Auchinvole Chris: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeAuchinvole Chris: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 19 February 2014. Volume:696;Page:16109. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In the very brief amount of time available just before dinner I would like to begin my speech in support of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill which is set down for its second reading and sponsored very ably may I say by Labour MP Louisa Wall with whom it was a pleasure to work.The purpose of the bill is to require the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details ofRowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registry entry. It may well be that people consider that something of a technical detail and indeed when we saw the bill before us at the Government Administration Committee we thought that it did have a very technical aspect to it. The reality was though that it also had a very very personal aspect. This is one of those occasions when the only solution available to the applicant was through Parliament. It has no effect on any other person—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come to suspend the House for dinner. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. Bon appétit.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE:Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to resume speaking about the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. As we had spoken of earlier this is one of those occasions in Parliament when legislation can do something for someone that nothing else can do and that applies only to that individual person. In fact there are no negative elements at all associated with the passage of this bill. It requires the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages to record the details ofRowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registration entry.We heard from Louisa Wall who introduced the bill—and I do not doubt we will hear an echo from Ruth Dyson the chair of the Government Administration Committee—that there was apprehension on the part of the applicants for the bill that they would be perceived as wasting our time or not having a significant thing for us to do and which required a bill of their own. But this is a member’s bill. This is what thesetimes are set aside for and anyone of course who knows the Hon Ruth Dyson would realise that the applicants would be guaranteed a good reception I am sure.For those members who would like to know the minutiae of how this came about we can through the good services of the sponsor of the bill Louisa Wall provide a summary of the events and I would like to read that to the House now. For members opposite I shall be conducting a small written test afterwards to see how much of it you remembered and understood!These are the complexities of the situation.Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan her birth mother and Diane Sullivan’s female partner Doreen Shields. Have you got that bit? Diane Sullivan died in 2010 whenRowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields chose not to adoptRowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive as this would have required the removal of the name of Diane Sullivan the birth mother fromRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. This expired onRowen 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 that order required that Diane Sullivan’s name be removed fromRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. For those who are still travelling the journey with us all—and let us remember that this was a journey that someone actually travelled—had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry they would have been jointly able to apply to adoptRowen. If this had occurred they would both have been named as her parents on her birth record.Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013—which coincidentally went through the same select committee—same-sex couples are able to marry and are therefore able to apply jointly to adopt children. I think anyone would be forgiven for not completely following the intricacies of those events and it was a credit to the members of the committee. Everybody took an avid interest. The applicants for the bill gave a really useful submission to the select committee which really made things very apparent to us.Then there were the aspects that had to be considered that we required officials’ advice on. Again I really want to say to those who are watching or listening to the radio this evening that the advice one gets as a parliamentarian is first class in New Zealand—first class. I think almost every member would agree with that. Perhaps there is the odd occasion when something might not quite come up to the mark but for the most part I do not think that MPs can really justifiably say they could not find something out because we have a superb library—a superb library—and I have always found the quality of officials and the quality of official advice to be excellent. I see some nods from people whose academic background I have great respect for and they have been in a position of comparison.This was one example where I think the smaller details were taken into account so that in setting a precedent—if it were creating a precedent—there would be no harm done. As it is this bill does not set a precedent because the circumstances are almost unique. You cannot use the phrase “almost unique”. I can see Mr Finlayson bristling at the very suggestion. I would like to formally withdraw that remark. I did not intend to say—Hon Christopher Finlayson: You did. Noted and you will be counselled later.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh dear oh dear! I did not intend to say “almost unique” because that is a stupid conflict of terms. This is a relatively unusual situation and it would be most surprising if the circumstances were ever duplicated in exactly the same order. So this will not be a repeatable situation.The proposed addition of clause 4 which the select committee recommends would make it clear that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are for all purposes the parents ofRowen Sullivan.It was a really interesting bill from all points of view not just in respect of the family concerned but in consideration of how we are identified as individuals. I would have thought—and I know that other select committee members shared the thought with me—that your birth certificate was it but in fact it is not. It is simply a record of what is recorded within the record system. So it was a very interesting journey through the identification of individuals and the linkage with other people through relationships.It has been a pleasure to be part of considering this bill. It has been educative and informative and from the comments relayed from the family I understand that it has been considered useful. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.