Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's good to have the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill. Other colleagues have noted—quite rightly of course—that the passage of the legislation has been an unusual one through this House. We've heard about its origins and actually going back even before the point that it was in the House the Law Commission's review of burial and cremation law back in 2015 through a ministerial review an internal affairs departmental review the Governance and Administration Committee's amendments following the first reading of the bill. Of course as others have alluded to and more than just alluded to—obviously covered in some detail—a particular Supplementary Order Paper that would have made a change and indeed will make a change has been the subject of a lot of discussion and debate. I do want to reflect on that within my contribution but perhaps regarding the rest of the bill if I can put it that way I would just note as well lest it not be recorded at any other point in the third reading that the bill has actually a really sort of broad ambit. We've got the expectation of New Zealanders to create change use and access identity information so the bill is very much designed to provide a more accessible way for Kiwis to reach their own records and where appropriate those of others. That's sort of the general philosophy and obviously a lot of the detail of the bill was very much geared towards that. So they are things that we would ordinarily reflect on in Parliament and in select committees of course—drafting style definitions of historical information and relatively straightforward matters such as those. I do just want to highlight before I move on to those other aspects—before I go any further I do want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague and friend Nicola Grigg. I think she set out in very clear fashion the progress of the bill and the process as well but if I might just also place it on record I thought that for a relatively new member of the House and of our caucus she's handled with great diligence and grace the competing demands from various sectors of New Zealand's community and the various pressures that she and her select committee colleagues have felt in relation to the bill. I think she produced in today's third reading a really good dissertation of the way that she's thought about the bill and the result ultimately that we have reached on this side of the House along with the Government. But before I go back into that—and I promise I will get there—greater digital access to information is actually a major theme of the bill and I think that's a really worthy aim. Oftentimes we talk in this House about accessibility of law and other contexts. Of course a key aspect of the rule of law is that we are able to see the law as it applies to us but also personal records and that's important. If the State is to hold information about individuals—and there's nothing wrong with that as far as it goes—then of course it's appropriate that individuals should be able to have a way of interacting and handling and accessing that data in a way that makes sense for them. My final note on that is that the privacy protections are always really important in this kind of endeavour. I suppose arguably a flipside of accessibility is that it must only be accessible as appropriate. So we see for example—and I rely here on the legislative statement that's been provided to the House a note about the exception for public sector agencies to be included in the named person rule. That's whereby the registrar-general is able to conduct one-off searches that don't relate to the person's birth death and marriage records but only under specified circumstances. So not a real blank cheque there in terms of officials being able to handle the data of individuals. So then in terms of the self-identification provisions and amendments that we have made at the committee of the whole House stage can I say first of all that I think that the House or perhaps more accurately the Government made a good decision to send that back to select committee. I think there would have been some disquiet if the public had not had a chance to make submissions on a particular aspect of the bill that was very strongly and keenly felt by I suppose I could say probably fairly a couple of different sides and it was somewhat divisive and it's a shame in a way that the debate produced at times more heat than light. But I would like to join others who have thanked those Kiwis who were good enough to spend their time and their energy and—yes—show courage on both sides of the debate to submit to a select committee. I think it's a great thing that we have a democracy in this country whereby New Zealanders generally feel encouraged and able to make submissions to a select committee and that their views will be heard and respected accordingly. So acknowledging that the debate at times I suppose had the tendency to be divisive I think it's worth acknowledging again as my colleague and friend Nicola Grigg did some of the tensions around the free speech aspects. She's framed that I think really well so I won't go there again. But I think at its best debate—whether that's in Parliament itself or the House itself or select committee—is where one allows others to speak in the first instance; second seeks to understand their point of view; and third does not make an effort to misrepresent that other view and acknowledges the strengths of the other view and addresses those even if it's ultimately a matter of saying that one may disagree ultimately with the conclusion because there's another factor that's able to outweigh that. So with that sort of philosophical discussion about the nature of the debate I do want to acknowledge that of course there were also discussions in select committee and certainly amongst the community regarding practical aspects such as fears and concerns in relation to safety but also of course imperatives regarding identity. These things are very important. They go to the heart of what it is to be human and so we should always take seriously and acknowledge the heartfelt and genuine good-faith positions of others in respect of such matters. I think it's right to acknowledge at this point as others have done that the process going forward does include I suppose a couple of safety valves. One is simply that which exists for any legislation with regulation-making powers. So for those who are less familiar with the way that laws are made in this country the primary legislation comes through this House. Sometimes it will set up a process whereby other laws can be made under that—we call this secondary legislation for obvious reasons—and sometimes regulations and at that point there's also an opportunity for members of the public to have their say. It's not with the same formal process by way of select committee although I would just note—and never missing a chance to advertise the great and good work of the Regulations Review Committee—it will be for us if anyone wishes to bring to our attention those regulations to consider the way that those have been made and the way that they affect people's lives; not so much from a policy point of view. We're not able to second-guess the decisions of the whole House at the committee of the whole House stage and also in that more broad sense of the phrase of Parliament. But nevertheless there will be opportunities for people to see how the regulations play out whether there were any unintended consequences and so forth and I think I'm right in saying that Ms Grigg indicated that there'd be a five-year review at which time I suppose in or by 2026 the legislation will be—must be reviewed in fact. So the good old quinquennial review will soon be upon us and members may decide whether they wish to be in the House at that time or not. That'll be interesting and whether or not the views that were expressed at the time are the same in five years will be genuinely interesting. Of course society does change. It does make an effort to recognise the views within the community but I would just of course urge that in five years' time for anyone who may be involved in that review—whether that's me or others currently in the House and no doubt of course others will join us or join them—I just do hope that such a review is conducted in a spirit of good-faith debate without unnecessary division allowing all to express their views on the matter. With that hope expressed for the future may I say today that as Ms Grigg has indicated on behalf of National we do support this bill and we note that at the third reading it is likely to pass into law today. So again to thank all those who have worked hard and involved themselves in its passage.