Auchinvole Chris: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12457. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):I rise to speak in favour of progressing the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill which was put forward by Louisa Wall to the Government Administration Committee. This bill would require the Registrar-Generalof Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her birth certificate. I am grateful to be able to follow Louisa Wall in speaking because she gave a very full explanation of the complexities of the bill. It is always difficult when there are a number of names within a bill to consider just to see exactly where the threads are. So I make no apology for pretty much repeating much of what the House has already heard because I think it will not hurt to hear it a second time.The bill is a reminder as well that quite frequently the Government can and does have a very big effect on people’s lives at a very personal level. It is paramount that we in this House do not forget our duty to handle these cases with deference and understanding. With that in mind I would like to again thank Ms Wall for this continuation of the important work she did on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013. Indeed it is pertinent to note that if Ms Wall’s bill had been in effect during the lifetime of Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother this situation would not have arisen and the bill would not be needed.Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan her birth mother—her father was a donor who is anonymous I understand; I am getting agreement from over there—and Diane Sullivan’s female partner Doreen Shields. Diane Sullivan died in 2010 when Rowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields had chosen not to adopt Rowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive as this would have required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s—the birth mother’s—name from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. It took me a little while to try to work out why that was so but that is the way the law works. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. That did not alter the birth certificate and it gave the parenting effect that was required. But unfortunately this expired on Rowen Sullivan’s 18th birthday. Doreen Shields then applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan. The order was made on 15 January 2013. However the order required that Diane Sullivan’s—the birth mother’s—name be removed from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Had Diane and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry they would have been able to jointly apply to adopt Rowen. If this had occurred they would both have been named as her parents on her record of birth.This may appear on the outside to be a minor issue of bureaucracy and in a way it is—in a way it is. But it is these little things that console us because it is little things that afflict us. We who have those occasional afflictions and we who know that our parents are labelled as such on our birth certificates still cannot claim to understand the emotions this would raise by having them excluded from a birth certificate but we can be understanding of the desire to have this fixed and to have one’s parents properly and respectfully reflected. That is why I will be voting in favour of progressing this bill to the select committee stage. I am a great believer in the select committee process. It is very thorough and I think it is something that New Zealand can be particularly proud of. I have seen a few other legislatures that have similar things but I think our select committee process works well. We will be able to ensure that this bill has its intended honourable effect hopefully without creating unintended consequences or precedents for future cases. Although this type of private bill is not entirely unprecedented the particulars of it are. Excuse me—when one’s nose is more than just an emblem with a cold.Parliament has effected the adoption of individuals through private Acts on six prior occasions. Four Acts involved the posthumous adoption of individuals one involved the adoption of an adult and one directed the issuing of new birth certificates for the adopted children. In each case these private Acts deemed the person to have been adopted by the named parents. The effect of this is that the person was accorded the same rights benefits and status and made subject to the same liabilities andconsequences as if an order of adoption had been made by the court. These examples differ from the current bill which simply requires the details to be recorded on the birth certificate.Progress is being made on ensuring that this type of situation can be more quickly resolved by the Department of Internal Affairs. The Department of Internal Affairs—again in my view a very efficient Government department—is currently making changes to its computer systems to enable same-sex adoptive parents to be included on a person’s birth registration entry. These changes are being made to support the implementation of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 which will come into force on 19 August this year. Births Deaths and Marriages registry staff would therefore be able to add Diane Sullivan to Rowen Sullivan’s post-adoptive birth registration entry and for one or more new birth certificates to be issued showing those details in line with this bill’s requirements. This is great news for those who like Ms Sullivan want to pay tribute to their parents by continuing their lineage in the eyes of the State. Where the select committee stage will be vital for the success of this bill is in the realm of clarifying legal requirements and processes.As the bill focuses only on making a change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth record it is not clear at this stage what effect the bill would have on her ability to list both mothers as her parents on the notice of her intended marriage or civil union. It is also not clear what practical legal effect progressing this bill through Parliament will have other than simply obtaining a new birth certificate for her own personal record. In this case this may not be a significant concern as Diane Sullivan was Rowen Sullivan’s biological mother. However there is a risk that this could set a precedent for other proposed bills where a deceased individual had not indicated an intention to adopt. If the Government Administration Committee becomes aware of other people in similar circumstances the committee will need to look closely as to whether greater action is required to address these further cases.In spite of these minor technical matters which we will seek to address in the select committee I wholeheartedly support the goals of this bill and look forward to working with Ms Wall and my colleagues on the Government Administration Committee—if that is indeed where it is intended to go—to ensure that we appropriately allow Ms Sullivan to correctly represent to the State the names of those two people who raised her and who are her parents. I commend this bill to the House and call on all members to do the same. Thank you.