Wagner Nicky: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWagner Nicky: Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 07 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12462. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):The Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is a fascinating bill because the circumstances pertaining toRowen Sullivan’s birth certificate are pretty unusual. I would really like to thank Louisa Wall for her explanation behind the background circumstances and the story of Diane Doreen andRowen. It is enormously poignant and heartbreaking and I think everyone in this House can empathise withRowen. It is quite natural that she wants to record the details of her deceased mother—her birth mother—on her birth certificate. That seems ultimately reasonable and a logical request. In fact the most obvious question in this case would be why it is not already there. It does not seem to make any sense so we can understand exactly whyRowen wants to bring this bill to Parliament.When we look at why it is not there it is a very complicated story that emerges. It is a story that revolves around old-fashioned bureaucratic rules and yes discrimination against a same-sex couple and their daughterRowen. In fact asRowen explains same-sex couples—or known same-sex couples—were unusual back in the 1990s andRowen’s family was considered an anomaly. Officially her parents’ relationship was unrecognised. Diane Sullivan and her partner Doreen Shields wereRowen’s parents from birth but the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages did not allow both women to be listed on the birth certificate. Originally Diane Sullivan—that isRowen’s birth mother—had been listed and Doreen Shields would have liked to adoptRowen but two female names could not be allowed on the birth certificate.So the closest that Ms Shields could be linked to her daughter was as an additional guardian which she became but guardianship expires when a child becomes an adult at 18. Then the situation became even more heartbreaking and more complex because Diane Sullivan died whenRowen was 19. Doreen wanting to be publicly linked to her daughter and as the only person left who could be her parent applied for an adoption order. That adoption order was made in January this year. However the adoption order required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s name which was an incredibly tough decision considering it had been only a short time since she had passed away. It seems a dreadfully unfair situation thatRowen could not have had both her parents listed on her birth certificate.Following the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act in 2013 just recently same-sex people are now able to marry and therefore apply to jointly adopt children so this problem has disappeared. Had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry again we would not have had this problem. They would have been able to jointly adoptRowen and both would have been recorded on her birth certificate. As of 19 August coming up very soon same-sex couples will be able to jointly adopt and this issue will no longer arise.National is voting for this bill at its first reading to refer it to a select committee and allow the issues to be considered fully. As we go forward we know that the Department of Internal Affairs is working on computer changes to allow the names of same-sex adoptive parents to be printed on birth certificates so technically this should not be a problem. But we just want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences and so it will be up to the Government Administration Committee to work through the issues and make a wise decision about how this should be handled. I commend this bill to the House.