Bradford Sue: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7865] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill through its first reading as on the whole we are in general agreement with what it sets out to achieve. We appreciate the Government’s interest in doing more to prevent identity fraud of the type that led to the conviction of two Israeli spies who had stolen the identity of an Auckland man in a failed bid to obtain a passport in his name. I have no idea how widespread such identity theft is in this country. But on the surface of it it does appear to be rather too easy at present to get hold of birth death and marriage certificates in someone else’s name thereby giving a criminal or spy a strong platform from which to launch fraudulent activity. We therefore have no problems with the Government’s efforts to do more to regulate the access of strangers to information about any individual. The Green Party also supports most other aspects of the bill which are in the most part quite sensible technical amendments relating to how the information collected about births deaths marriages and relationships is managed. 
However we do have some serious concerns about several aspects of the bill. The first concern is in relation to the part of the bill that places a statutory obligation on both parents of a child to jointly notify a registrar of the birth of the child. The only exception to that is when there is only one parent at law. That happens with some procedures for assisted reproduction where one parent is “unavailable” or where requiring the other parent to sign the form would cause so-called undue distress to one of the parents. That changes the position from that in the current law where the obligation to notify a registrar rests only with people who are legally guardians of the child at the time of the birth. If this bill goes through there will therefore be a statutory obligation on the father of a child to make the notification and an obligation on the mother to jointly make the notification with the father whether or not they choose to. 
Aside from the situation where a woman fears for the safety of herself or her baby which would probably be covered by the undue distress exemption there is a range of other situations where women may not wish to have the name of the father of their child registered. One situation is where a woman in a same-sex relationship wants her partner to share parental responsibilities but wants to conceive naturally rather than by assisted reproductive technology. Another is where a woman has a partner of the opposite sex who is infertile but chooses to conceive naturally to another man. A third is where a woman simply wants to raise a child on her own without any involvement financially or emotionally from another parent. Those are all reasonable choices for women to make and are choices that some women do make. Yet with the new section 9 of the principal Act proposed by clause 10 of this bill they are not choices that women will be lawfully permitted to make. 
Furthermore section 89(e) of the Act makes it a criminal offence for a person having had the relevant provision of the Act drawn to his or her attention to fail or refuse to give any information that is required by the Act to be given. Women who choose to refuse to make a joint notification of their baby’s father to a registrar unless they meet the narrow exemption criteria contained in the new section 9 proposed by this bill will therefore be subject to prosecution and to a fine of up to $1000. That aspect of the bill is nothing short of draconian. It makes criminals out of women who wish to make the choice to raise children without the involvement of the biological father. 
I also have serious concerns about the wide ambit of the new sections 82 and 85A inserted by clauses 33 and 35 respectively. The new section 82 gives to the registrar-general extensive and intrusive powers of inquiry regarding birth information. Those women who choose often for good reasons not to have the father’s name included on the birth certificate are likely to bear the brunt of those investigatory powers and to have the father’s name registered against the will of themselves and often of the father as well. New section 85A permits the chief executive of the Ministry of Health to provide health information to the registrar-general for the purposes of correcting what the chief executive considers to be errors or omissions in the registration of births. It also permits him or her to correct information apparently without consultation with the parent or parents who have notified the registrar of the birth. There is a real danger that without consultation with those who have notified the registrar not only will biological fathers’ names be registered against the wishes of the mother and of themselves but errors will be created rather than corrected as a consequence of that provision. 
Because of our concerns about those elements of the bill the Green Party will not promise to support this bill past the initial first reading tonight. We hope the select committee will look seriously and carefully at the implications of what the bill sets out to do in the area of birth registration and that organisations with an interest in this area will take the opportunity to make useful submissions on the broader implications of this legislation. I think we all have to tread a little carefully when Governments put forward legislation that they tell us is merely technical and I hope this bill gets the scrutiny it deserves from the select committee and the public alike.