Fenton Darien: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16115] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to defend the select committee process on this bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill because members opposite have appallingly misrepresented it—in particular Brian Connell; the esteemed chairperson of the committee Shane Ardern; and Sandra Goudie. Actually the select committee process was a decent one. I have heard members opposite say that it needed to be democratic and so on but I say that the process of the select committee is that people come along put their points of view and then the committee members consider them take them into account and make changes accordingly. I confirm that that is absolutely what happened. So this idea that the Minister has dreamt up a whole lot of new ideas by means of Supplementary Order Papers is just not true. 
I can confirm that the Minister wrote to the Government Administration Committee in the middle of the process and suggested some changes and he has always been absolutely open to workable solutions. He made that clear from the very very beginning. I can also confirm that some parties in the House including New Zealand First the Greens and United Future were open to having a sensible discussion about how this bill could be made more workable. But oh no not the National Party! One need only read the report. That says it all about what the National Party thought. I say to members opposite there is no point in coming into the Chamber and complaining that the Minister did not go along to the select committee and put proposals. We discussed these proposals during the select committee process and the National Party members chose to vote against them. 
I have been very interested to hear National members say this is socialist mischief. Let me quote from the Privacy Commissioner. Let me tell the Committee exactly what the privacy risks are in our current registration of births deaths marriages and relationships. First of all there is a lot of sensitive information on our registers such as health and family information including past and present marital status and ethnicity. The Privacy Commissioner goes on to state that information held on the death register will include cause of death—for example syphilis suicide or cancer. It will include the place of death—for example a mental hospital. It will include the place of burial—for example a Jewish Catholic or Muslim cemetery. It will include ethnicity and also the full names of all previous spouses and partners. It will also include sensitive personal information on the birth registers—for example whether the named father is in another relationship. The marriage register will also show existence of earlier marriages. If people do not think that is sensitive it is worth having a discussion on those issues in the Committee. 
I do not understand where the Opposition is coming from on this. I have absolutely no idea. I have heard an observation from Brian Connell who was a member of the select committee on the bill and I have to say I liked him a heck of a lot better when he was not allowed to speak in the Chamber. Suddenly the ghost that walks has been released and he was allowed to speak on this very important Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. He said stupid things in the select committee. He said the bill was arrant bloody nonsense. I have just read out what is on the registers. If the National Party thinks that is arrant bloody nonsense I look forward to going out and telling our constituents and the electorate that the National Party thinks it is arrant bloody nonsense to know whether people’s parents died of a particular disease and whether people would want that kept to themselves and to have some privacy about it. All of what Brian Connell talked about is “PC mates”. Well how lame is that? Can he not think of something a little different to say? I loved the fact that Brian Connell and others took credit for the fact that they invited people some academics to make submissions on the bill. They did not need to because by that time we had figured it out we had worked together with other parties and we said yes—as the Minister had always said—that any workable solution was acceptable and we should work it through. That could have happened with the National Party members but no they decided to make a political decision to oppose the bill. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Rubbish! You don’t get it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I get it but Ms Goudie does not get it. She missed out on being part of the solution and wanted to be part of the problem.