Sullivan Birth Registration Bill

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I move, That the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill be now read a third time. To begin proceedings tonight, I want to thank, on behalf of Rowen and Doreen and myself as the sponsoring MP, the Office of the Clerk, and specifically Tim Workman, for the assistance given to ensure that we both understood and complied with the requirements of progressing a private bill through this House. What could otherwise have been a daunting and exhausting process was in fact a simple and methodical process for introducing the bill and then progressing it systematically through our House of Parliament.

In that progression through the House, I want to again thank my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, as chair of the Government Administration Committee, and committee members for the professional and caring manner in which they conducted the progression of Rowen’s bill. This private bill was by definition incredibly private to Rowen, Doreen, and their family. To know that they have been empowered through the process of sharing their life story is something that this House should celebrate and be proud of.

Finally, I thank all members of this 50th Parliament. We have consensus on this bill, which means we have not been required to vote. That too is something to acknowledge, celebrate, and be thankful for. Again, on behalf of Rowen, Doreen, their family and friends, and myself, I thank my colleagues for their collective support for this bill.

This bill exemplifies why we have private bills. It is about addressing the special circumstances of an individual situation that does not come under the general law. This bill does exactly that. This bill, as the select committee members have recognised, allows Rowen Sullivan to have her family formally recorded on the very documents that are used to confirm who she is and, to quote the select committee report, to “make what is a matter of fact … a matter of law.” Although this bill is specific to the circumstances of Rowen and her parents, Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields, it does highlight how important it is to allow people to identify themselves with reference to their family.

We have a number of antiquated laws on our books that reflect society in a bygone era. Our Marriage Act had been applied as society existed in 1955. With the 2013 amendment, it now embraces the reality of relationships in respect of the State’s role, which is to issue licences. This private bill has highlighted the inability of the Adoption Act 1955 to properly reflect the reality of families today. An adoption order that would result in Rowen having her living parent on her birth certificate meant her recently deceased birth mother could not remain as her mother on her formal birth documents. Such a cruel action will be righted by this private bill, but it emphasises the need to look at the Law Commission’s 2000 report and the subsequent proceedings filed in a Human Rights Review Tribunal, and for there to be a united approach across this House to address the many situations that do not fit into the 1955 societal model.

We all know someone who has been affected in some way by the operation of the adoption laws. It is time now for a comprehensive review that puts the child at the forefront of adoption decisions and recognises the importance of being able to stand firm in the knowledge of who you are and who your family are. I thank my colleagues in the House who have taken the time to understand Rowen, Diane, and Doreen’s situation and to acknowledge the importance of their family unit being recognised officially in all things that Rowen does from now into the future.

I have been very proud to sponsor this bill and proud that this House can take steps that can make a difference to this family, particularly to the memory of Diane, which will not be confined just to the efforts of Doreen and Rowen alone but will always be a formal part of their story. Doreen and Rowen, who are here tonight, have asked me to add their thanks. In Doreen’s words: “We didn’t expect many people to be interested in our story and we have been profoundly moved by the sympathy and support we have received. When Diane was diagnosed with cancer they gave her 2 years at best. She fought and suffered for almost 4 years because she wanted so desperately to be there for our daughter. Rowen should not have someone who loved her so much erased from her history. On behalf of Diane and her family back in Yorkshire, thank you for giving Rowen her mum back. After 21 years she finally has both her parents.”

The final word must go to Rowen: “Having my mum’s name taken off my birth certificate was hard. It was a horrible thing to do to someone who really wanted to have me and love me so much. This was never really about me. All I ever wanted was to honour and acknowledge my mum.” Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

In relation to this Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, it is indeed a great pleasure to follow on from Louisa Wall, who has so ably championed the bill during its passage through the House. It is great to be here now, with the third reading of this bill, approaching closure for one Rowen Sullivan’s journey through a labyrinthian experience of battling through a miasmic maze of legislative procedure. For Rowen’s family to be so gracious as to pass on the comments that Louisa carried for them is a tremendous tribute to the love they have for Rowen’s natural mother. They have done it for someone who actually is not here any more but who would none the less have taken great satisfaction and comfort from knowing that true love had its way. It is not, though, an unduly complex legislative situation that Rowen faced because, as Rowen and her family explained to the Government Administration Committee when we met them, and to Louisa, who championed the bill within Parliament for Rowen, it was the situation that surrounded her family that was complex.

I want at this stage just to reflect briefly on our role as parliamentarians in assisting individual people with complex situations, because I think that when the bill was initially introduced, there was some feeling that it was quite a narrow bill, it had a limited level of interest, it would not affect very many people—or worse, would it set a precedent? And there were all those sorts of legislative questions we ask about things in the normal process of a bill. But I think we are here—and this is a good example of assisting someone in, I guess, a complex situation not of their own making—because there is no way in the world that anybody else could address this particular situation.

I recall a take-home comment from a constituent on the West Coast who was having a problem with his immigration status at the time. This was in 2005. He was told that his situation was complex, which was why he was experiencing delays in the response from the Immigration Service. He appealed to me as an MP with the question—and this was the take-home message that I got from it—“Do Government departments in New Zealand do only simple things?”. I guess, when we heard that this was a complex situation, I remembered that and I thought, well, here is a good opportunity to get involved in something that is not just simple. That was in 2005. There have been considerable advances in the Immigration Service since then, and, indeed, in every other branch of the Public Service, as I am sure Mr Twyford would agree.

In Greymouth quite recently, I understand, an award was given to the ACC office there, following a survey of client satisfaction that showed an overwhelmingly positive response. That is a good thing to hear about and a good thing to happen. Similarly, with this particular bill, I think there has been a very good response and a good result, and it has been a pleasure to be part of the committee, under the chairmanship of the Hon Ruth Dyson, to reach this point.

So let us go back to Rowen’s complex situation, for members who have not been directly involved, and the circumstances that the Government Administration Committee set itself to resolve, along with the Government departments involved. I will just go through, if I may, some key background points for members so that they can understand the seeming complexity. My apologies to members of the family, who have got to hear it yet again. However, Rowen Sullivan’s parents from birth were Diane Sullivan, her birth mother, and Diane Sullivan’s female partner, Doreen Shields. 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 Diane Sullivan’s—that is, the birth mother’s—name from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. Doreen Shields instead applied to be an additional guardian. This expired on Rowen Sullivan’s 18th birthday.

You can see how the individual bits of legislation cut in at various points without the intention of dispossessing anybody of their mother. There was no intentional nastiness in this; it was just the way it played out. Doreen Shields applied for an adoption order following the death of Diane Sullivan. The order was made on 15 January 2013.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What was the date?

15 January 2013. However, the order required that Diane Sullivan’s name be removed from Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. This must have been a huge wrench when that occurred. Had Diane Sullivan 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 birth record. Following the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013, which by coincidence was passed through the same select committee, same-sex couples have been able to marry and, therefore, to apply jointly to adopt children. In fact, what happened was that Rowen was caught between two legislatures, no birth registration in New Zealand, and changes in adoption laws as they apply to same-gender couples.

The select committee resolved to make some changes to the original bill following consideration and representations from the Department of Internal Affairs, and it would be quite remiss of any member of the committee if we did not follow Louisa’s comments and comment on the depth of information that officials have provided throughout this bill as it proceeded through the select committee. There have been really good levels of discussion and really good, interesting points. Let us, if we may, just consider some of these. The Government Administration Committee recommendations have proposed that the bill be passed with the following amendments: “that the title of the bill be changed to the ‘Sullivan Birth Registration Bill’.” That is because the title of the bill as introduced—here we go—the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill, could be misleading as its passage would not directly effect change to Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. And so we had this really intriguing debate. What is a birth certificate? It is simply a reflection of a birth registration. If you just change a birth certificate, that does not change the registration. If you lose that birth certificate and you apply for a copy, you go back to where you were before. It was really quite intriguing.

There were other changes that we had to bring in just to bring everything to the situation that we are now in, which is being able to say, as members on both sides of the House, and I would imagine from all parties of the House would like to say—and I would like to say it from the point of view of the select committee—job well done. It is a delight to hear that the family are well-pleased with the result because, as I say, they have introduced the fact that it is not really Rowen who is delighted; it has been done for someone who has passed on, and I think that it is great that we have been able to assist in such measure. Thank you.

I am not going to take too long on this call because I think the issues have been well traversed throughout the various stages. I want to recognise Rowen, Diane, and Doreen for the personal journey that they have been on. I cannot imagine it is much fun having such a personal matter discussed by Parliament, but it does highlight a very important point, which is that until we get full equality under the law for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people, we are going to find these loopholes in many parts of legislation. This was a very important step along the way for Parliament’s understanding of how what might not seem like a very big issue can actually have a huge impact on families. I really do not underestimate how difficult this must have been to have had such a personal matter discussed in public.

Thank you very much for bringing this piece of legislation, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, to the House, and thank you to my colleague Louisa Wall for once again being a champion for this community and raising further issues. That is all I really want to say. I am very excited to see this bill pass into law, so I am going to sit down now.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak during the third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. During the second reading I acknowledged Rowen Sullivan for her proactiveness towards the bill. I would like to repeat what I said at that time. This bill shows the respect Rowen Sullivan has got for her parents. To set the context, 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.

Before I go any further, I would like to acknowledge Louisa Wall for sponsoring this bill. This is the second bill that has gone through the Government Administration Committee that has been under the name of Louisa Wall. You have championed something that no one has before, so I congratulate you on your work and acknowledge all the hard work you did during the progress of this bill. I would also like to echo what my colleague Chris Auchinvole just mentioned and acknowledge the officials who supported us during this process, because there were many technical things we were not aware of. We initially thought it might take a few days to sort out this bill, but because of a few technical things that were pointed out by the officials, it took us a long time. At last I think we have done justice to this bill, and Rowen will be pleased with the result. I acknowledge you once again for all your effort.

It may be that people will consider this bill to be something of a technical detail, and, indeed, when we saw it before us in the Government Administration Committee, we thought that it did have a very technical aspect to it. The reality, though, is that it also has a very, very personal aspect. This is one of those occasions when the only solution available to the applicant was through Parliament. The bill may appear simple. However, I can tell you as a member of the select committee that discussed and debated this bill that once we started to progress the legislation, there were a number of tricky technical issues we had to think about. Some time back the House passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act. It is that amendment to the definition of “marriage” that has now led to the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill being presented before this House.

Before I move to further details of this legislation, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a very important point. At the time that this House was discussing the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, there was a perception being created that I am opposed to the LGBT community. May I share with all of you today that I have no objection to, and I am not at all against, anyone who is from the LGBT community. I consider all of us to be an equal part of New Zealand society. My religion teaches us “Manas ki jaat sabhe eke pehchanbo.”, which means that every human being is equal. I was, however, against the changing of the definition of “marriage”. Marriage for me was between a man and a woman. However, New Zealand has passed a law that allows LGBT people to marry. I am a law-abiding citizen with no personal or hidden agenda against the LGBT community. Therefore, I respect and will continue to respect the law that provides for LGBT people to marry the person of their choice. That was a big burden on my chest, and I felt it was important for me to share it with my parliamentary colleagues and with New Zealanders.

Coming back to the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, had there been the legislation at the time when Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields wanted to marry each other, that would have also allowed them to adopt Rowen and record their respective names as Rowen’s parents. Once again, this to me is a person who is an excellent example of how one should bring up one’s children. It was because Rowen was taught the basics of respect that she decided she would go all the way to ensure that the names of both parents were recorded on her birth certificate. To me, this investment of time and effort from Rowen speaks volumes for her family culture.

The legislation is once again a reminder that the Government has the capacity to impact on the lives of individuals positively and at a very personal level. At the start of my speech, I mentioned that the legislation appears to be very simple—probably a minor bureaucratic issue. In some ways, that is exactly what it is: a minor bureaucratic issue. However, the positive emotional impact that it will have on Rowen and others in similar situations cannot be defined with words. I am sure all of us will agree that every child should have the opportunity to honour their birth parents.

There is no doubt that one other thing that this particular bill brings up is the fact that Rowen’s mother conceived through artificial insemination. Thirty years ago this was done anonymously. Today this is not done anonymously, and, by and large, I think that is a very good thing. Openness and transparency are things that are so important to ensure we are equals going forward. With these words, I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I wish Rowen good luck for her future. Thank you.

It is with pleasure that I rise to take a short call on the third reading of what will become the Sullivan Birth Registration Act. I am taking a short call not because I want to deal with this flippantly or I do not see this as a really, very, very poignant moment for this House and for Rowen, her mum Doreen, and her mother Diane, whom I am sure is watching, but because, really, I think it is so simple. It is just such a simple and such an obvious thing to fix that I think the family, I imagine, just wants it to be done. I think that the speedier we can be about that, the better, because this is about enabling a family to be able to move forward and about fixing a gap in legislation to enable them to do that.

That is something I am really pleased to be able to be part of, and thank you, Louisa. I remember my colleague Louisa Wall sharing this story with me before the third reading of the marriage equality Act. I was very moved at the time, because it is just such a maddening situation that this could ever have happened, but we are so used to dealing with people falling between the cracks of our legislation on a very large scale. To be able to bring this piece of legislation to the House, which deals with one family, makes it just real. We can see the people and we can see the impact and fix something, which is a really, really lovely thing. So on that note, I wish the family well in the future, and the three of you will be together for all legal purposes from now on. Kia ora.

It gives me great pleasure to take a short call also and to join with previous speakers to support the intention of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill and its passing into legislation. I had to reflect on the debates that have come to the House on this bill, and I really want to say that it is the little things that matter. I want to applaud Louisa Wall for having attention to detail and for fixing something that can be fixed in a way that will make a difference, not only in the life of Rowen but, I think, in the lives of many other children who may find themselves in the same predicament. It is worth doing.

Many contributions have talked about this being a minor, bureaucratic, technical issue. It certainly does advance the principle of equality in ways that this House often struggles with. There are a great deal of moral and ethical challenges, but actually if we were looking purely at the principle of equality, this is something that we should, and must, do. We should continue to build, I think, on the courageous nature in which many issues have been championed before the House—by Louisa, in particular—so that they can be addressed in a manner that is fitting and worthy of the cause.

I do not want to take a long call, upon request, because it is important to make sure that we pass this bill quickly tonight and that we all see fit to be able to do that in the spirit with which this bill has been brought not only to the House in its first reading but before the Government Administration Committee and back to the House. With that, to Louisa, Rowen, Doreen, and Diane, I say thank you for making the little things matter, and for reminding us all that we can do simple things to make things worthwhile. Kia ora koutou.

I too would like to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill at its third reading. As we have heard, it is a private bill supported by Labour MP Louisa Wall, and it is linked to her Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 because since the passing of that bill, same-sex couples are able to marry and, therefore, will be able to apply jointly to adopt children. If Rowen Sullivan’s birth mother had been able to marry her long-term partner, Doreen Shields, this situation would never have arisen. The purpose of the bill, as we have been discussing, is to require the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages in New Zealand to record the details of Rowen Sullivan’s deceased mother on her post-adoptive birth registration entry.

The background to this bill is important because it sheds light on the rules that made the documentation of one’s life and relationships difficult for a same-sex partnership before our legislative changes. The background was that Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan was born on 23 February 1993 in England to a same-sex couple: Diane Sullivan, a British citizen, and New Zealander Doreen Margaret Shields. Only Diane Sullivan’s name, as the birth parent, was recorded on Rowen Sullivan’s birth certificate. In November 1999 the family moved to New Zealand, and Rowen and Diane Sullivan gained permanent residence on family grounds. At that time the law did not allow Diane and Doreen to marry or to jointly adopt Rowen. Diane Sullivan died in 2010, and Rowen was formally adopted by Doreen in January 2013. However, this required the removal of Diane Sullivan’s name from Rowen’s post-adoption birth record—something, of course, that Rowen did not want to do. Therefore, the purpose of this bill is to add Diane Sullivan’s details to the record so that the names of both Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields can be included on Rowen Sullivan’s New Zealand post-adoption birth certificate and both Rowen’s parents can be acknowledged.

I am very pleased that Parliament was able to deal with this issue, and I note that Chris Auchinvole was talking about it being a complex issue, but I am very pleased that it could deal with it because I understand completely why Rowen would want to have both her parents listed on her birth certificate. The bill does not create a precedent for other individuals seeking to change their registered birth record because since 2005, New Zealand law has allowed both same-sex parents of New Zealand - born children conceived through assisted human reproduction technology procedures to be named on a child’s birth record. That change was made retrospective so that pre-2005 New Zealand birth registration records can be amended on application at any time to include both same-sex parents’ details.

Further, the law already contains rules for changing a birth record in other circumstances, including, but not limited to, situations where a paternity order is obtained, where an individual changes her or his name by statutory declaration, or where an individual undergoes gender reassignment. So this bill applies to only Rowen Sullivan’s unique situation, which has itself arisen from a unique combination of circumstances, including her birth overseas following an assisted human reproduction procedure, that meant that her birth was not registered in New Zealand.

The key consideration is that since 19 August 2013, married same-sex couples can adopt jointly. If the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act had been in place before Diane Sullivan died, the train of events giving rise to this bill could have been avoided. So, in summary, this is a good bill and it is very pleasing that it will be passed unanimously in this House. I think it illustrates two things: firstly, the importance that Parliament places on families, and also the empathy that parliamentarians have had for Rowen’s situation. We all believe in happy families, and we want to see that reflected in our documentation. I commend this bill to the House.

The Magna Carta of 1215 states: “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.” I think that those beautiful and striking words are the words we should keep in mind when we look at situations such as this, because right and justice—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

Before the break I referred to some of the fine words of the Magna Carta. That guarantee of individual rights and of justice is, of course, the foundation of our legal system. New Zealand First will continue to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill because it is just and right to do so. We are satisfied that it is necessary and that it is, indeed, the only solution to ensure 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. It is a very natural thing for anybody to want, and everybody can relate to it. It is difficult to see, in fact, how anyone could rationally object to it once, of course, the reasons for it are known. Others in this debate have well enough explained those reasons, and it is not necessary for me to do so again.

It is actually extraordinary that it would be possible in our legal system not to record the birth mother on a birth certificate—absolutely extraordinary—so this is a unique solution to a unique set of circumstances. 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 as a matter of course. New clause 4(1) provides that “Diane Sullivan and Doreen Margaret Shields are, for all purposes, the parents of Rowen Helen Louise Sullivan.” That clause reinstates the legal position for all purposes, including the laws relating to succession and parental relationship, and that, as we all agree, is as it should be. So there does not need to be a great deal more debate. This is a good bill, which should proceed to final enactment forthwith with New Zealand First’s wholehearted support.

I am advised this is a split call with a 4-minute bell.

I would like first of all to acknowledge Rowen Sullivan and her mother Doreen Shields up in the gallery. Welcome and thank you for being here. It is almost like I am getting energy from up top. It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the third reading of this bill, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. I am unsure how it actually happened, but I am quite sure that I have been involved in this bill right from the beginning—from the first reading, including turning up and being subbed on to the Government Administration Committee hearing when Rowen was actually presenting to the committee. I have been involved with the second reading, as well, I think, as the Committee stage and now the third reading. It is an absolute privilege. Thank you. I would also like to put on record that I am extremely jealous of my friend across the benches Louisa Wall, as she has shepherded successfully a very high-profile member’s bill and now is the sponsor of this private bill, which I believe is very meaningful. So congratulations once again.

A member said before dinner that this issue is simple, and I think another member said that it is the little things that actually matter. I agree with both. They seem simple and little, but only in hindsight. And you know what they say about hindsight—20/20 vision. At the time when Rowen and her mother Doreen were putting this private bill through the select committee and when they were petitioning Parliament, I am sure it would have seemed like a mammoth task—that something that means so much to them was so hard to actually get through. But with the help of our friend Louisa and the members of the select committee, this has actually happened. I cannot imagine Louisa with wings on her back, but she should feel like a fairy godmother right now, and all of the members who actually helped make this happen should also feel like fairy godmothers, because it is granting Rowen the wish that she has been wanting for such a long time. So congratulations on being her very own fairy godmother.

I know that at the conclusion of this bill’s third reading, when Rowen’s birth mother’s name, Diane Sullivan, is again added to Rowen’s birth certificate, the simple yet mammoth action of adding 13 letters, “Diane Sullivan”, will mean the world to Rowen and to us as members of Parliament—I also feel a bit like a fairy godmother at this stage as well. At this juncture I would also like to congratulate the members of the select committee who considered this bill. I have to say I think they have done a fantastic job.

Just a quick background on this bill. It does not create a precedent for other individuals seeking to change their registered birth record, and that is a real shame because I would not mind changing my birth date. Rowen Sullivan had no means to achieve this outcome that she wished for, other than by petitioning Parliament. This bill applies only to Rowen Sullivan’s unique situation, which arose as a result of a unique combination of circumstances that began with her birth overseas, which meant that her birth was not registered in New Zealand.

I want to dwell on this for just a minute about the registration issue. It is quite a significant one for many New Zealanders who are born overseas. Without wanting to make light of Rowen’s situation, I too was born overseas. I moved to New Zealand and became a New Zealand citizen, which meant I had to give up Korean citizenship. This does not mean that my records were deleted, but when I moved here—just bypassing all of the other stuff—I got married, I had a baby, and I got divorced. In New Zealand I am recorded as such, but in Korea apparently I am still single, have never been married, and have never had a child. So I have got a clean record.

💬 Scott Simpson: A clean slate.

A clean slate. I mean, I do not know whether that is actually a good thing or a bad thing, but I am not recorded in Korea, because I have moved here.

Talking about records, in previous readings I talked about my birth date being registered wrongly. I know that this is an issue for a lot of migrants as well and for a lot of refugees who moved to New Zealand, especially when they have come from war-torn countries. They have wrong birth dates and wrong names. Even New Zealand - born Chinese who have five generations in New Zealand can attest to this. When they first arrived in New Zealand, their names were recorded wrongly. Often, they ended up with the first name of their ancestor. To my culture our last names mean so much because it ties us back to our roots. The name actually shows that it is my clan. Often, it comes with a prefix that denotes and shows which clan we belong to. Often, it comes with a generational name, which basically means that with that name people can identify whether I am at a grandmother’s level, a child’s level, or a mother’s level, so people know how to identify us. Names are so very important. So, Louisa, maybe you can come up with another member’s bill to right my birth date. Aside from the joke, I would like to just say thank you and congratulations once again. Rowen, my love, thank you.

It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to support the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill at its third reading, and might I too acknowledge Rowen and Doreen up there in the gallery. I too feel almost as though I have been on a little bit of a journey, in that although I am not on the Government Administration Committee, it has been a great privilege to be part of this process here in Parliament. It is quite historic and is, indeed, unique to the circumstances. There is no doubt that this is a situation driven by a young woman’s determination to honour her mum. As I understand it, in her own words she said: “I want my mum’s name on my birth certificate to honour her”. This bill is indeed about human rights and very deep-rooted human instincts that all of us should be able to realise.

In previous readings of this bill I have pointed out some of the huge transitions that we in New Zealand and around the world have witnessed in the changes in birth technologies, changes in the law, and of course changes in our attitudes to areas that previously were really extraordinarily taboo and in many respects put things under the carpet, which led only to confusion and dishonesty and often to deep-seated resentment. May I too acknowledge Louisa Wall for the double whammy it was indeed. It was her earlier bill, which was landmarked here in the Parliament, that led, I understand, to Rowen approaching her, and congratulations on that, in that respect. When I first spoke on this bill I did speak about a variety of examples of young people who had searched the world, more or less, despite huge hurdles, because of this deep-seated instinct to be able to find their parents and know their parents, whether they were alive or not, or whether they were in a different country or not.

It has been fascinating to me, as a former obstetrician and gynaecologist, to see what has happened in New Zealand over the years. I was at the National Women’s Hospital’s celebration of 50 years just last month. I spoke, and I heard of the extraordinary work in New Zealand that occurred. Professor Bonham, who was the head of the hospital at the time, used to literally mix together donor sperm so they could not be detected, because of the legal ramifications. That is how far we have changed. The opposite is that we surely want to seek transparency and openness, because that is the way people will unravel the huge distortions that occur when information is repressed. I want to acknowledge a young social worker called Joi Ellis, who was at National Women’s Hospital through the time when the debates on informed consent were raging. She was the one who came up and said: “Look, it’s absolutely inappropriate to have the prevailing situation continue. We must have transparency and honesty.” It set the legal profession, academics, and sociologists in New Zealand working hard to see whether we could follow that sort of pathway. I would like to acknowledge Professor Ken Daniels, sociologist from Canterbury University, who has represented New Zealand in the academic literature in this field and is widely regarded as an international expert and innovator in terms of ensuring that openness prevails, and, of course, Freddie Graham and “Mont” Liggins, who led the in vitro fertilisation team.

But, finally, I come back to the bill. This indeed is, I hope, very much one of celebration. It is fantastic to see you, Doreen and Rowen, here tonight in the Parliament. It is wonderful that Louisa has been the person who has brought this bill through to reality. I certainly think this is a wonderful bill and I commend it to the House.

Can I say first of all that it has been a real privilege to be involved in this bill, the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, and a privilege to chair the Government Administration Committee. The name of the bill has changed since it was introduced. It started off as the Sullivan Birth Certificate Bill. It has ended up, more appropriately, as the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. Whatever it is called, it addresses an injustice and it makes a love story come true. I think it is something that Parliament very rarely does, but it is something that I am delighted we are doing with, I understand, unanimity tonight. That is a good message from our Parliament, and I think it is a very important step, however unusual it is for us to take.

I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall. It was not good luck that this became her bill, actually. It was her clarity, her vision, and her determination to address that injustice. So can I recommend to Melissa Lee that if she would like her registration records put right in Korea to reflect her correct status, she should just write a bill and put it into the ballot and see if she is as successful as Louisa. Louisa has shepherded this bill with great clarity and determination but also in an inclusive way that has allowed concerns and questions to be addressed and answered. I think that is, again, a very good message for Parliament to give to the public.

I want to acknowledge the late Diane Sullivan, Doreen Shields, and their daughter, Rowen Sullivan. This is a pretty simple bill for those of us who have been involved in legislative procedures. Compared with most other pieces of legislation it is tiny, but its impact is significant. What it does is allow Rowen to have both of her parents’ names recorded on the birth certificate that she can now apply for, when we have changed the birth registration. We have put a new clause in this bill, just to put beyond all doubt that this status—the recognition of both Diane and Doreen as Rowen’s parents—applies in all situations so that not just Parliament but Rowen will never have to go through this sort of ordeal, this sort of questioning, or this sort of challenge. I think the addition of new clause 4 was entirely appropriate.

We have got other issues that we want to deal with later on this evening, so I am not going to take my full allocation of time, but I want to make it clear that that is the opposite of a reflection of how I feel about this bill. I am delighted to have been part of it. I think it is a very good—however, unusual—step for our Parliament to take. It makes what is a matter of fact—that Diane Sullivan and Doreen Shields are Rowen’s parents—a matter of law. That is a good thing for us to do. Thank you.

I am advised that this is again a split call.

In commencing my contribution to this third reading debate on the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill, I want to acknowledge the chairmanship of the Government Administration Committee by the Hon Ruth Dyson and her contribution to this debate just immediately prior to mine. I think the committee this term has had to consider some incredibly weighty issues and it has done so with great patience, with clarity, and with dignity. Yet, sometimes the committee comes to relatively small matters, which it has also treated with dignity and grace, and I think that is something that speaks volumes about the power and might and importance of our little democracy that we have here.

I do not want to go through the details of this bill. Others have spoken at some considerable length about the particular uniqueness of the situation that this bill confronts and seeks to address. But it is, I think, an absolute irony that the situation that we are addressing and correcting and putting right here tonight would not, in fact, have arisen if Louisa Wall’s other spectacular piece of legislation had come into law earlier. For me, that is something of an irony and something of, I guess, a justification, if one was ever needed, that this is the right and proper thing to be doing tonight.

I have mentioned in a previous contribution on this bill that in a previous life—in fact, immediately prior to coming into Parliament—I had the great pleasure and honour of being the chief executive officer of a wonderful children’s charity called Make-A-Wish. Make-A-Wish is a terrific organisation. It literally grants wishes to sick children and young people who have life-threatening medical conditions. In my role for nearly 3 years as chief executive officer of that great organisation I was literally and figuratively a professional wish-granter. I made mention in my maiden speech that one of the challenges I felt would confront me in going from a professional wish-granter to becoming a parliamentarian was how I could transition those job skills into this place. Tonight I have to say that I have something of a sense of achieving that small goal of granting a wish, and in doing so I want to just commend to the House not only the bill but also the power of a wish. It is something that I do not think we as adults, as parliamentarians, as MPs, should ever underestimate in any respect or way.

We are fortunate to live in a small, precious, intimate little democracy. Usually the work of this House and members of this House is occupied on focusing on the many. Occasionally we focus on the few, and it is fully appropriate that we do. Almost never do we focus on a single person—on a single, individual citizen. So I think it is an absolute hallmark of this place and our democracy and our Parliament that we, in fact, can come here tonight to do just that—to focus on an individual citizen who has an injustice that needs to be put right.

This is, I think, an historic occasion for our House. It is an occasion where we can together accept that, as I came across many times in my time at Make-A-Wish, life sometimes is not fair and that from time to time, no matter what the circumstance, bad stuff sometimes happens and bad stuff sometimes happens in a very unfair way. But that does not mean that sometimes great things cannot occur from small deeds, and this, I think, is an absolute classic example of how small deeds can have great power and great influence.

So, in summing up my contribution in this third reading debate, I do just want to congratulate the House on its resolve to achieve what I think would not occur in many other democracies. I think that we can as parliamentarians and, indeed, as citizens of New Zealand be proud of what we are doing tonight. I commend the bill to the House.

It is my real pleasure to stand and take a call, albeit a split one, on this third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. Can I also acknowledge Rowen and Diane in the gallery and just commend you for your persistence, your determination, your bravery, and your courage to have what is a very personal situation aired in the public gallery of the Parliament of New Zealand, and to have a bill in your own names go through Hansard and go through the process, because this is what is really important to your lives, and I really commend you for that. I also, obviously, want to congratulate Louisa Wall with some envy on having her second member’s bill successfully shepherded through the House. It is not just the fact that the bill is in the name of the honourable member Louisa Wall; it is the way that she does shepherd these bills through the House and gets consensus, and explains them in a non-partisan, pragmatic, sensible way, because this is the right and fair thing to do.

I must admit, though, when I first saw this bill, I thought, no, it cannot be right. We cannot possibly need a separate, discrete piece of legislation for just one New Zealand family. It cannot be right. Yet the experts, the advisers, said there was no other way. I was a simplistic lawyer in my old days before I was a politician, and we have to think there must be another way. Surely, surely, the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages would have had power to change what seems so obvious—something that needed to be changed. Why did the registrar-general not have that power? But our experts, our advisers—and we have to trust them—said there was no other way, and that has brought us to where we are today.

Then my second concern was whether it would set a precedent, because there will be other families out there who perhaps are not happy with their birth records, birth certificates, or registrations; whether it would open the floodgate for a whole lot of other New Zealand families to also try to use the parliamentary process to right some wrongs; and whether it would result in a logjam, if you like, of bills and legislation through the House when there are other really important economic issues that have to be shepherded through. But again, we were persuaded and convinced that it will not set a precedent, so it is unique, it is discrete, and actually it is the best use of parliamentary time because we are all here to make a difference. I think that for most politicians that is our reason for being—we want to make a difference to New Zealand, we want to make a difference in our country, and we want to make a difference to New Zealanders’ lives. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill makes a huge difference to the lives of Rowen and Diane, so it is a win-win-win, really, and I am delighted that I have the opportunity to speak at this third reading of the bill.

I am also appreciative of the commencement date. We all want this bill to go through quickly and to get it righted and remedied as soon as possible. The commencement date is, of course, the day after the Royal assent, which I think is quite timely when we have the royals visiting right at this moment. We are all reminded, because they are a wonderful young couple, Prince William and Princess Catherine, and they have the delightful young George. I just think it is also quite timely that they are here at a time when the commencement date for this bill will be the day after that Royal assent.

This is really a very straightforward bill. It simply requires the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to record the details of Rowen’s mum on her birth certificate. I say to the registrar-general to just get on with it. Just do it. It is only fair. It is only reasonable. It makes a huge personal difference to someone’s life. That is what we are all in Parliament to do. To the registrar-general—do not waste time. Sort it out. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana kōtou kātoatoa na roto i te aroa ma’ata o Te Atua. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take a short call on the third reading of the Sullivan Birth Registration Bill. I do not want to take up too much time and hold up the passing of what is a very significant piece of legislation for those people sitting in the gallery—and thank you for being here today.

When I had the opportunity of speaking in an earlier reading, I spoke about how this bill is a bill about love—about the love of two parents for their child and the love of that child for her parents. It has to be a powerful emotion like love that has seen you through this process and given you the fortitude that you had to hold on to in order to engage in this particular process. So I hope that today you feel, justly, that all of that process—my goodness, what a process it has been—has been justified and that you feel what your reaction is, as well, and that you have done the right thing. I really want to commend you for doing this because, as I have said in the House before, it does speak volumes for those of us who are adoptees about our recognition of our birth parents. I think this really opened up a discussion for all of us to at some stage consider the diversity of families, and parenting and parentage, so I thank you very much for doing that.

I want to commend also my colleague Louisa Wall, who has held this bill very dear and has encouraged such widespread bipartisan work on it by both sides of the House. That is really due to Louisa as a parliamentarian and as a thoroughly decent person who knows that by doing so, and by being the type of person she is and the type of parliamentarian she is, she will get this bill passed with unanimous support from all parties. So thank you, Louisa, for that. Without further ado I am going to finish my call, and I heartily commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.

Bill read a third time.