Rurawhe Adrian: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRurawhe Adrian: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 02 December 2015. Volume:710;Page:8505. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā tēnā tātou katoa. It is a great pleasure to stand to speak to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Preventing Name Change by Child Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the promoter of the bill Dr Jian Yang first of all for the purposes that he has set out which are very admirable. But the question that I have to ask myself is whether or not this bill is able to deliver on the purposes set out by the member. From my perspective we also have to ask ourselves whether or not there is any value in sending this bill to a select committee for further consideration.I can report that we on this side of the House have looked very carefully at this bill and there are some very concerning things about the way it is drafted—things that mean we have to ask ourselves whether or not we can indeed support this bill to go to a select committee. It is our assessment that actually this bill needs to go back to the drafting table to be completely rewritten and that it would be a waste of the select committee’s time to spend time on this bill. I will set out the reasons why.We do not think that it meets the standard required for any bill to be considered by a select committee and I point first of all to the report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applied to this bill. There are some very concerning things that the Attorney-General has stated in his report. The very first one is that he has said that he has concluded that “the bill limits the right to freedom of expression affirmed in s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act and that limit cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act.” That alone would indicate to me that there is a very high threshold for this bill to make it over on that particular part of that report. It actually goes on and there are many other aspects under each and every part of this report that the Attorney-General states his concern about and uses language like “it would not meet that” or “merely” meets it or words to that effect.One of the areas that drew my attention was where he states that—and I will read the exact words—“Further an exception could be allowed in cases where prohibition would be manifestly unjust.” Of course within this bill there are no provisions for an exception to what has been proposed. I got thinking about what kind of exception there might be. Over my time working with my community with my hapū and iwi on a number of occasions I have had the situation where a person has been fostered—for want of a better word—out of their family into another family and has assumed the name of that family. They have got themselves into a little bit of trouble come back home to their hapū and iwi and have wanted to reconnect with their whānau. That reconnection has played a very important part in their rehabilitation and part of that in at least two situations that I know of was to reclaim their Māori whānau name.From my perspective and my view of the world if this was to be prevented in a situation like that then not only would it be contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but it would also be a breach of that person’s Treaty of Waitangi rights. It is not good enough for us to stand in this House talk about the settlement of claims and make really wonderful speeches about how we are going to create a better society for our iwi and hapū through these settlements and then bring in legislation that potentially impacts on our Treaty rights. That is just not right and I stand here to say that this is a really important thing for me to address in this House.In saying that I can well imagine that some people will say: “Well what will be the solution?”. I think as the Attorney-General’s report points out quite clearly that there are other measures already in place and there are measures—which I have to acknowledge the Government is currently pursuing through legislation—that would adequately take care of the situation that this bill purports to be able to deliver on. I think that it is unfortunate in one sense that I am having to address this bill in this way but we have to be true to one—in particular—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and two the Treaty of Waitangi.I ask the member Dr Jian Yang—and I listened very carefully to his contribution. He did not once mention the Attorney-General’s report. I think that every single member of Parliament—and I cannot speak for everyone but I think everyone should actually read this report in all seriousness if we are to have the best legislation for this country to address an issue that has impacted on all communities in this country. Because I know and I am not speaking because I have read something—I am speaking because I have been part of my hapū and part of my iwi and have actually had to deal with these issues and they are really difficult issues to deal with. I think from the value base that our hapū and iwi come from this particular bill will impact quite negatively on them.I think that a better way forward would be to look again at these particular issues within this report and as I say come up with a better way forward. I am not convinced actually that there is any need for legislation to prevent people from changing their names. Surely the register that is currently being promoted would adequately deal with that issue. There are also in relation to that a number of other ways in which we can ensure that the safety of our children and young people is preserved. So I stand here before the House and say that Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will be voting against this bill not because of the purpose of the bill but because it just cannot deliver on the purpose of the bill. Nō reira e mihi kau ana ki Te Whare e tū ake nei oti noa ki te mema e whakatū ana i tēnei pire ahakoa taku kōrero ka mi’i ake ki ngā whakaaro kei roto i tēnei pire.[And so I really compliment the House standing here before me but at the same time I say to the member who proposed this bill that despite my address I do acknowledge the ideas in it.]Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I like to go into Te Reo Māori when people are not making sense in English on the other side. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.