Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill

I move, That the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill be now read a second time. Tēnā koutou katoa. This private bill allows the birth details of Rowen Sullivan to record the reality of her family. As the Government Administration Committee states in its report, the bill, with the amendments recommended, will make “what is a matter of fact, that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen Sullivan’s parents, a matter of law.”

For those who are not familiar with the background, this bill arose out of the fact that Rowen Sullivan cannot by law have the names of both her parents on her birth certificate. After 7 years together her parents, Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields, had a daughter who was born by an assisted human reproduction procedure to Diane on 23 February 1993. At that time only Diane’s name was recorded on Rowen’s birth certificate as her birth mother.

In 2006 Diane was diagnosed with a terminal illness and passed away in 2010 when Rowen was 17. At that time Rowen and Doreen decided that Doreen would apply for an adoption order as that was the only legal option available to them to record their parent-child relationship. But in doing that Rowen received a new birth certificate with just Doreen’s name on it and her mother Diane’s name had been removed. That was the law, but it means that the reality of Rowen’s upbringing and family was not recorded and there was no ability for her or Doreen to take advantage of changes made by the Status of Children Act and last year’s marriage amendment Act. Rowen’s age and the passing of Diane meant that was not possible. A private bill is the only way Rowen’s parents can both be recorded on her birth registration details, from which a new birth certificate can be issued.

I particularly want to acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee, so ably chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson, for their work and the amendments to the bill that they have recommended. The amendments reflect the commitment of the select committee to understand what this bill is seeking. The amendments recommended by the select committee clarify what this bill is about. It is about Rowen Sullivan having the names of both her parents on her birth certificate. The select committee has rightly renamed this private bill the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, because it is the details held of Rowen’s birth registration, which currently record the adoption order in the name of Doreen Shields, that are the basis for the issuing of Rowen’s birth certificate. Should this bill pass, Rowen’s parents will legally be the two women who were her parents in true life: Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields.

On a personal note, I would also like to thank the members of the select committee for the manner in which they heard and reported on a matter that is extremely sensitive for the promoter, Rowen Sullivan, and her living parent, Doreen Shields, whom I acknowledge in the House tonight. Doreen and Rowen have asked that I pass on their thanks to the select committee. In Doreen’s words, she told me: “Rowen and I had no idea what to expect from the select committee. We thought it might be quite intimidating and we wondered if maybe they wouldn’t really be very interested in the bill. As it turned out we didn’t need to worry about either of those things. We are really impressed with the care the committee took to understand what Rowen wanted to achieve with the bill and with the changes they made to it.”

I am honoured to be the sponsor of this bill, which I recommend to the House with the amendments proposed by the select committee. Appropriately, I will leave the last word to the promoter of the bill, Rowen Sullivan: “It’s hard to believe that I’m about to turn 21 and am, hopefully, very close to finally having official recognition of both my parents. I feel very lucky to live in a country where it’s possible for that to happen.” Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

In the very brief amount of time available just before dinner I would like to begin my speech in support of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, which is set down for its second reading and sponsored, very ably, may I say, by Labour MP Louisa Wall, with whom it was a pleasure to work.

The purpose of the bill is to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registry entry. It may well be that people consider that something of a technical detail, and, indeed, when we saw the bill before us at the Government Administration Committee we thought that it did have a very technical aspect to it. The reality was, though, that it also had a very, very personal aspect. This is one of those occasions when the only solution available to the applicant was through Parliament. It has no effect on any other person—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has come to suspend the House for dinner. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. Bon appétit.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a pleasure to resume speaking about the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. As we had spoken of earlier, this is one of those occasions in Parliament when legislation can do something for someone that nothing else can do and that applies only to that individual person. In fact, there are no negative elements at all associated with the passage of this bill. It requires 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.

We heard from Louisa Wall, who introduced the bill—and I do not doubt we will hear an echo from Ruth Dyson, the chair of the Government Administration Committee—that there was apprehension on the part of the applicants for the bill that they would be perceived as wasting our time, or not having a significant thing for us to do, and which required a bill of their own. But this is a member’s bill. This is what these times are set aside for, and anyone, of course, who knows the Hon Ruth Dyson would realise that the applicants would be guaranteed a good reception, I am sure.

For those members who would like to know the minutiae of how this came about, we can, through the good services of the sponsor of the bill, Louisa Wall, provide a summary of the events, and I would like to read that to the House now. For members opposite, I shall be conducting a small written test afterwards to see how much of it you remembered and understood!

These are the complexities of the situation. Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, her birth mother, and Diane Sullivan’s female partner, Doreen Shields. Have you got that bit? Diane Sullivan died in 2010 when Rowen was 17 years old. Doreen Shields chose not to adopt Rowen while Diane Sullivan was still alive as this would have required the removal of the name of Diane Sullivan, the birth mother, from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. 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, that order required that Diane Sullivan’s name be removed from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. For those who are still travelling the journey with us all—and let us remember that this was a journey that someone actually travelled—had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry, they would have been jointly able to apply to adopt Rowen. If this had occurred, they would both have been named as her parents on her birth record.

Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013—which, coincidentally, went through the same select committee—same-sex couples are able to marry and are therefore able to apply jointly to adopt children. I think anyone would be forgiven for not completely following the intricacies of those events, and it was a credit to the members of the committee. Everybody took an avid interest. The applicants for the bill gave a really useful submission to the select committee, which really made things very apparent to us.

Then there were the aspects that had to be considered that we required officials’ advice on. Again, I really want to say to those who are watching or listening to the radio this evening that the advice one gets as a parliamentarian is first class in New Zealand—first class. I think almost every member would agree with that. Perhaps there is the odd occasion when something might not quite come up to the mark, but for the most part I do not think that MPs can really justifiably say they could not find something out, because we have a superb library—a superb library—and I have always found the quality of officials and the quality of official advice to be excellent. I see some nods from people whose academic background I have great respect for, and they have been in a position of comparison.

This was one example where, I think, the smaller details were taken into account, so that in setting a precedent—if it were creating a precedent—there would be no harm done. As it is, this bill does not set a precedent, because the circumstances are almost unique. You cannot use the phrase “almost unique”. I can see Mr Finlayson bristling at the very suggestion. I would like to formally withdraw that remark. I did not intend to say—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: You did. Noted, and you will be counselled later.

Oh dear, oh dear! I did not intend to say “almost unique”, because that is a stupid conflict of terms. This is a relatively unusual situation and it would be most surprising if the circumstances were ever duplicated in exactly the same order. So this will not be a repeatable situation.

The proposed addition of clause 4, which the select committee recommends, would make it clear that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Sullivan.

It was a really interesting bill from all points of view, not just in respect of the family concerned but in consideration of how we are identified as individuals. I would have thought—and I know that other select committee members shared the thought with me—that your birth certificate was it, but, in fact, it is not. It is simply a record of what is recorded within the record system. So it was a very interesting journey through the identification of individuals and the linkage with other people through relationships.

It has been a pleasure to be part of considering this bill. It has been educative and informative, and, from the comments relayed from the family, I understand that it has been considered useful. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak to the second reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I want to begin by paying a tribute to the sponsor of the bill, my colleague Louisa Wall, and saying that yet again she has brought issues to this House that have caused a lot of interest. We have had a lot of consideration of the bill at the Government Administration Committee, and I am pleased it was referred to our select committee. It was a real privilege to be part of that process. I want to pay a tribute to our select committee’s members. Some of the issues were more complex than perhaps we had originally considered, and both the select committee members and the officials deserve a note of tribute for the way they gave and received a lot of questions and a lot of answers. I think that really paid respect to the bill itself and the purpose of the bill.

But more than to Louisa Wall, the select committee members, and the officials, I want to pay tribute to the three women whom this bill is about: the late Diane Sullivan, Doreen Shields, and their daughter, Rowen Sullivan. This bill is really a bit of a love story. It is a story about the relationship that Diane and Doreen had and the fact that they raised their daughter together in a time when they were perhaps a little ahead of the societal recognition of what is not an unusual practice now—same-sex couples raising children together. So I want to pay a tribute first of all to Doreen and her love—and mother of her daughter—the late Diane, and their daughter, Rowen.

Doreen and Rowen appeared before the select committee. I think that most of us would recognise that a bunch of MPs sitting in a room is not an easy process. We are a little bit intimidating. We do not try to be but I think we are. The formality of a select committee process can also be quite daunting for people to go through. And that is at a time when you are talking about something that is quite theoretical. You might be talking about a tax change or you might be talking about something that is really one step removed from your life. People find that process quite a scary prospect and often get quite rattled when they come before a select committee, so to have people come to a select committee talking about the very essence of their relationships and lives and why they want us to make a law change took a lot of courage. I want to particularly acknowledge the courage and strength that Doreen and Rowen showed towards each other, but also acknowledge that that reinforced to the committee just how important this move was.

Their story said it all for us, actually. We understood that this was not a minor technical issue, that this really talked about the recognition of society towards their relationship, and I know that all members of the select committee were very moved by their presentation, by the reality of their situation, and by the fact that we had the opportunity to recognise the relationship of Diane and Doreen and their legitimate—in the law—parenting of Rowen. The deputy chair, Chris Auchinvole, made a comment in his contribution about the fact that we thought that once we had made this clear, a birth certificate would suffice for all purposes, and that was one of the many challenges that the officials threw to us: that this proof of parenthood might have to be done through some other method at some time in the future. We decided that that was a nonsense, actually. I am not saying that the advice was a nonsense; we thought that the requirement to do that would be a nonsense. So we have made it clear that this is it.

Once Parliament sets the seal on this, then Diane and Doreen are Rowen’s legitimate parents for all purposes, and neither they nor Parliament will ever have to go through this again. I think that it was probably important for us to have the debate, but none of us could think of one single instance in our own lives when we had had to produce anything other than our birth certificate with our parents’ names on it, in order to prove who our parents were. But, anyway, we have put it beyond doubt, I trust, and in the Committee stage I am sure we will make sure that that is the case.

As I said, I want to particularly recognise the love that Diane and Doreen and Rowen have and had for each other and say that Parliament does not often get that sort of involvement in our debates. It is a responsibility that I am sure every member of this House will take very seriously as we go through the debate and go through the voting process. I want to quote a couple of things that Doreen said in terms of how she felt. She said it publicly, so I am not breaching any privacy, but it had a huge impact on me, and I am sure it will on others. She talked about how she felt when—following the passing of her partner and her adoption of Rowen so that Rowen would not be left as a legal orphan and so that she had a legal living parent—she saw her partner’s name, Rowen’s birth mother’s name, taken from the birth certificate. She said that it was horrible. She said: “Given what Diane went through and how she struggled to be there for Rowen it was just obscene, quite honestly.” I do not think any of us can imagine how hard it would be to watch your partner’s name being taken from the birth certificate of your child, their child, in order for you to become their legitimate—legitimate in terms of the law—parent. That wrench must have been huge, and it is so good to be able to put what I think is an injustice right through this process.

Rowen, who, of course, is the holder of this birth certificate and the centre of attention as far as the legal change is concerned said that, actually, it was not about her. She said: “It’s more about my parents—having me in the ’90s when gay people having children was very uncommon, they showed a lot of bravery and courage. They chose to have me together, and made many sacrifices to give me the best life possible. And I want that to be recognised legally. I had two parents, and my birth certificate should show that.” It does not seem to be a very big ask. I think that it is something that every member of this House wants to support, and I certainly hope that as the debate progresses, that is where we get to in terms of the recognition in the law of the legitimate parents of Rowen.

As I said earlier, this came about only because of the death of Diane Sullivan. As Rowen’s birth mother, when Diane Sullivan died, Rowen was legally an orphan. She had no legitimate—in the law—living parent, and that was not acceptable to her mother Doreen Shields. We all know that there can be circumstances where those legitimate relationships that are not upheld in the law can cause problems, so having a legally recognised relation is really important in terms of your will, in terms of other arrangements such as medical decisions. There are many circumstances in which having a legally recognised relation—mother, in this case—is very important, and it was for Doreen and Rowen. But I actually think that it was important because that was the nature of their relationship, and the law was behind the eight ball. So it was only because of that situation that this really unfortunate circumstance arose.

We heard a lot of concerns at the select committee—not raised in any attempt to undermine this—about whether this would set a precedent, whether it would provide unfairness to other people who may be in a situation where they did not know who their birth parent was and found out at a later stage and wanted them put on the birth certificate. We had all sorts of discussions and considerations around that. In the end, we came back to what I think was the correct advice—and certainly was the leadership that Louisa Wall provided when she introduced this bill. This is a stand-alone situation, designed specifically for this family. It does not set any precedents. Actually, if it did, I would be very happy for any family in a similar situation to have the same legal recognition, but it is a circumstance that will not arise in the future, because of subsequent law changes, and I think that that is a very good thing. I enjoyed listening to the discussion around this. I enjoyed the submissions. I am delighted to be able to support this bill, to progress an injustice, and to recognise the love and the relationship of Diane and Doreen and Rowen. Thank you.

Sat sri akaal, Mr Assistant Speaker. First of all, I would like to congratulate the sponsor of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, Louisa Wall, on bringing this issue to Parliament. Above all, I think the biggest acknowledgment goes to Rowen Sullivan, because the bill shows her respect for her parents. I think that when this bill was introduced—as the chair of the Government Administration Committee, Ruth Dyson, mentioned just now—it looked like a very simple bill that would go through the select committee process quickly and be reported back to Parliament. But as this bill progressed, many more technical issues came up, which were dealt with accordingly by the select committee.

I would like to acknowledge the advisers on this bill, who helped us to make sure that this bill passes through Parliament with all those answers available for Rowen Sullivan. This bill is a reminder that quite frequently the Government can and does have a significant positive effect on people’s lives at a very personal level. Therefore, it is important that we in this House do not forget our duty to handle these cases with respect.

Here I would like to also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee, which has dealt with many issues in this term. Whether we are considering the marriage equality legislation or paid parental leave legislation, we have learnt a lot in this term in this select committee, and I acknowledge the members of this select committee, from whom I have learnt a lot. I feel like every day I come to Parliament I learn something new. That is unique, and I acknowledge all the members contributing in this House.

The matter arises because the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act was passed, after which same-sex couples were able to marry and therefore make applications to adopt children. Had Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields been able to legally marry as the law now allows, they would have been able to apply to jointly adopt Rowen. If this had occurred, they would both be named as parents on her birth record. Here I would like to acknowledge both parents, because this is about their raising of their daughter. She has really made an effort to bring this issue to Parliament so that both parents are mentioned on her birth certificate. This shows the good family culture that I think Rowen has received from both her parents.

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 now allows the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields as Rowen’s parents. I think this is an important piece of legislation to ensure that New Zealand and its citizens keep up with the times and the reforms where there is a need to. We have always been an open-minded society. We have always listened to what the citizens of this country want. Due to our nature, since 2005 New Zealand law has allowed both the same-sex parents of New Zealand - born children conceived through human-assisted reproductive technology to be named on the child’s birth record. The change was retrospective, so pre-2005 New Zealand birth registration records can, on application, be amended at any time to include both same-sex parents’ details. There is absolutely no doubt that this law change will bring a smile to the faces of the Sullivan family.

Can I share that the law already contains a rule for changing a birth record in other circumstances, including, but not limited to, situations where a parental order is obtained, an individual changes his or her name by statutory declaration, or an individual undergoes gender reassignment. However, may I also share that this bill does not create a precedent for other individuals seeking to change their registered birth record. The bill applies only to Rowen Sullivan and her situation, which has itself arisen from a unique combination of circumstances, including her birth overseas following a human-assisted reproductive procedure that meant her parents were not registered in New Zealand. The key consideration is that since 19 August 2013, married same-sex couples can adopt jointly. If the marriage amendment legislation had been in place before Diane Sullivan died, the train of events giving rise to the bill could have been avoided. The bill does not change the adoption order itself, because to do so could set a precedent for other situations where a deceased individual has not indicated an intention to adopt.

Before I conclude, once again I would like to congratulate Rowen Sullivan on her courage and her commitment to both her parents to get their names on her birth certificate so that she can live with pride that she has, in due course, acknowledged her parents. With these words, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a genuine pleasure to take a call in this debate on the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. Earlier this year I had the great privilege of being able to participate in the Government Administration Committee’s consideration of the marriage equality bill, and it was fantastic to work with a group of people who were committed to getting great outcomes. Today to again participate in a debate that is characterised by warm, generous, and kind speeches from members of that committee is a great experience. I want to thank members of the committee—in particular, Ruth Dyson, as the chair of that committee—and the officials who worked with the committee. I hear they did a fantastic job. I did not get the chance to experience their work this time around. In particular, I want to say thanks and congratulations to my colleague and friend Louisa Wall. It is twice over a pretty short space of time that an important human rights bill has come to this House under Louisa’s name.

I am one of several members of this House who is in a same-sex relationship and has children, and I am sure that those of us in that situation can all think about how it would be for us in our situation if we were plunged into this nightmare scenario that Rowen Sullivan and her parents have been through. Human rights is an area that is frequently debated in this House. Typically, when we talk about human rights, we talk about the rights of collectives, of large groups of people, and the denial of human rights to a whole ethnicity, to a whole gender, or to a whole sexual orientation. I think that is probably the most frequent use of the idea of human rights in this House, but really that relates to just one of those human rights, and that is the right to freedom from discrimination.

When Eleanor Roosevelt, who was perhaps the most motivating force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explained the idea of universal human rights, this is what she said: “Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.” This Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill is about human rights. It is about the human rights of one person—the right of that person to acknowledge their own identity and to have their parents respected by law as being their parents. I have not dealt with very many private bills in this House, but I cannot think of another situation where a private bill is more appropriate.

Congratulations to Louisa Wall and to the Government Administration Committee. Congratulations to Rowen Sullivan, to Doreen, and also to Diane. Thank you.

Kia ora. I am very happy to take a call on the second reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I congratulate my colleague and friend Louisa Wall on once again being a champion for some very important issues in this House and around the country. I also, of course, congratulate the Sullivan whānau for having the courage to go out there—and I do not underestimate how difficult it must be to have a bill with your family’s name on it going through Parliament and being spoken about.

Like Mr Hague I was on the Government Administration Committee for the marriage equality process, but not for this bill’s process. But what really struck me about the marriage equality process was when you sat down and looked into the faces of the people who were submitting, you realised that they were sitting in front of a bunch of strangers, being forced to talk about the most personal aspects of their lives in order to see progress in human rights legislation. Not many of us who are just afforded these rights at birth have ever had to do that. We do not earn these rights. There is nothing particularly special about us when we are heterosexual. We just get all of these rights handed to us by the fact that we were born straight. We have never had to do that—we do not have to sit in front of a bunch of strangers and argue why we should be treated exactly the same as everyone else and why our family is just as valuable as everyone else’s families. When you go through the process of looking into the faces of the very real people who are affected by this legislation, you really appreciate their courage and their commitment. So I imagine that to do that when it is only your family involved must be even more difficult. But it is just as important—just as important—so I really want to acknowledge the family that we are assisting tonight to address a great injustice.

I was also on the select committee that considered the civil union legislation. The change in the tenor of the debate between civil unions and marriage equality was huge—in a very positive way. The civil union debate was very, very bruising, very, very brutal, and very, very negative. The marriage equality legislation was not a walk in the park either, but by comparison things had changed significantly and there was a lot more respect at the select committee for the marriage equality process than we saw for the civil union process.

When we went through the civil union legislation, a lot of it was about giving same-sex and de facto couples the rights of married couples without going the full way to marriage. But the stories that we heard were just truly horrific—in particular, the case of the death or incapacitation of one family member, where that family member was the biological parent of the child involved and where there had been a falling out with the extended family. There was a complete lack of power for the partner in that relationship to have any rights at all. So we had situations where couples who had been together for decades and decades, in loving and supportive relationships, and then one of them ended up in hospital. The family did not approve of that relationship, so the family swooped in, took over, and went against the wishes of the individual who was sick in hospital. In these cases, the partner had no rights—absolutely no rights at all. They had no rights in the funeral arrangements. They were not even able to see the person with whom they had been in a loving, committed relationship for decades, purely because the State refused to recognise in even the slightest way that their relationship had any kind of legal standing.

A lot of this was addressed during the civil union debate, but the one crucial part that did not get addressed by civil unions and remains an issue today is adoption. We acknowledged during that debate that the status of children of heterosexual civil union couples, as well as of same-sex civil union couples, remains a very grey area under law. It is one that does need to be resolved, because at any time we can wind up with a situation like this, where you suddenly realise that you do not have the rights that you expected you would have. I expect that a lot of heterosexual civilly united couples believe that they have those rights, but, in fact, it is an area of law that remains very grey. My colleague Jacinda Ardern has a bill, the Care of Children Law Reform Bill, to try to address that. It is an area that we do need to address because when you are talking about the relationship between parents and children you are talking about something that is extremely personal. It is something that this Parliament should prioritise.

One of the things that I think this bill really highlights is that the relationship you have with your parents does not end when you turn 18. Guardianship, which was offered by the Care of Children Act, is a very different thing from being a parent. You can say that somebody has a legal responsibility for somebody until they turn 18, but, if anything, I think that our relationship with our parents gets better beyond the age of 18. It stops being a kind of “You do this, you do that.”, mother-child or father-child kind of relationship. It becomes a friendship, and it becomes a very, very fulfilling relationship. So I entirely understand why it is incredibly important to have that relationship with your parents—a relationship that only gets better the older you get—legally recognised under the law. I understand why it is not enough to say “Well, they are all adults and they should just get on with it.” No. I would be just gutted if the legal relationship that I have with my parents was in any way compromised by an action of the State.

I want to make just two final points. I hope that this bill will have the support of everyone in the House. Given the amount of time that we spend in here and as MPs in the communities dealing with the horrific fall out from parents who do not want to be involved in their kids’ lives, and the amount of time that we spend talking about parents who do not fulfil their legal responsibilities and who do not behave in a way that is conducive to a healthy relationship and a healthy child, it would seem to me to be utterly hypocritical and repugnant not to support a parent who says that they want to legally be there for their child, and for this Parliament to actually stand in the way and not allow that.

I think that where we have parents who want to be involved in their children’s lives, who want to take that legal responsibility and want the State to recognise it, we should be doing everything to get the State out of the way and say: “Absolutely. We wish there were more of you.” We wish that every family had the strength and the love and the commitment that this family obviously has for each other, to go through this process. Our country would be a much better place, a less violent place, a much healthier place, if the kinds of commitment, morals, and family values that we are seeing in this particular family were reflected right across our society.

Finally, I want to end by making the point that this bill highlights a very real fact: until we get full equality under the law for same-sex couples, there will always be loopholes, there will always be families that fall through the cracks, and there will always be sad cases like this where, through no intended malice, the law does something very, very cruel and does something very, very destructive in a family’s life. That is why full equality for same-sex couples must be the goal of this Parliament. If we truly want to see every family supported and every family recognised and to support loving and good families, then that will happen only when we get full equality for same-sex couples. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to speak on this Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, the title of which I understand the Government Administration Committee has recommended be amended to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”.

May I, from the outset, just acknowledge Rowen Sullivan and her enormous determination and commitment to ensure that this almost impossible task has actually become a reality, or is becoming a reality. It was a great pleasure for me tonight to meet her adoptive mum, Doreen Shields. I had not met her before. I just happened to be in the parliamentary cafeteria. It was clear from the outset what a warm and lovely person she is and how wonderful it is for Rowen to have an adoptive mum of her lovely character.

Of course, I want to acknowledge her biological mother and also the sponsor of this bill, Louisa Wall. There is no doubt, as I think Kevin Hague pointed out, that here is someone who has brought two really important human rights issues to Parliament in a very short space of time. It is a great contribution. Might I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee members who dealt with the bill because, listening to them, they all have been deeply moved by this situation, and it has been hugely interesting and moving to hear their contributions.

I guess, in many respects, the bill is driven by a young woman’s desire—in fact, an overwhelming desire—to have her biological mother’s name appear on her birth certificate. That is something that most of us, all of us, would absolutely just take for granted. I think I heard in the first reading of the bill that her own words were: “I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her …”. That is indeed a sentiment that any child would want for their parents.

I do recall, in the first reading of this bill, a remarkable coincidence in hearing a documentary about a young Indian man who was about the same age—about 19 or 20. He had been born in provincial India, in very poor circumstances, and had gone down with his brother to the local railway station to sell beads, or something similar, to pay for rice to feed the family. Somehow he had been separated from his brother. In a panic he hopped on a train that took him 3,000 miles away, and eventually he wound up in South Australia and was adopted by, again, some very loving people. But he had recurring nightmares about wanting to see his birth parents. He happened to be a very bright individual who was talented in mathematics and in the new technologies, and particularly in GPS. For over 3 years he used to wait up until 2 or 3 in the morning, figuring out the possibilities of where his biological parents came from in India.

To cut a long story short, after 3 years he reckoned he had cracked it. He went back to India and methodically went to the places where he had most likely been born, and eventually he found his parents. This brought absolutely profound joy, both to himself and his family and to his adoptive family.

But the point of making this analogy is the drive that all individuals have to know about their parents, and to have that transparency and ability to find them and not have hurdles put in their way. So the bill’s purpose, undoubtedly, would require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother, whose name is Diane Sullivan, on her post-adoption birth registration entry.

I note that the Government Administration Committee organised a variety of amendments to this bill. The one I mentioned earlier relates to the title that, correctly, is changed to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill” because it could have been misleading as its passage would not directly effect change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate.

There were a couple of other amendments, including the committee’s recommendation of inserting a new clause 4, which would make it clear that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Sullivan.”

I think it is worthwhile to just make mention of the enormous transition that we have been through over the last few decades in this area of both human rights and in the area of assisted human reproduction, and the huge debates that have led us to believe what 30 years ago was regarded as impossible can now be normalised.

Last Friday I was at the 50th anniversary of the founding of National Women’s Hospital. A fellow by the name of Dr Freddie Graham, famous for introducing in vitro fertilisation into New Zealand, went through the changes in birth technology in New Zealand over the last 20 to 30 years. He explained how Professor Dennis Bonham used to secretly organise sperm donation in the 1960s. The reason for that was that the hospital board would not let it happen. He had his own private practice and they literally used to mix up the sperm so they could not identify who the parents were, because of the legal ramifications that might occur in terms of making a claim through the legal process. However, a young social worker by the name of Joi Ellis persuaded the academic department that it was wrong not to be transparent. Over a period of time others joined her, including Professor Ken Daniels.

Today in New Zealand we are leading the world in having one of the most transparent systems of ensuring that children can identify their biological parents. So I think it is very good timing that this bill has reached Parliament in New Zealand and that we are making it possible for someone such as Rowen, who is so clearly driven, to do what is right and to have the appropriate framework in New Zealand to enable her to do so. I acknowledge all those who have brought this bill about and, indeed, I celebrate the fact that I have been able to speak in this second reading.

New Zealand First originally had reservations about the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. We were wary about a bill for the benefit of one individual rather than the community as a whole. But since then we have looked at the bill in much more detail. I have had the benefit of discussions with Louisa Wall, who was very persuasive, and, also, the discussions were very productive and worthwhile, and I thank her for them. We are now satisfied that the bill is necessary, that it is indeed the only solution to ensuring that the birth certificate concerned will properly and realistically show the names of Rowen Sullivan’s late birth mother, Diane Sullivan, as well as her adoptive mother. That, of course, is a very natural thing for anybody to want. Everybody can relate to that.

Indeed it is extraordinary that it would be possible not to record the birth mother on a birth certificate. It is not much of a birth certificate, when you think about it, if that were the case. So this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances and we in New Zealand First now recognise it as such. The desired solution would not be achievable without legislation, and I observe that if Rowen had been born today, her parents could marry and both of them would be recorded on her birth certificate, which cannot occur now, of course, because Diane died in 2010. However, that consideration alone justifies this bill, I think.

We in New Zealand First also approve the change of name of the bill to the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, because, in fact, that is what this is really about. We also approve of new clause 4(1), which will provide that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan.” The proposed clause reinstates the legal position for all purposes, including, of course, the law of succession and parental relationship. That is really a very important consideration. I am very glad to see that the Government Administration Committee has made that amendment—very worthwhile.

For all of those reasons, New Zealand First will now be pleased to vote in favour of the bill. Like other speakers, I congratulate all concerned on bringing it to the House.

Ahn nyung ha se yo. On that note, I would like to start by wishing everyone a happy New Year, considering the lunar New Year just actually happened and we have all been around many different parts of the country celebrating the lunar New Year, the Year of the Horse. Let me greet you in my mother tongue: se hae bok mani baduseyo. It translates to “May your new year bring you lots and lots of luck.” I just thought I would start and actually have a look at the Year of the Horse. The wood horse, according to the Chinese horoscope, is a time of fast victories, unexpected adventure, and surprising romance. So if there are any single people in this House, I wish you good romance this year. According to the Korean astrological chart, this is the year of the blue horse. May it be significant in this election year.

Let me start by acknowledging all of the speakers who have spoken on this bill, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. It is, of course, my pleasure to rise in support of the bill. I remember speaking at the first reading and actually mentioning my little cultural experience, where in certain countries where people are born in a particular town or at a particular time, and because they are worried that the children might not actually survive a certain period of time, they do not register the children. They actually register them later, and often the children end up with the wrong birth date. This is quite different.

I have not actually been to the Government Administration Committee. I was not part of the select committee, but I commend the members who have worked on this bill. Hearing them speak so passionately about this bill, I commend the work that you have done, because I think it is incredible to hear everyone talking about and acknowledging Rowen Sullivan and her parents. Her parents have obviously done a fantastic job in raising an amazing young woman who wants to honour her mother. As a parent of a teenage child, I would only hope that one day when he grows up that he might want to honour me. I hope he is actually listening to the debate today.

I was looking at the issue of identity—how a person conceives their identity and how they express their identity. Often their identity comes from their parents. Parents are the very first people who imprint the personality on their children. Children identify with their parents, and their own identity is formed as a result of the education that they receive from their parents as the first educators. I also want to talk about things like national identity, because it is where you come from. It is the cultural identity. It is like how I am Korean. Yesterday we had the Speaker from the Korean Parliament visit New Zealand’s Parliament. I was so very proud to have met him here and actually have lunch with him as the chair of the Korean - New Zealand Parliamentary Friendship Group, because that is my cultural identity. That is where my first impressions of my own personality and identity were formed. From being born in Korea through my parents, I am who I am today because of all of the influences that I have had. I think Rowen has had fantastic parents, both Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields, and she wants to honour her mother.

As previous speakers have said, this bill requires the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on Rowen’s post-adoptive birth registration entry. I was thinking about how it would feel to not have my parent’s name on my own birth certificate. I mean, I would not even know how to feel about that, because we all take it for granted. I know Mr Hague talked about having children in his relationship and how in the past for couples who are of the same sex who adopt, it was only the one person who could adopt, rather than both parents who could actually adopt. So when you look at it that way, and translating it into my own circumstances and my own life, you sort of think “How would I feel if I did not have both my parents’ names on the birth certificate?”. That would really upset me very much, because I am who I am as a result of both my parents—my father and my mother.

For Rowen it is both Diane and Doreen who have made her who she is. Rowen’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, her birth mother, and Diane Sullivan’s partner, Doreen Shields. Diane Sullivan’s name was on her birth certificate, but Diane died in 2010, when Rowen was just 17. That is only 2 years older than my son, who is now 15. Knowing my son and how young he is at 15, how devastating would it have been for Rowen to have lost her mother and to find out subsequently that when Doreen applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan, the order required Diane’s name to then be removed from Rowen’s birth certificate, and for them to consider that? And how would they have actually felt? No one in this House could possibly understand what that might have felt like. Only Rowen knows and only her adoptive mother knows what that was like. That would have been a terrible, devastating, heart-wrenching experience, because you would want to remember your mother.

Had Diane and Doreen been able to marry, as previous speakers have said, they would, of course, have been able to jointly apply for their names to appear on the birth certificate. For someone who has actually gone through the process with some friends who have had help with human reproductive assistance, where a couple who could not actually have children for more than 15 years went and had some assistance—in my culture even adoption is actually frowned upon. I remember my friend going through the whole pregnancy of her surrogate—this actually happened outside of New Zealand. But her surrogate, the mother, was going through the pregnancy, and then the adoptive mother pretended that she was pregnant right throughout the whole pregnancy. I remember her having to actually stuff her tummy with things to make her look like she was pregnant, because she did not want the stigma attached to her daughter when she finally came home as her daughter. So that heart-wrenching experience that she went through was something that made me sort of understand the kind of agony that Rowen and Doreen would have gone through.

Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act of 2013, same-sex couples are now able to marry and can apply to jointly adopt children. So what this bill is actually doing is making a matter of fact—the fact that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are, in fact, both Rowen’s parents—just a matter of law, just a record, and it will make it permanent so that from now on, when Rowen applies for a future birth certificate, both her parents will be on that piece of paper. For me, that piece of paper is very significant, because that is one way Rowen identifies herself. It is a certificate basically confirming what she has known all her life, which is that it was, in fact, both her parents—not just one, not the other, but both of them—who were her parents, who brought her up so well to be proud of who she is, and it is honouring her mother, who has, very sadly, passed away. I wish you the best of luck, and I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend Louisa Wall on bringing this bill to the House and managing the select committee process so that all your colleagues would support you in this bill. It is a great bill. I commend it to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia orana kotou katoatoa na roto i te ar’a ma’ata o Te Atua. It is a privilege to be able to speak on the second reading of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I want to acknowledge the courage of Doreen Shields and Rowen Sullivan and their determination to ensure that this bill becomes law. I can assure you of my total support for your achievement to this end.

This bill is essentially about love—the love and commitment of two women for each other, the love of these women for their child, and the love of that child for both of her parents. This bill speaks to the diverse and modern way that our families are structured and the way that we should be able to acknowledge those who are the most important in our lives—namely, our parents and our children.

We are a modern society that has in recent years made provision for the diversity of our relationships—and here I must commend my colleague Louisa Wall for ensuring the equality of rights for all on the subject of marriage and for bringing this bill to the House—so it is a natural progression to look at the needs of families and the children in these families in the modern New Zealand context, to ensure that they are catered for, that their rights, as well as their needs, are met, and that they are permitted equality as well.

I want to point out to you that I too am an adoptee. This bill resonates on so many levels for adoptees and for adoptive parents—more, I think, than even Rowen and Doreen know—and this is my own personal view of how important this bill is. When you are an adopted child, the State dictates who your parents are. When you are a prospective adoptive parent, you become involved in a formal process that takes many months, or often years, to determine your suitability and fitness for becoming a parent and to ensure that no objections from other parties are forthcoming. I believe that that is still the process for adoption. The State then permits you to be named as a parent on a birth certificate or, more specifically, as the mother or father of a child. The Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages could record only the mother and father of a child—not parent. That piece of legislation—the current piece of legislation, not the bill before us—does not translate well in this modern context. The requirements met the needs of a time, but this is no longer the time. I strongly suggest that it is time to put it right.

We have seen this House pass legislation to afford equal rights to the state of marriage to same-sex couples. I am really proud that we have, yet we deny them the dignity and responsibility of shared parentage. This is the predicament we find here. When you are born into a family—not adopted, but born into a family in the traditional sense—you do not need the State to tell you who you are or who your parents are. You just are, and it just is. I understand the need for legal process to determine your status in legal terms and your rights, for example, to property or to estate that you are a beneficiary of. But in modern New Zealand, where we have made huge strides in terms of acknowledging equality in marriage, we now need to develop equality in parenthood.

I speak as an adoptee whose 90-year-old birth father sat in the gallery just a few weeks ago to watch his youngest birth child deliver a maiden statement to this House. It has been 52 years since my adoption, and I am extremely grateful for the gift that was given to my adoptive parents, as their love and care has made me the person I am today. I want to just comment on my colleague Moana Mackey’s point that as you grow older, your circumstances change and your view of life and family relationships changes. How powerful it is that I could now acknowledge my birth father on my certificate as acknowledgment of the gift that he made to my parents.

It is not so long ago that adoption and the circumstances and reasons behind adoption were too shameful to share. There are many adopted children who are unable to trace birth families because it was not proper at the time to record those details. The process of recording and registration of adopted children in those days removed the record of birth parents.

This is not the case with Rowen Sullivan. However, there is a bigger implication here. I want to point out to many that births to same-sex couples and the subsequent adoptions sometimes happen with the help of sperm and egg donors—surrogates—and it should be possible for those who contribute to the care and the love and the parentage and the parenting to be given the privilege of appearing on the certificate.

Here I would like to note that I support the amendment of the title of this bill to the “Sullivan Birth Registration Bill”. This bill supports a young woman whose real-life experience is of being parented by two women—two women who have loved her, cared for her, and raised a wonderful young woman. I would like this House to now support the love and commitment it took Doreen Shields and Diane Sullivan to raise this young woman by providing them with the opportunity to both be recognised equally as the parents of Rowen Sullivan. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Before I begin, Mr Assistant Speaker, I wish to advise you that pursuant to Standing Order 118(2), I will be splitting this call with my colleague from Coromandel, Scott Simpson JP. Could I have a bell at 4 minutes, please?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much for that—for informing the House. A split call, colleagues.

As I was listening to the speeches from the House, I was sitting here wondering whether Doreen and Rowen would be watching this debate tonight, and I assume that they probably are. I was also wondering to myself whether it would be a moment that they are proud of, or whether it is a moment that they would be quite relieved by, because I do not think we are talking tonight, really, about guardianship status, and I do not think we are talking about an adoption order, either; I think what we are really talking about is a family. I picked up on some words in the speech from Poto Williams—it is about love and care, and it is about family—and I think that this is really what the bill is all about. It is about recognising a family situation that has existed, regardless of what laws say and regardless of what pieces of paper say. It is about a family and it is about recognising formally the situation that exists.

I want to congratulate Louisa Wall on bringing the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill to the House. It appears, based on the speech from Mr O’Rourke, that she has achieved unanimity in this House. Would it not have been great if she could have achieved that on her other bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill? That would have been a proud day for New Zealand, but it was not to be. But she has done equally well on this bill, so congratulations to Louisa Wall.

I note also that Poto Williams—if I could draw from your speech again—mentioned that she was adopted. I was not adopted myself, but I am also someone in this House who was not raised in your stock-standard nuclear family of mother, father, and siblings. I was raised, effectively, by my grandmother. We never went through the formal route of recognising that in law, but certainly growing up I always knew that my grandmother played the role of mother, father, and everything else. I think that if we think back to it, probably formalising that situation would have been an ideal thing to do. It is surplus to requirements for us now, but I can understand completely why Rowen would want to see this situation formalised for herself.

Although the details around the bill have been discussed in quite a bit of detail tonight already and I do not want to go over them again, I just want to say that it is a very good thing that this House is doing for that family. And it is about the family. It is not about the pieces of paper; it is about recognising the family.

I was a little bit interested in the mechanisms of private bills. I have been a member of this House for only 3 years and I have not actually seen many private bills come to the debating chamber. So I was quite interested in the history of them, and whether or not this was the appropriate mechanism to be used. I found it interesting. I pulled out McGee and had a bit of a read about private bills. There is a bit of interesting information here.

If you want to find out the origins of private bills, they really go back to the time when Parliament rarely passed legislation. Nowadays Parliament passes legislation on a very frequent basis, but back in the day when Parliament very rarely passed legislation, for individuals to seek relief for a particular matter they had to ask Parliament to pass a piece of private legislation. Ironically, according to McGee, if one wanted to seek a divorce prior to 1867, one had to get a private bill passed through Parliament—to get a divorce. Parliament would be exceptionally busy these days if that were still the case. Fortunately, it is not. But certainly from reading about the history of private bills I can see that this is very much a situation where a private bill is appropriate.

As I come to the conclusion of the few remarks that I have to make on this bill, I just want to say congratulations again to Louisa Wall, and to the Government Administration Committee as well, because it has made some good amendments to this piece of legislation. I just want to again say congratulations to Rowen and Doreen, because I cannot imagine that it would be easy to front up to the New Zealand House of Representatives, to go through what I imagine would have been a lengthy process to become the promoter of the bill, and to get it all going. So congratulations to them and to everyone who will be voting in favour of this—even New Zealand First. Congratulations.

It is a pleasure indeed to stand in support of the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, which, as my colleague Jami-Lee Ross has just mentioned, looks like it will have unanimity across the House. That in itself is a rare and wonderful thing. The speeches tonight, I think, have been generous, meaningful, and from the heart. I have been incredibly impressed with the personal stories of individual members, but also impressed with the story on the basis of which this bill has been brought to the House by its sponsor, Louisa Wall.

I want to congratulate the member Louisa Wall on bringing yet another piece of legislation to the House. As a backbench MP of very short duration in this House, I am in awe of her ability to bring this sort of stuff to the House in a way that is, I think, unifying and useful to us as a Parliament and to us as a democracy in New Zealand.

Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act of last year, same-sex couples are, of course, able to marry and therefore they are now able to jointly apply to adopt children. Had that been the case for Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields and they had been able to legally marry, then of course they would have been able to adopt Rowen. If that had occurred, then this bill would not be required.

In a previous life before coming to this Parliament, I had the great privilege and pleasure to be the chief executive officer of a children’s charity called Make-A-Wish. So for about 3 years I was a professional wish-granter. That, let me tell you, is a terrific thing to be able to do. In my maiden speech to this House I mentioned that one of the challenges I saw for myself in this House was to be able to, in some way, bring the job skills and transfer of knowledge from my role as a professional wish-granter into this Chamber.

Tonight I have a small sense of having achieved a little bit of that by being a participant in this debate and, indeed, by having been a member of this House as we pass the second reading of this bill. I mentioned also, when I was speaking in my maiden speech about being a professional wish-granter for Make-A-Wish, that one should never underestimate the power of some magic, the power of a wish, and the power of small things, small deeds, and small actions to have an enormously important impact upon the lives of individuals. Tonight I think we are, as I say, having a small sense of that.

This is a member’s bill. I am grateful to my colleague the member Jami-Lee Ross for giving us a little bit of history about members’ bills, because indeed the House would be sitting under extended urgency very frequently if the old rules still applied.

I want to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee who have considered the bill. The committee is chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I, of course, did not have an opportunity to sit on the committee when considering the bill, but I was particularly taken by speeches made earlier on in the debate from members who did participate in the consideration of the bill after its first reading. I note with interest that they have made a number of modest but significant and important changes.

The Government Administration Committee has made a number of recommendations, and one of them is to change the title of the bill. That seems entirely appropriate, given the circumstances and the unique features of the situation that exists relating to Rowen’s situation. The title of the bill as introduced, the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, was likely to have been interpreted as a little bit misleading. So the suggested change is one that I support.

I think that the committee has yet again shown its willingness and ability to get its head around difficult issues. Previously, the committee has had to consider issues of very major significance to a great number of people. On this occasion it has been considering a difficult but problematic issue for just one family and, in particular, one individual. Living as we do in a small, precious, intimate democracy, I say it is a great pleasure to see Parliament working as it should to achieve this piece of legislation. I thoroughly commend it to the House.

I rise as the last speaker on the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I have listened very carefully. It is a really unusual situation we are in, with this private bill that does benefit a single family. It is an unusual situation that we have had such positive contributions from everybody in the House, and this bill has the support of all parties. That is a very good thing, and this does feel like we are making a real and significant difference to two people, one of whom is here tonight. I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall in this process. I think most people come to Parliament because—and it is a rather clichéd term—they want to make a difference. Louisa has had the opportunity and the drive to do two very powerful things—quite different in their scale, but two very powerful things—in recent times, both with her marriage equality bill and now with the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. I want to acknowledge her for doing that, for making a difference, and for being an active MP.

I want to also acknowledge Rowen Sullivan and Doreen Shields for driving this, really—for having the heartfelt desire to make this so. You have done it—you have done it. A lot of people would not, perhaps, have gone the distance, felt so strongly, and decided to make this happen. I think that is fantastic. As my colleague across the House, Scott Simpson, has just said, I also acknowledge the Government Administration Committee. I have listened closely to contributions from people on that committee, and I got a real sense that that committee worked very well on this bill, trying to work its way through it, and, of course, it was very well chaired by my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson.

Others have gone through all of the detail, but this bill will now allow Rowen to have both of her parents’ names recorded on her formal birth certificate. I think that that is a great achievement. Effectively, the guardianship that was taken by Doreen expired when Rowen turned 18, and this issue of feeling legally orphaned struck me. It must have been a deeply unsettling and upsetting situation. So this is not just a piece of paper. This is a process to respect and honour a mother who had obviously loved her daughter very much. With those few words can I just finally again acknowledge the determination of Rowen and Doreen. Can I say that as a family you have achieved something really important, and that is great to see here tonight.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Sullivan Birth Registration Bill.