today in New Zealand we are leading the world in having one of the most transparent systems of ensuring that children can identify their biological parents. So I think it is very good timing that this bill has reached Parliament in New Zealand and that we are making it possible for someone such asRowen who is so clearly driven to do what is right and to have the appropriate framework in New Zealand to enable her to do so. I acknowledge all those who have brought this bill about and indeed I celebrate the fact that I have been able to speak in this second reading.