Connell Brian: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:648;Page:17300] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to say that I am very deeply indebted to the National junior whip for giving me this opportunity to come down and speak on a bill that is of such interest to the House and to me personally. Anyone who has followed this debate in the House knows my position on this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill very clearly and it is this. This bill has been introduced into this House because we have a very tired Government coming to the end of its tenure and thank God for that! The voting public of New Zealand who are desperately— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking of political deaths bring out the body bag for this member. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh the pigeon puff from Waimak is at it already and I have hardly even got into my speech. But I will come back to him in a couple of minutes. All I can say is that he is all the evidence we need to accept the fact that genetically modified organisms have escaped. I say that Mr Cosgrove should leave it at that while he is ahead. 
The point I was making is that this bill is on the legislative agenda because the Government was desperate to find something to fill up its programme. That is the only reason that this garbage is before the House. The member for the Green Party made some good comments; I accept that. She shared my concerns about the state of the bill when it was first introduced to the House and I think that some progress was made on it through the select committee process. But I will come to that because it is easier to read history backwards. 
The only reason that this bill is in the House is the Government’s lack of a legislative agenda but the bill will not solve anything. It will not solve anything because there was never a problem to fix in the first place. It will not add anything other than to the frustration and compliance costs of those who want to engage in legitimate authorised genealogical research. Those people will be frustrated. 
A number of renowned guest submitters come to the Government Administration Committee and I will quote to the House from a selection of their comments. A journalist by the name of Graeme Hunt had this to say to the committee: “The bill encroaches on well established principles held sacred within open and free democracies.” He went on to state that the latest Government move to clamp down on the public’s right to sight public information is an outrage and that it is out of step with the trends in similar democracies such as the United Kingdom and the United States. But still the Minister wanted to punch on. 
So why does the Government want to do this? First we were told by the Minister that it was to stop identity fraud. That is a smokescreen if ever I have seen one. Just a cursory investigation of the evidence about identity fraud in this country blew that argument right out of the water. Officials could quote something like only six to eight cases in our recent history and I think I am making a very liberal interpretation of the evidence that they presented to the committee. I do not think that it was even as many as that. Secondly—and here is the real reason the Government is putting this legislation before the House—some of the Government’s PC mates and they were probably using an example of one wanted to restrict access to information. They wanted to restrict access to information and that very issue brought submitter after submitter to the select committee to say that this is not right and that it is an attack on our democracy. The suggestion to use their PC speak was to incorporate appropriate privacy safeguards. 
Probably some of the Government’s placard-waving Labour supporters raised this issue because they were concerned about which side of the bed grandma or grandma had slept on 20 30 or 50 years ago—as if anyone really gives a damn. But the Minister jumped into it anyway. He just could not help himself because he thought he had an issue. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry no—grandad or grandma—I agree with that. Even if there was a privacy issue this legislation will not fix the issue. I thank Ms Rich. I think that I did get that wrong but with the benefit of hindsight I will put it right later in the debate. 
The Hon Peter Dunne in the course of the select committee debate summed up the flaw in this legislation very nicely when he said: “Wander down to any cemetery and you will be able to do your own research and find all the information you want about any individual any time you like.” None of these arguments is new which of course is the irony about this. Peter Dunne the National Party and hordes of people who came to the select committee pleaded with the Government to back off. But it still pushed on—too proud too blinkered too arrogant to heed advice. 
Let us sample some of the advice that we got from some of those submitters at the select committee. The first submitter I want to refer to is Professor Geoffrey Rice who is none other than the head of the school of history at Canterbury University. He said to us: “If passed this amendment bill will render the writing of New Zealand’s 20th century history well nigh impossible.” What a chilling warning that is. One of New Zealand’s leading academics a historian told the select committee that and still the Labour members on the select committee and the Minister rejected that advice. He went on to say that the Minister of Internal Affairs Mr Barker referred to the prevention of identity theft as one of the aims of this amendment but that such cases are rare in New Zealand as I have already alluded to and this legislation will not prevent them. Here is an example of a bad law being proposed to remedy a very small problem. I suggested to members of the select committee that we get some of these leading academics to come in and give their advice to the select committee so that we could be aware of all the facts and make informed decisions. But again the Minister and the Government members of the select committee refused to do that. 
The National Party commentary on the bill which I commend to the House—it is extremely well written and very concise—also points to our concerns and I will quote from that as well. I know it is available to members but I doubt very much that the Labour members have taken the time to read it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Read it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Just in part. It states: “It is the view of National members that these restrictions will continue to hamper academic and genuine genealogical research and other legitimate purposes needing access to births deaths and marriages information. National members support openness and transparency and we believe more can be gained from the tradition of public access to the registers with the government continuing to act in a custodial role.” 
I really believe that it was when the Minister went home and picked up the National Party report for his bedtime reading that he suddenly realised the error of his ways. It was then that he started to say in the public domain that he felt he needed to start to listen to submitters who were coming to the select committee and accepted in political-speak that maybe he had got things wrong. 
These were not isolated examples. The Minister being torn and bruised then introduced a Supplementary Order Paper. This is where I differ from the Green member. Although we now have legislation that will not bring the House down what it does do is erode one fundamental principle of our democracy and it is that by introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that completely guts the bill it denies the public their democratic right. They were not allowed to argue or articulate their points of view in the select committee and that is wrong. That is the fundamental reason why the National Party continues to object to this bill. None other than the Government’s own socialist rag the Christchurch  
Press 
 went into attack mode over this as well and climbed into the Government by saying: “There is no compelling need for the secrecy provisions of the bill and certainly no sign of any public call for them.” 
That is the issue that I started with. There is no call for this legislation to be in this House. It is a waste of our time and it is a waste of Parliament’s time which is the biggest offence. It will not solve a problem because there was no problem to solve in the first place. As Peter Dunne said the access to information will still be available and we have spent God knows how many hours in this Parliament debating legislation that will have no bite at all.