Ardern Shane: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships  Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships  Registration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:646;Page:15561] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and I do so with a little bit more confidence than I did on the bill we previously debated. It is at times difficult in Opposition to find the socialist wrongdoing in every piece of legislation that comes before this House. In this particular case thanks to the Minister the Hon Rick Barker who just left the House he has given us plenty of opportunity tonight— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. This afternoon one of your colleagues in the Chair took some exception to some discussions around the fact that I had indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was present for question time. I am sorry but I do not have the particular Speaker’s ruling in front of me but it is convention that one does not draw attention to people leaving the House. This afternoon I was not; I was saying he was present. In this particular case that member has just drawn attention to the fact that a member has left the House. My view on this is that seeing as it is a convention it is a matter of good behaviour and not a matter for the member to be drawn up over and he should be allowed to continue. In the interests of consistency it would be right for him to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes I would ask you to. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am sure the Minister Rick Barker is listening to the proceedings in the House nearby tonight and he has given us plenty of opportunity to debate this. 
For a start we have a Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced in the late stages of this bill which is almost as big as the bill itself. There are 20 pages in this Supplementary Order Paper. If that does not speak volumes about the convoluted process that the Government has gone through after having sent this bill to the select committee then I do not know what does. 
In regards to this legislation we have to ask the question: what was the wrongdoing the mischief that was trying to be fixed up? As we looked through the detail of it we found that yes on one side there was a feeble attempt—which I think may have been enhanced by the Supplementary Order Paper when we get a chance to get a closer look at that—to modernise the way that we record our births deaths and marriages and bring into the equation some of the new family configurations that now exist and have legislative support for them such as civil unions and the like. So I suspect that there may be some plus side to it there. 
But when we look at the other side of the equation we see the fact that over the years people like genealogists and autobiographers have had an enormous interest in trawling through our Births Deaths and Marriages register. The media also claimed that they needed access to it for accuracy in reporting. Then one has to ask what the wrong is that needs to be fixed. It is on that point that National could not agree with the process or proposal that is before us now. The select committee put a lot of time into this bill. A huge number of people were interested in it. There was multi-party participation in the debate in that select committee and I thank the members of the select committee for giving their time and energy to this particular legislation. 
The Births Deaths and Marriages register is something that is important to people when they need it. I know that when I got married I had to sign the marriage certificate and it was registered. I know that if I go to the Births Deaths and Marriages register it will have not only my own name and address etc. but also my wife’s name her maiden name and her family name. To that end it is something that has had a tradition that goes right back to the English beginnings of the Births Deaths and Marriages register which was recorded in those days by the churches. One can go back to England—certainly to Great Britain—and find a lot of the names that exist in this House. “Cosgrove” I am sure would be found for example. One would have to go to Ireland for “Connell” I imagine but it would certainly be one of those names that one would find if one went and searched the old church registers and suchlike of the British Isles. 
Registers have a long and proud history in that regard but to come to Parliament with a proposal that actually restricts people’s access to them on a range of grounds where there is no evidence to prove that in fact any wrongdoing is taking place or any potential future wrongdoing may take place is just one step too far. On that note I say that the National Party cannot support this legislation.