Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill

Kia orana, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill.

I am proud to be the sponsor of this private bill. The circumstances that have resulted in this bill arose from an email I received during the passage of the marriage equality legislation and that I referred to in my third reading speech. I would like to refresh members’ minds as to what that email stated: “My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born, my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13, my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for, and was granted, guardianship. When my daughter turned 18, the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship, despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately, all this happened before she turned 20, because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum legally no longer exists. This is just so ridiculous and so wrong. If your bill had been law when my partner was still alive, then we could have married and our daughter would have both her parents recorded as such.”

That email highlighted the difficulty and trauma faced by the promoter Rowen Sullivan, who was brought into the world and brought up by two parents who both happened to be women, but her birth certificate does not record that fact, and cannot do so without this bill. Private bills are not often used, but are defined by McGee, Burrows, and Carter as bills that are for the benefit of named individuals, and this bill is precisely for that purpose. This bill is for the benefit of Rowen Sullivan and her parents, Doreen Shields and the late Diane Sullivan, Rowen’s birth mother.

The benefit for Rowen is best summed up in her own words. I asked her for a statement for this first reading. She said: “I think it was much harder for my parents to have me in the 1990s than it would be now. There did not seem to be any famous gay people raising children together, which makes it more familiar to other people. It was not such a common thing, so they had to figure out how to make our family work, and deal with people who did not think we were a proper family. I think your family are the people who love you and raise you, not necessarily the people who share your blood. I have registered my details in case any of my siblings want to make contact, but this is just out of curiosity, not because I am looking for family. My parents meant to have me. I was not an accident or a mistake. Other people can have both their parents on their birth certificate, and they don’t have to choose between having their mum’s name taken off or having no family at all as far as the law is concerned. Some people ask why this matters. It is just a piece of paper. I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her and everything she went through to have me and to stay with me when she got sick. She loved me, and I will always love her.”

This young woman was placed in a position that no one should ever have to face. She had a birth certificate that recorded her mum’s name only. The reality was that she had two parents who loved her, whom she loved. Together, they were a family. But when her mum became terminally ill, the reality of her legal relationship with her other parent, Doreen, was brought to the fore.

Adoption was not an option at that stage, as it would result in Rowen’s birth mum’s name being removed from her birth certificate at a time when they were all dealing with Diane’s illness and eventual death. Doreen became a guardian under the Care of Children Act. Her guardianship expired when Rowen turned 18 in 2011. At that point, Rowen’s mum had passed away. Rowen and Doreen then decided to apply for an adoption order, given that from 23 February 2011 there was no legal recognition of their relationship.

Doreen explains that decision in her own statement. She said: “I adopted Rowen so that there would be a legal relationship between us, especially if one of us became sick. I also wanted to make a commitment to her that she always had a claim on me, no matter what happened in the future. The fact is that I have been Rowen’s parent all her life, but Diane was her mum, and death has not changed that. Diane fought a hard battle against cancer and survived far longer than anyone expected. That was simply because she wanted to be there for her daughter. Rowen’s birth certificate should tell the truth of where she came from, but her mum is missing from it, so it is a lie. Her mum never gave her up—never. Death took Rowen’s mum away from her, and we can’t change that, but the law erased her mum from her birth certificate, and that can be put right. Diane deserves to be acknowledged as Rowen’s mum, and Rowen and any children she might have are entitled to an honest record of her family and where she comes from.”

This matter can be addressed only by the passing of this private bill. If Rowen were born in New Zealand today, both her parents could be recorded on her birth certificate, as a result of the 2004 amendment to the Status of Children Act 1969, which recognises both partners as parents, where there has been a birth as a result of an assisted human reproduction—or AHR—procedure. A birth certificate can then record the birth mother and her partner as the other parent. Under the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, the spouse of a birth parent can jointly adopt a child, and therefore the removal of the birth parent’s details would not be required.

However, these options and avenues are not available to Rowen because her mum has passed away and she is now over 20. The only way both of her parents’ names can be on her birth certificate—the one legal document that records her origin and her parents—is by a private bill. I ask that all members support this bill, which honours the reality of Rowen’s family and allows her to remember her mum and record it properly when she is asked. Adding Diane Sullivan’s name to Rowen’s current birth certificate, which records only one parent, Doreen, may not seem much to ask, but it will make a significant difference to this family. Kia ora.

I rise to speak in favour of progressing the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, which was put forward by Louisa Wall, to the Government Administration Committee. This bill would require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her birth certificate. I am grateful to be able to follow Louisa Wall in speaking, because she gave a very full explanation of the complexities of the bill. It is always difficult, when there are a number of names within a bill to consider, just to see exactly where the threads are. So I make no apology for pretty much repeating much of what the House has already heard, because I think it will not hurt to hear it a second time.

The bill is a reminder, as well, that quite frequently the Government can and does have a very big effect on people’s lives at a very personal level. It is paramount that we in this House do not forget our duty to handle these cases with deference and understanding. With that in mind, I would like to again thank Ms Wall for this continuation of the important work she did on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013. Indeed, it is pertinent to note that if Ms Wall’s bill had been in effect during the lifetime of Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother, this situation would not have arisen and the bill would not be needed.

Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, her birth mother—her father was a donor who is anonymous, I understand; I am getting agreement from over there—and Diane Sullivan’s female partner, Doreen Shields. Diane Sullivan died in 2010, when Rowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields had chosen not to adopt Rowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive, as this would have required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s—the birth mother’s—name from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. It took me a little while to try to work out why that was so, but that is the way the law works. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. That did not alter the birth certificate, and it gave the parenting effect that was required. But, unfortunately, this expired on Rowen Sullivan’s 18th birthday. Doreen Shields then applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan. The order was made on 15 January 2013. However, the order required that Diane Sullivan’s—the birth mother’s—name be removed from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Had Diane and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry, they would have been able to jointly apply to adopt Rowen. If this had occurred, they would both have been named as her parents on her record of birth.

This may appear on the outside to be a minor issue of bureaucracy, and in a way it is—in a way it is. But it is these little things that console us because it is little things that afflict us. We who have those occasional afflictions and we who know that our parents are labelled as such on our birth certificates still cannot claim to understand the emotions this would raise by having them excluded from a birth certificate, but we can be understanding of the desire to have this fixed and to have one’s parents properly and respectfully reflected. That is why I will be voting in favour of progressing this bill to the select committee stage. I am a great believer in the select committee process. It is very thorough, and I think it is something that New Zealand can be particularly proud of. I have seen a few other legislatures that have similar things, but I think our select committee process works well. We will be able to ensure that this bill has its intended honourable effect, hopefully without creating unintended consequences or precedents for future cases. Although this type of private bill is not entirely unprecedented, the particulars of it are. Excuse me—when one’s nose is more than just an emblem with a cold.

Parliament has effected the adoption of individuals through private Acts on six prior occasions. Four Acts involved the posthumous adoption of individuals, one involved the adoption of an adult, and one directed the issuing of new birth certificates for the adopted children. In each case, these private Acts deemed the person to have been adopted by the named parents. The effect of this is that the person was accorded the same rights, benefits, and status, and made subject to the same liabilities and consequences, as if an order of adoption had been made by the court. These examples differ from the current bill, which simply requires the details to be recorded on the birth certificate.

Progress is being made on ensuring that this type of situation can be more quickly resolved by the Department of Internal Affairs. The Department of Internal Affairs—again, in my view, a very efficient Government department—is currently making changes to its computer systems to enable same-sex adoptive parents to be included on a person’s birth registration entry. These changes are being made to support the implementation of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, which will come into force on 19 August this year. Births, Deaths and Marriages registry staff would therefore be able to add Diane Sullivan to Rowen Sullivan’s post-adoptive birth registration entry and for one or more new birth certificates to be issued showing those details, in line with this bill’s requirements. This is great news for those who, like Ms Sullivan, want to pay tribute to their parents by continuing their lineage in the eyes of the State. Where the select committee stage will be vital for the success of this bill is in the realm of clarifying legal requirements and processes.

As the bill focuses only on making a change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth record, it is not clear at this stage what effect the bill would have on her ability to list both mothers as her parents on the notice of her intended marriage or civil union. It is also not clear what practical legal effect progressing this bill through Parliament will have, other than simply obtaining a new birth certificate for her own personal record. In this case, this may not be a significant concern, as Diane Sullivan was Rowen Sullivan’s biological mother. However, there is a risk that this could set a precedent for other proposed bills where a deceased individual had not indicated an intention to adopt. If the Government Administration Committee becomes aware of other people in similar circumstances, the committee will need to look closely as to whether greater action is required to address these further cases.

In spite of these minor technical matters, which we will seek to address in the select committee, I wholeheartedly support the goals of this bill, and look forward to working with Ms Wall and my colleagues on the Government Administration Committee—if that is, indeed, where it is intended to go—to ensure that we appropriately allow Ms Sullivan to correctly represent to the State the names of those two people who raised her and who are her parents. I commend this bill to the House and call on all members to do the same. Thank you.

I am very pleased to support the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, a private bill being brought to the House by my friend and colleague Louisa Wall. I think that as we went through the marriage equality legislation process, which was also at the Government Administration Committee, we really did see the human face of the issue that we were dealing with. Although the politics of the marriage equality debate was very real and ever-present, it was during the submission process—where you had to look into the faces of the families, of the individuals, of the couples, and of the children who were directly affected by the change that we were proposing to make—that the rubber really hit the road for the committee.

I think even the most hardened of opponents of the marriage equality legislation were moved by some of the submissions. [Interruption] Mr Auchinvole says maybe not. I think they were. I think that the tenor of the debate was very different because we realised that we were talking about real people. We were talking about their families. We were passing judgment on their families, and it was a very respectful debate. I think this bill is yet another reminder of how an issue that might seem to be theoretical for some members actually has a very real impact on people’s lives, right down to the point of the State effectively telling someone that someone who has always been their parent, someone who has loved them and raised them legally, has no standing in the eyes of the law in New Zealand because of the laws at the time that they were born.

So I hope that all members of the House are going to support this particular bill. I commend the courage of Rowen Sullivan and her family in bringing this bill to the House. I do not underestimate how difficult it must be to put themselves up there personally as a family asking for a change to be made because of discrimination under the law. That cannot be easy, but I think that speaks to how important this particular measure is to this family and how strongly they feel that it is in the best interests of their family that this issue be addressed and that this bill pass through Parliament.

When we went through the civil union legislation, that was really about recognising the partners of same-sex couples. We heard dreadful stories about what happened when one of the partners was, for example, in an accident or ended up incapacitated in some way. A partner would get to the hospital and, because the relationship with the family was strained, they would be refused access to their loved one because they had no legal standing under the law. Of course, that is a risk for de facto heterosexual couples as well, except that you are less likely to have a family in disagreement where the relationship is heterosexual as opposed to where it is a same-sex relationship.

The stories we heard were just devastating. We heard about partners being shut out of funeral arrangements. We heard about partners being shut out of care arrangements for the person whom they had loved and cared for—for decades, in cases—where the family had been completely absent. Parliament agreed that that was untenable under the law and we passed the civil union legislation. But it did not deal with the issue of adoption. It did not. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has a member’s bill in the ballot to deal with this issue, and I sincerely hope that it gets drawn and dealt with in the House. But the civil union legislation did not deal with the issue of adoption. That still remains, you could say, a grey area—an area of deep uncertainty for all couples who are in civil unions.

Given how much time we spend in this House and how much time we as MPs spend out in the community dealing with horrific fallout from having parents not wanting to be engaged in their kids’ lives and not wanting to take legal responsibility for their kids, it seems to me utterly repugnant that the State would stand in the way of a parent who says “I want to be there.”, or “I want to be on that birth certificate, I want to be legally responsible, and I want to be the person society sees as having a role in raising that young man or that young woman.” The law should not stand in the way as it has in the past. But the reality is that guardianship was applied for, and that is great, but your relationship with your parents does not end at age 18. In fact, if anything, I think it gets better. It goes from a person telling you what to do and a person being told what to do to a friendship, to a much deeper relationship. So I entirely understand why beyond 18 it is important that that relationship becomes more than simply guardianship; it becomes legal.

I want to end just by making the point that this bill highlights a very real fact, which is that until we get full equality under the law for same-sex couples, there will always be these loopholes. There will always be someone who misses out. There will always be someone put into a horrible situation that those of us who have the luxury of having all these rights afforded to us on birth—we did not earn them; because of our genetics we got them—will not be put into, and sometimes we take those rights for granted. But the reality is that until we get full equality under the law for same-sex couples we will continue to see issues like this, which are very upsetting for the people involved and should be completely unacceptable in a modern Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.

It is indeed a great pleasure to support this Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill going to the Government Administration Committee, where it might be fully discussed. Might I acknowledge, to begin with, Louisa Wall, who has been the one in charge of the bill, firstly, for her extraordinary work in the past, and, again, because of the fact that someone has had the confidence in her to come to her and bring this most unusual case. I will not reiterate the circumstances, but, undoubtedly, this bill is driven by a young woman’s overwhelming desire to have the name of her biological mother on her birth certificate. That, clearly, is something that all of us would want, that all of us take for granted. It is nothing exceptional. In fact, it is an extraordinary, compelling thing or fact of nature that all children want to have the recognition and attachment of their parents so that they can honour them.

I was struck very much the other day—I think it was Monday—by a 20/20 programme about a young Indian guy who was born in a very poor village, or very poor circumstances, 2,000 kilometres from Calcutta. With his brother he went down to the local railway station to see whether they could get something to help feed the family. His brother left him on the bench at the railway station. He was aged 5. His brother said: “Stay there and I’ll come back. Don’t move until I get you.” He did not come back. The young Indian boy woke up in a panic, and in the stress of the moment hopped on the railway train that was going past. It took him 2,000 kilometres to Calcutta. He stayed there in Calcutta, one of the most challenging cities in the world. He lived there hand to mouth for several months until he was, fortunately, discovered by an Indian woman who took him into an orphanage, and from there he was put in contact with Australian parents, who brought him up in Hobart, Tasmania.

They were loving and wonderful parents, but at the back of this young boy’s mind was what was happening to his mum. She was actually a solo mum with several other kids. He deeply wanted to go back, but he had no idea whatsoever what to do. It was only when he was in his 20s that someone showed him the Google Earth technology. He was fascinated and saw that this could be the key to how he could go back to the village, which he had only a very young 5-year-old’s image of what it looked like. It was an almost impossible task. He spent 6 years, sometimes staying awake all night, working on the computer to figure out the thousands of combinations and permutations that might lead him to his home village. By chance, one night he saw familiar landmarks in a village that he had detected by tracing the train line back from Calcutta. The long and short of the story was that he got home and he found his mother. It was one of the most poignant stories I have ever come across.

Every child should have the opportunity to be able to recognise and honour their birth parents. There is no doubt that one of the other things that this particular bill brings up is the fact that Rowen’s mum conceived through artificial insemination. Thirty years ago this was done anonymously. Today it is not done anonymously, by and large, and I think that is a very good thing. Openness and transparency are something that is so important to ensure we have as the ethos going forward.

I am delighted to support this bill. We will find in the select committee, perhaps, that there are problems with it, but that is the opportunity to find them out. Hopefully, we can satisfy Rowen’s desire to see her mum’s name on her birth certificate.

Kia orana. I am pleased to offer the Green Party’s support for the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill tonight and to offer my thanks to Louisa Wall for giving this House the opportunity to fix a situation that I found, when you described it in the third reading of the marriage equality legislation, so incredibly moving. I am really glad that Rowen and Doreen Shields, who I understand is here tonight, have given us, entrusted us, with the job of trying to fix this, and I have faith that this House will fix this situation, because it is, I think, plain to most, if not all, of us that a wrong has been done. It is something that is quite easily within our power to fix.

I will go through again, along with others, and outline what has happened and what we are here to do tonight to start the process of fixing. Rowen Sullivan was born in England to an English mother and her partner, a New Zealand woman. Because of the time that they were living in and the fact that they were a same-sex couple, they were not able to both have their names on the birth certificate. It was purely a matter of the times. They moved to New Zealand, and when Rowen was 17, her mother, who was named on the birth certificate, died. Rowen decided to change the name on the certificate to that of her living mother, but to do so she had to remove the name of her birth mother.

I cannot imagine anyone in this House listening to that story and putting themselves in the shoes of a 17-year-old whose Mum had died—whom she was obviously very close to and really attached to—having to choose between the name of her mum, who has just died, recognising her lineage, and the name of the mother who was there with her. To have to choose between those is a choice no person should ever have to make. It is fantastic that this bill is coming here in order for us to fix that situation. I have hope within this process that although you can never rewrite history, I do think it is always open for us to be able to apologise for our past ignorance, and I think that will be appropriate through that process to offer our apologies to Rowen and her family for their having to go through that situation.

I also want to share the words that Louisa has already shared tonight, because it seems most appropriate for me for this discussion to be primarily led by the words of the family, so I will again repeat those for the House. They were in a letter that was sent to Louisa on the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and they are, I think, from Doreen, saying: “My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born, my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13, my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for, and was granted, guardianship. When my daughter turned 18, the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship, despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately, all this happened before she turned 20, because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum no longer legally exists.”

Well, I hope this is the start of the process for this House to acknowledge that Diane Sullivan did indeed exist and still exists as Rowen Sullivan’s mother, alongside Doreen Shields. We should be celebrating loving parenting and family, and this is the House’s chance to do that. Kia ora.

The Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is a fascinating bill because the circumstances pertaining to Rowen 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, and Rowen. It is enormously poignant and heartbreaking, and I think everyone in this House can empathise with Rowen. 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 why Rowen 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 daughter, Rowen. In fact, as Rowen explains, same-sex couples—or known same-sex couples—were unusual back in the 1990s, and Rowen’s family was considered an anomaly. Officially, her parents’ relationship was unrecognised. Diane Sullivan and her partner, Doreen Shields, were Rowen’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 is, Rowen’s birth mother—had been listed, and Doreen Shields would have liked to adopt Rowen, 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 when Rowen 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 that Rowen 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 adopt Rowen, 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.

New Zealand First understands the reasons why the people concerned seek the direction for the entry on to the birth certificate, as set out in the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. New Zealand First also accepts the genuine motivation for the bill. But the law, as it previously was, that prevented the entry of both parents’ names was properly complied with at the time. There is, therefore, no wrong, in the legal sense, to be put right. New Zealand First, therefore, does not accept that it is now necessary or appropriate to pass this bill for one individual. It may be appropriate to change the law generally for people in this position, but that is not a matter for the present. For that reason alone, New Zealand First feels obliged as a matter of policy to vote against it.

Ahn nyung ha se yo and good afternoon, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I start by congratulating Louisa Wall on how lucky she is to have had two bills drawn in the ballot, when some of us have had bills in there for years and years and years. Lucky you. Congratulations.

What this particular bill is essentially seeking is to amend the birth certificate of Miss Rowen Sullivan, and to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of her birth mother on her post-adoptive birth entry. The preamble of the bill explains the circumstances in which Miss Sullivan seeks to record both her birth mother, Diane Sullivan, and her mother’s same-sex partner, Doreen Shields, as her parents on the birth certificate, as they are the only parents she has ever known. I take this opportunity to send my sincere condolences to Miss Sullivan and Miss Shields on the passing of Diane Sullivan, who died due to cancer.

It is a sad story. We have heard from different members in the House. It is actually very poignant. If Diane and Doreen were able to have married, they would have been able to adopt Rowen, but Diane died before the marriage amendment legislation was passed, leaving Doreen to act as an additional guardian to Rowen, but that expired when Rowen turned 18—2 years ago. How sad that is. If it happened now, since the bill has passed, perhaps she might have been able to adopt her.

It is uncertain why Miss Rowen Sullivan is seeking to have this change, or the practical legal effect Miss Sullivan is seeking by getting this bill passed through Parliament, aside from getting a birth certificate for her own personal records with both Diane’s and Doreen’s names on it. I understand why and I actually empathise with it, but I am a little bit cautious as to what other changes or effects this bill’s passing might have on other cases. Does this bill set a precedent for people wanting to make changes on their birth certificate? For example, I know of many people whose recorded birth dates are different from their real birth dates, maybe because with the difference between the lunar calendar versus the Gregorian calendar the date changes. But once the date is written on an official record, people are stuck with that date that is actually incorrect every year that the year rolls round. Some records have been destroyed as a result of war or fire, and their birth dates are recorded wrong. And some, like me, have a completely different date, caused by a mistake or lapse in memory.

I never really found out why my birth date was wrong, but according to my birth certificate I was born in the Year of the Snake—without giving the year so that everybody would know how old I am—but my real birth date is in the Year of the Fire Horse. The difference is only a few months or a couple of weeks, but it really makes a huge difference because it is a difference of a year. I am a year older than I really am—I know I do not look it, Jonathan. I do not know whether it was because women born in the Year of the Fire Horse are meant to be career orientated and not housebound, or maybe it was that my whānau elders, my grandfather, actually wanted me to marry and have children. He did not want me to be this work-focused woman. Or maybe it was because I was a sickly child and in and out of hospital, and they wanted to make sure that I was viable before they actually registered me. Whatever actually happened, I was registered well after I was actually born, and by the time they got to register me I got the wrong birth date. And it is a different month, too, so when people count the star signs, I am one star sign but in reality I am another. So when people sort of think “Oh, she’s an Aquarius.” or “She’s a Sagittarius.” or “She’s a Leo.”, they sort of judge people according to their birth date. I will just keep you guessing as to which is the real one.

But the end result, regardless of what the reason was, is that I was registered incorrectly, and I will for ever be a year older than I really am. Does this bill actually mean that I can finally change the recorded birth date to reflect the real birth date? Does that mean that I will become a year younger? I do not know. Should I be allowed to? Whether I want to is another matter. I probably want to be a year younger. On the other hand, I can understand that this may be an emotive issue for Miss Sullivan, and although the intention of this bill in itself is admirable, which is to remember her birth mother and her desire to acknowledge her on her birth certificate, there might be other unintended consequences, and they might not be immediately apparent. That is the reason I believe that the bill needs to be scrutinised. This bill needs to be investigated to see whether there is any mischief in it, and it needs to be opened up to the public for submissions. That is the reason I support it going to the Government Administration Committee.

I call the honourable member Darien Fenton.

Well done, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Kia orana.

Kia orana, kia orana. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, but I thought I should start by correcting the member Melissa Lee, who spoke prior to me about the nature of this bill. It is a private bill; it is not a balloted bill, so it did not come from the ballot. It is a private bill, which is being sponsored by Louisa Wall on behalf of Rowen Sullivan. In fact, private bills are very rare. They have hardly been used in my time in Parliament. I have been here since 2005 and there have been no private bills. Sometimes people get confused and call members’ bills private members’ bills, but there have been no private bills. So, once again, Louisa Wall is making history in this Parliament by bringing something that we rarely see in Parliament, and I know that she has been moved to do so by the story of Rowen and her family.

Can I say that I completely understand just what it would feel like not to be able to have both your parents’ names on your birth certificate. I do not want to diminish in any way the story of Rowen and her parents, but I can think of other examples where this could have happened to people—for example, children who have been adopted and find out later who their birth parents are. What a difference that can be for people—understanding who they are and understanding what their identity is. This bill is about confirming identity. It is not going to have any practical outcomes, as the previous member was querying. It is an outcome that confirms the real identity of somebody’s two parents, and, as such, it is a very, very important bill.

There is no other way that Rowen can have both her parents’ names—Diane and Doreen—recorded on her birth certificate. There is no other legislative or administrative means. It seems incredibly unfair that she can have only one of her parents on her birth certificate, and I can understand in those circumstances how sad and awful that must have been, particularly given that one of her parents was ill and then died, and how much pain this woman has been through in this. Can I also say that if Rowen had been born today, of course, her parents could be married. Well, from 19 August they could get married, and both of them would be recorded on the birth certificate, but that cannot occur because, as I said, Diane, sadly, died in 2010.

This bill will allow Rowen to have both her parents’ names recorded on her formal birth certificate, which is the only formal document that records her birth, and that is the other special thing about this. We get only one birth certificate. That is the only piece of documentation that says who you are and who your parents are, and that sets out the basis of your identity. As such, it is very, very important.

So, again, I want to say how wonderful it is that Louisa has sponsored this bill, particularly as she did mention it during her speech on the marriage equality legislation. She has clearly formed a friendship and a relationship with Rowen, and felt moved to sponsor this bill on her behalf. I, again, congratulate her on doing that. I am supporting this bill going to the Government Administration Committee, and I look forward to hearing about the discussions at the select committee.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am glad to rise and seek a call on this first reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. There has been significant national and, in fact, international attention on this issue. I counted no fewer than 10 articles online from various news outlets. I would like to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Louisa has put this issue forward as a matter of some importance to her and, obviously, to the individuals concerned, and I am always open to discuss matters like this with my parliamentary colleagues.

As other members have traversed, this particular bill seeks to amend the birth certificate of Rowen Sullivan to reinsert Diane Sullivan as her mother. Diane died as a result of lung cancer, a horrific disease to which I have lost friends and family members, so I can only sympathise that Rowen, at the age of just 17, lost her mother to this disease, and her mother’s partner, Doreen, became her guardian. As Jan Logie from the Green Party noted, this was a tragic course of events to go through, particularly for someone so young. To find at the age of 18 that you would have no legal relationship with your caregiver, despite a lifetime of being cared for by that person, I can understand, would be particularly upsetting. After having worked overseas and dealing with parents who want to register a new birth, and noting that this is usually a happy occasion, I did come across cases where, for a number of reasons, this was complex, delicate, or a sensitive issue, so I appreciate that this bill will bring to the surface some complexities, sensitivities, and sympathies, especially for Rowen herself.

As previous speakers have noted, this bill will require, in effect, the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registration entry. As we are aware, most private bills are for organisations, as for the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Act 2012 or the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Act 2010, which have passed through this House in recent years. But in 1989 there was a private bill dealing with the estate of Ellen Eames, and, closer to this case, in 1985 Parliament passed a law making lawful the marriage between Thomas Stockman and Rosalina Howe, despite Mr Stockman being the half-brother of Ms Howe’s mother. I acknowledge that it is therefore not entirely unheard of for this House to be asked to implement changes like the ones that this bill is asking for. It has happened six times before, with four of those Acts involving the posthumous adoption of individuals. One involved the adoption of an adult, and one directed the Registrar-General to issue new birth certificates for those adopted children, but these cases are exceptional and relatively rare. In this case, the intention of the bill differs somewhat from these examples, as it simply requires the details to be recorded on the birth certificate.

I think it is important to note that this issue would not have arisen had Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother been able to marry her long-term partner, and I am very glad that this kind of situation will, hopefully, be avoided in the future, following the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 earlier this year. I would again like to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall for the role that she played in that legislation. It is also encouraging to hear that the Department of Internal Affairs is making changes to its computer systems to enable same-sex adoptive parents to be included in the details of a person’s official birth entry.

As this bill focuses only on making a change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth record, I am somewhat uncertain about what the effect of the bill would be on her ability to meet other legal requirements and processes in the future. For example, should Rowen marry or enter a civil union, it is not clear to me whether she would be entitled to list both of her mothers as parents on the notice of her intended marriage or civil union document. I am interested in learning more about this and the complexities of this case, and perhaps I will have the opportunity to do so should the bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Although this issue has an extremely narrow scope—more narrow than any other bill that I have yet spoken on in my relatively short time in this House—there is a risk that this bill could create a precedent, but I am willing to support this bill’s referral to the select committee, where it can be considered in full. Hopefully, this House and the bureaucracy that provides these services to the public can find a better way of fixing problems like this in the future. I commend this bill for further consideration.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Meitaki.

In concluding this first reading debate, I want to focus on a sentence from Rowen’s statement: “Other people can have both their parents on their birth certificate, and they don’t have to choose between having their mum’s name taken off or having no family at all as far as the law is concerned.”

This Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is fundamentally about Rowen’s right to her identity, which exists within the context of her family. The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004—or HART Act—came about because of the changing ideas of family that permeated court decisions from as early as 1990. Those decisions reflected changing social understandings of the structure of the normal New Zealand family. The old understandings of family as genetically related and nuclear collided with new understandings. These new understandings of family involve same-sex couples, reproductive material donors, and altruistic surrogacy.

Since 2004 we have recognised in law these new understandings of family and parenting. The Care of Children Act 2004 widened the practice of guardianship, changing from the traditional Western ideology of the nuclear family towards a more traditional Māori concept of the extended family. The 2004 amendment to the Status of Children Act recognised parenting roles where a child is born as a result of an assisted human reproduction procedure. All this legislation reflected the actual realities of families in a modern, contemporary society that recognises choice.

Rowen is part of a new family. Under the 2004 amendment to the Status of Children Act, both Rowen’s parents would have been identified as such and, accordingly, could have been recorded on Rowen’s birth certificate. However, due to the circumstances of when and where Rowen was conceived, this was not possible at that time. However, now as a New Zealand citizen with a New Zealand parent, Rowen is entitled to have a New Zealand birth certificate that records all of who she is.

A birth certificate is an official document that contains the registered information about your birth. As the Department of Internal Affairs states on its website, the birth certificate states the fact of the birth, the place and date of that birth, and the name or names registered for the child, and establishes a link between a child and its parents. Rowen has a New Zealand birth certificate. It states the date and place of her birth, it states her names, but it has only one of her parents’ names recorded on it, because it is a post-adoption certificate and the law requires that, in issuing that certificate, her mother’s name must be removed.

The passage of this bill would mean that Rowen’s link with both of her parents will be clearly identified on the one document that she will use as evidence of who she is. Her birth certificate would then describe her family in real terms. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.