King Colin: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Colin: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:647;Page:15913] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is good to get an opportunity to speak to this bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. Just following what the last speaker said I think probably the point that needs to be made and restated is that there has been a lack of consultation within the process of developing this legislation and that displays a level of arrogance that is borne out in most of the legislation that comes forward from this Government. We have only to think about legislation such as the Electoral Finance Act which has been put there for a purpose but was not consulted widely enough on and will not survive. Really when we look at the process of democracy inside this country we see we are starting to understand just how thin a veneer of democracy we have left under this Labour Government. 
That was also borne out by this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill when the original version of the bill that came before the House was poorly conceived. That certainly did raise the hackles and ire of the genealogists and the process of hearing submissions by the Government Administration Committee certainly raised that issue. The point I make is made again in an editorial in the Christchurch  
Press 
 that said: “The idea appears to have been one cooked up by bureaucrats in a closed circle in which they consulted only other bureaucrats. It came about after a policy review but although 15 government departments were able to have their say on it no outside opinions seem to have been solicited. The bill will go to a select committee” but as it says there the opportunity to make submissions will be quite limited. 
When we look at the size and substance of the Supplementary Order Papers it is quite easy for us to say yes we have got it sorted. But I do not think we have. I mean once something has been made crooked it is very hard to make it straight. I have absolutely no confidence that the Labour Government has been able to get this matter sorted. The information that is quite relevant is that 68000 corrections have been made by the public to the information on births deaths and marriages. The Department of Internal Affairs would not have the capability even to be able to access and source that information and to keep it correct.  
When we look at this bill we have here before the House with its associated Supplementary Order Papers we can see that it is in the johnny-come-lately style we have become very used to from this Labour Government. It is certainly not what the National Party would call creditable Government. On that basis it is still very appropriate that the National members are opposing this bill because once something has been made crooked it is pretty difficult to argue that it can be made straight purely by putting in a couple of Supplementary Order Papers. Restricting the public’s opportunity to see the full substance of the bill originally was a denial of people’s democratic rights and democracy is something we must value at all costs.  
The thoughts about identity fraud are a typical example—a very lightweight excuse sort of thought up on the fly to justify this bill. When we look at the access restriction we see is a very serious matter. We had the member from United Future before talking about how he was able to build up a pretty complete picture without going anywhere near the registers of births deaths and marriages but that is not necessarily always the case.  
The arguments that have been put forward by the National Party are very relevant. The Government has failed to consult. That is a pretty serious indictment when we consider that the public have every right to be able to submit on something. The ability to put forward Supplementary Order Papers—this has become the custom of this Government—at the very last hour denies the public their right to be able to articulate their views and to ensure that our lawmaking in this House is well considered and that the public are well and truly engaged. The fact that the majority of submitters opposed the structure of the original bill was bad enough in itself. It is important to recognise that in relation to the history of this country as has been related in this House it is important that we are able to carry out accurate research with regard to our genealogies. That is something we all take very very seriously.  
So the National Party I believe is certainly in the right space on this bill. Openness and transparency were denied to the public. The Government’s continuing custodial role is therefore brought into question. It is quite clear that the Minister of Internal Affairs referred to the prevention of identity theft as one of the aims of the bill but such cases were considered to be very rare according to the submission that was put to the select committee. So let us not forget the experiences that we are having from this Government as it works its way through a very lightweight Order Paper. We have to realise that democracy in this country is being challenged by virtue of the fact that we are constantly seeing the public kept out of the discussions around how this country is run. This bill on that basis should not progress and the National Party is quite rightfully in the position of objecting to it. Thank you.