Ardern Shane: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:647;Page:16114] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I had about 4 minutes left of my 5-minute call when we were last in Committee on the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. It was the second call I had taken in the Committee stage; from memory I think it was last Wednesday evening. I was raising the issue that no fraudulent activity or fraud was able to be uncovered by the Government Administration Committee when we considered the bill although that had been one of the main platforms put forward as the reason for this revised legislation. I also spelt out my view that Dr Michael Cullen had gone through the legislative business before the House going forward to the election and had decided that the Order Paper was a little thin—that it did not have quite enough on it—so he had sent someone off to trawl through old bits of legislation or legislation passed before a certain point to find something to fill up the time of the House. We do not know why it was thought necessary to bring this bill before the House at this time. 
In my speech I also talked about concerns that submitters had raised at the select committee. One submission in particular caught my attention. The submitter asked whether the provisions of this bill breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I did not have the expertise to know whether that was right and the select committee asked the officials for advice on that. The officials were not absolute in their answer but none the less they gave an answer and I acknowledge the work they did. The submitter said that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act “guarantees freedom of expression taken to mean after the Lange v Atkinson case freedom of expression within the bounds of honest opinion. Within freedom of expression is the implied right of freedom of dissemination—the right of people to obtain and use previously public information for lawful purposes.” Well I cannot say whether that is correct but I do know that the person who submitted that view had clearly put a lot of effort in and had done his research. That was his view. We have to ask why we would restrict people’s access to information when that in the view of that submitter would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and when no evidence had been presented to the committee to suggest why that should be necessary. 
The National members on the select committee simply concluded that this bill should not be supported. To the best of my knowledge nothing that has taken place in the debate so far has convinced National members that we should change that view. I note the Minister is about to introduce a number of Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage and I suspect they are more substantial than the bill as submitted to the select committee. I base that statement on the number of clauses covered and the thickness of the Supplementary Order Papers. 
In conclusion I say the only thing the Committee can draw from this process is the fact that the Minister’s bill should never have been submitted in its original form. Either he was merely trying to gather up numbers by introducing amendment after amendment until he got enough people to say yes or the Supplementary Order Papers will substantially change the bill. We may end up with something that is of some use to the public going forward. I do not know whether that is the case because we simply have not had the time to thoroughly examine the amendments and have not had the official advice that would probably be needed in order to determine whether the changes improve the bill. I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee at some stage why the process was hijacked in such a way and why we need to have such a large number of Supplementary Order Paper amendments. I ask him to explain those amendments in detail so the Committee can understand the reasons for such substantial amendments. I ask him also to explain why they could not have been open for public submission in the select committee which is the standard and proper process. I look forward to the Minister’s response in that regard.