Connell Brian: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Connell Brian: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:15991] 
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. [ 
Interruption 
] 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.