Finlayson Christopher: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:637;Page:7866] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As both Mark Blumsky and Sandra Goudie have said National will oppose the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. We have some real concerns about clause 26 which substitutes new sections 73 to 75. 
The reason we are opposing the bill was explained very clearly by Mr Blumsky a couple of nights ago: when one reads the explanatory note of the bill one finds that there was consultation with a number of governmental organisations but there was no public consultation at all. In particular as Mrs Goudie said there was no consultation with genealogists. We say that that is totally unsatisfactory and we say that the Government has arrogantly proceeded with this legislation without consulting genealogists. 
I know that genealogy is a big word and Mr Cosgrove may need to have it explained to him but I say this. Genealogy as a form of study has become increasingly important not only in New Zealand but worldwide because family history is what ties and binds generations together. It gives people a sense of purpose and meaning. 
There are a number of ways in which genealogy is used. An obvious example is in education. Indeed in preparing for this debate I read some studies about teachers in Indiana who use genealogy with very young students to teach them the methodology of learning about history and so on. Even in the Utah state prison near Salt Lake City they have introduced a programme—a family history centre that gives new purpose to inmates. They study where they have come from they are now actively engaged in their own genealogical research and apparently their experiences leave them humbled as they see what generations before them were able to accomplish. Indeed I would recommend that to Mr O’Connor the Minister of Corrections. He could be interested in such a programme although given his record with regard to the Department of Corrections he would probably muck it up. 
Then we have the obvious uses of genealogy for family and friends coordinators of class reunions planners of family association meetings organisers of anniversary gatherings and so on. They all use genealogical techniques. Legal inheritance is an obvious use and quality of life honour and prestige are all obvious. The historical context of genealogical research needs to be emphasised; it is increasingly used as a historical device. It contributes to migration and settlement studies as well as to religious and congregational studies. The history of both a particular church and a denomination requires looking at families over several generations. Perhaps most important in the modern era there is genetic research. There can hardly be a more worthy endeavour than to at last lay to rest a soldier who has been lost and the Prime Minister would know about that. There can be hardly a more moving ceremony as we know from the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. 
So in the space of a few minutes I have touched on some of the many faces of family history and the importance to New Zealand of genealogical research. That is why genealogy is not just a marginal or fringe activity; it is a very important activity. Those people involved in genealogy were entitled to be consulted and I know from what my colleagues have said to me and from my own research that genealogy is an increasingly important activity. 
Of course Labour does not understand any of this because Labour hates tradition. It has no respect for the past unless it is useful for electoral purposes. One has only to witness the Prime Minister’s shabby performance in Gallipoli a few years ago. 
 Some have indeed suggested that Labour is tightening up the procedures so those people can hide their own past because they have ancestors who were pickpockets and vagabonds. Well that cannot apply to Annette King who is related to Chester Borrows and me and we come from good stock. If they have ancestors who were pickpockets—and I do not really care whether they do—then that of course is minor compared with the Labour MPs of today who stole $800000 of public funds that Labour has not paid back. 
So this bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a marginal decision so often when one looks at legislation—can it be stitched up in the select committee or have the proper procedures not been followed? And the National Party says in this instance that it fails. It is so fundamentally flawed that we say there needs to be a good round of consultation with the genealogical societies. That is why we not supporting it. It is not an aspect of research; it is fundamental to historical research. We think that the arrogant condescending and high-handed way in which the Government has dealt with this legislation is unsatisfactory so we are not supporting it.