Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Governance and Administration Committee for consideration.

This bill replaces the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995. The 1995 Act was the first time the law governing the civil registration of life events, births, deaths, and marriages had been brought together in one place. Civil unions were added in 2005. Importantly, the 1995 Act established the framework for the centralisation of the registration process and the computerisation and digitalisation of existing paper records. But after 22 years and many amendments, repeals, and additions, a rewrite is long overdue.

I want to acknowledge the work of my predecessor as Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Peter Dunne, for his efforts in getting the bill to this point. Importantly, Minister Dunne led a comprehensive review of the rules governing public access to registered information about life events.

With limited exceptions, the public have always been able to access information registered under the 1995 Act and its predecessors. This access supports a range of legitimate purposes, including family history research. The current access rules have been in place since 2009. Briefly, they aim to balance privacy interests and the protection of risk for individuals with the public interest.

The previous Minister’s review gave members of the public and interested parties the opportunity to have their say about the rules, and they were consulted on the changes the bill introduces. The review confirmed that the basic principles underpinning the access regime were sound. However, almost everyone who made a submission during the review expressed a preference for digital and online access over paper-based access via certificates and printouts. But the 1995 Act was drafted at a time paper-based access was the norm. The Act has been amended to allow some transactions to be completely electronic, but even when the information is historical—and some records go back to 1848—members of the public can only access individual records by purchasing a certificate or printout.

This Government wants to maximise the benefits of the growing digital economy. We also want to make it easier for New Zealanders to interact with Government in an online environment that is trusted and trustworthy. That commitment is evident in the appointment of my Cabinet colleague the Hon Clare Curran as Minister for Government Digital Services , and that commitment is evident too in our support for this bill.

The bill will deliver an Act that is modern, fit for purpose, and future proofed. First, the bill implements the changes recommended in the previous Minister’s report to Parliament on the review of the access provisions. The changes will support development of new digital and online access channels. They balance individual interests in privacy and security concerns, in particular, and the public interest in access to registered information for legitimate purposes.

The bill maintains the distinction between historical and non-historical births, deaths, and marriages information and related rules. It will put in place a legislative framework that supports development of new digital and online access channels. In particular, the bill will facilitate development of an online pay-for-view access regime for historical records, similar to that operating in Scotland. Scotland pioneered the provision of large-scale online access to historical information about life events. It has similar access rules to New Zealand, including the time limits used to define historical records. Several submitters to our recent ministerial review cited the Scottish people’s website as an exemplar of best practice.

At present, historical information can be searched but not viewed online. The bill will enable the registrar-general to make historical register images available online as an alternative to the purchase of a certificate or printout. Users will need a verified RealMe ID or approved equivalent that can be asserted online.

Users with a verified ID will also be able to search a limited subset of non-historical information to help them identify, but not reconstruct, an individual record they may want to access. Non-historical records will not be made available online because non-historical records may involve living individuals, and their privacy interests outweigh any considerations, such as ease of access. Individual non-historical records could still be accessed through the purchase of a certificate or printout. This maintains the status quo and is consistent with the Scottish people’s model.

The bill makes a number of minor amendments to support future online access to historical records. These include making historical birth information available at the same time the corresponding death record becomes available. The bill also reduces the age at which marriage records are classified as historical to 75 years, down from 80 years, and the bill will correct an anomaly concerning access to pre-1955 intention-to-marry records held by Archives New Zealand. Technically, the 1995 Act requires access to be restricted indefinitely. The bill will classify these records as marriage-registered and authorise access in the same way and subject them to the same rules as apply to solemnised marriage records.

The bill also includes a number of amendments arising from the Department of Internal Affairs internal operational review of the 1995 Act. This internal review did not look at the big “P” policy issues, so, apart from the changes to the access provisions that I have already mentioned, the bill largely re-enacts the existing law, but it does so in a way that ensures all provisions are presented in an up-to-date and accessible form.

The very fact that this bill is before the House now is because the 1995 Act lacks coherence and can be difficult to read and understand. For example, I’ve already noted that the 1995 Act has been amended to allow most transactions to be completed electronically, but that amendment is buried in a section at the back of the Act. The Act itself still reads as though people must put pen to paper, give notice in writing, and post documents or deposit them with the registrar-general. In summary, the bill omits redundant and spent provisions, renumbers provisions, and changes the language used to reflect modern drafting standards. The language used has been deliberately chosen to future-proof the law to provide flexibility for future service delivery solutions, but new service options will be in addition to, rather than instead of, existing ways of doing business.

I would like to note that alongside the decision to replace the 1995 Act with a modern piece of legislation, the department’s internal review did identify several small but important changes that were needed. In particular, the bill closes a loophole that would allow back-door access to information protected by a non-disclosure direction. Those directions are put in place to prevent third parties access to information about at-risk individuals and their families. The bill also strengthens the operation of the access register, which records details of third parties’ access requests to someone else’s information. I’m pleased to note these amendments have been endorsed by the Privacy Commissioner.

I am aware that there are some aspects of the existing law that members in this House would like to see reviewed. For example, I know the Governance and Administration Committee presented its report on the Petition of Allyson Hamblett the day after the bill was introduced. The committee’s report included a recommendation that the Government review the process for changing nominated sex on birth certificates. I will be presenting the Government’s response to the committee’s report in due course. I am pleased the bill and the upcoming select committee process will provide a timely opportunity to fully test the law, in line with the committee’s recommendation.

Finally, the bill includes three discreet amendments that respond to issues raised in the Law Commission’s report on burial and cremation law. These amendments will improve the timeliness and accuracy of cause of death information reported to the registrar-general. They are included in this bill as they can be progressed independently of the other work under way, including the Ministry of Health - led consideration of a replacement for the Burial and Cremation Act 1964.

To conclude, it is fitting that, after more than 22 years, this important piece of legislation is refreshed. The bill will replace the 1995 Act with a modern Act that is easy for people to use and understand and that can keep up with modern business practice and technology. At the same time, it introduces additional protections for privacy interests and at-risk individuals.

My thanks go to the officials and the previous Minister who worked hard to achieve this result. Finally, I welcome the opportunity to test the policy behind all aspects of the bill through the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, sir. The Opposition will support this legislation, not surprisingly. Last night, I was speaking in the House on Sarah Dowie’s bill, the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill, and I made the point that it’s extremely important to make sure that legislation is kept up to date . There’s nothing worse, I said, by reference to a particular piece of legislation, than when one has sections like “section 27ZZH”—because so often, when there is amendment legislation, the underlying structure of legislation can be affected.

That is why, for example, when Mrs Tolley was the Minister for Social Development, we had a complete rewrite of the Social Security Act 1964 , which I think had been amended pretty well every year since 1964 and was a complete shambles. It was causing huge costs to be incurred by the department and also by lawyers as they tried to find out exactly what things meant. I said it was that kind of problem, that meant it was very important that legislation that may not be, as it were, politically sexy none the less be kept up to date on a regular basis. It’s a fundamental obligation of this House to do so.

This is an example of legislation that falls into that category, and I am pleased that the Government is progressing it, because, as the Minister of Internal Affairs said, the real essence of the bill is not anything that is necessarily earth-shattering, but it does re-enact the 1995 Act to ensure that all provisions are presented in an up-to-date and accessible form. It’s the sort of legislation, I say, that the non-legally trained member of the public should be able to have recourse to, to find out exactly what it means without having to go to a lawyer. That’s why it’s important that the legislation progress to the select committee: so that it can be reviewed and then brought back here and enacted just as soon as possible.

The Minister also said that there are a couple of minor provisions that raise privacy concerns. It’s important that the legislation cover those, and it’s good that they are there. It’s good that they’ve had the sign-off from the Privacy Commissioner. Importantly, also, the Law Commission did some very good work a couple of years ago on burial and cremation law—a rather grisly topic, but none the less one that needed to be done—and there are a couple of recommendations raised in that review that need to be covered by this legislation.

So it is a very good piece of work. The previous Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Dunne, was very enthusiastic about the project, and so I commend him, as the Minister rightly commended him. But I also say it’s very, very important, not only in this area but in other areas, that there be this systematic revision. Next week, we’re going to be talking about the Legislation Bill, which incorporates a number of important provisions, one of which is that parliamentary counsel and the Attorney-General have the power systematically to revise legislation. It’s a very important power. It hasn’t been utilised here because the department’s done it of its own accord, but none the less it’s a similar sort of exercise that has been undertaken.

So I’m very pleased that the matter is able to be progressed, and I commend the bill to the House.

I take great pleasure in standing to speak in the first reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill . In terms of looking at the important work that this Government continues to do, it is making sure that it moves with the times, and this is one of the pieces of legislation that is part of a movement towards a more user-friendly Government—a user-friendly Government that makes its information as accessible as possible to the people it serves.

So this movement to make information that is recorded by the State able to be accessed is very important. It is the responsibility of the Government to make that information available. And, as quite correctly pointed out by Chris Finlayson, this is not a piece of legislation that could easily be described as being sexy or that fascinating, but it is quite practical and is needed.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh, the bigamy provisions are interesting.

Ha, ha! This bill does four main things—and the fifth is not being sexy, unfortunately. It re-enacts the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, which has lapsed. It gives effect to the recommendations arising from the Minister of Internal Affairs, and it is appropriate to acknowledge the work done by Peter Dunne in this area when he was the Minister responsible. It also updates and amends some of the operational provisions in the existing law. Fourthly, it responds to three discrete issues raised in the Law Commission’s review of the burial and cremation law.

This area is interesting for the fact that it makes it more timely and accurate in terms of recording the cause of death information. It is incredibly important in the sensitive area of people trying to do research in terms of their family history, whether that be whakapapa or through other interests, that we know that those dates of someone’s passing away are accurate. So having a change that enables those areas to be able to be relied upon, whether it be for personal research or for other work for the family, is very important.

It’s also important—to know where you come from in New Zealand, if you’re wanting to do research into your family—that we have a reliable source of information that people can easily access. It is for this reason that I see this legislative change under Part 4 as being a good one for New Zealanders.

There are some wider areas in terms of policy objectives that are important as well—the key one being to futureproof what we are doing so that the registration of life events, whether they are births, deaths, or marriages. Those are futureproofed so that as we change as a society, the technology that supports us is moving with the times. It is good to see a Government that continues to make those changes and put them in place.

It also regulates third-party access to births, deaths, and marriages information for authorised purposes. It is for this reason that it’s good to see that privacy is also being protected. It’s important when we are talking about people’s personal information that we can be reassured that it is appropriately protected and being accessed by the right people, and this is even more important as we move into a far more digital age.

It’s important to balance the public interest in access to births, deaths, and marriages information for legitimate purposes with the protection—at risk—of individuals and individuals’ privacy interests. This is one of the ongoing tensions that we need to consider when passing such legislation: to balance the need of accessing information with protecting the rights of citizens and their private information.

One of the objectives is to implement the Law Commission’s recommendation for a new statutory system for notifying deaths, which will improve the timeliness and the accuracy of registrations, including the cause of death. It is good to see that what we are moving towards is a far more accessible time. The ability to make sure that people know where to go, know how to get that information, and can rely upon that information is incredibly important. Part of this work has been looking at the main changes in the bills and the definitions of birth and death information, or marriage or civil union for that fact. A name change can be important when retracing information or accessing people to identify those in your family when you are going back. So making sure that we have those definitions correct is important.

The bill also provides, for a person who may provide a certificate issued outside of New Zealand in respect of a divorce or a marriage being dissolved outside New Zealand, that the certificate relates to a New Zealand citizen or a person who is already resident in New Zealand, and those changes are also important.

There is a really strong aim in the bill to make sure that we are moving with the times. I am pleased to see not only the Labour Government but National supporting a move into a digital age where it is important for citizens to access information but also to protect those rights of personal information. For that reason I am pleased to say that I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s wonderful to be taking a call tonight on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. And I say that genuinely, because it is an excellent bill from the previous Government that’s being progressed.

I have to say, though, that I am a bit perplexed, because I’ve been through Labour’s much-vaunted 100-day programme many times, and not once did I find in it the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill . There was a lot of talk about building houses, legalising marijuana, increasing the minimum wage, addressing climate change, and making tertiary education free. But, instead, we’re finishing week three of the six weeks before the end of the year debating the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill.

And it is a good bill, which is no surprise, given it’s a hand-me-down from the previous National Government. I do have to contrast what we are debating now with the previous Labour Government. Within three weeks of taking office, the then finance Minister, Michael Cullen , introduced legislation to increase taxes. Now, I don’t want to give the members opposite any ideas, but, at least they were doing something. We’ve seen nothing from this Government at all. Weeks have gone by and they haven’t introduced anything new.

💬 Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Just passed two bills.

And I’m sorry, Mr Lees-Galloway, but the two bills that you’ve just passed are regurgitated bills from the last Parliament. They’re not new at all.

I do want to commend the bill. It makes a number of changes to update the Act and to make it more accessible. It aligns with the previous Government’s Better Public Services (BPS) target, which I genuinely hope the new Government progresses with. The BPS target showed that Government can improve outcomes when targets are set and proper measurements are made.

This is a good bill. I want to join other members of the House in commending the Hon Peter Dunne, the former Minister and also the former Government for bringing it to the House; and I also want to congratulate the coalition Government for making it such a priority. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand here today in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, and I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Hon Tracey Martin for her work, as well as for the department’s work in supporting her—the Department of Internal Affairs. Like the previous speaker, Andrew Falloon, I’d like also to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne, because he had done some work on this bill.

I’m here to speak on this bill and, as Minister for Ethnic Communities, I’d like to acknowledge that the intended improvements that the Hon Tracey Martin is introducing to this bill would mean that for New Zealand’s diverse ethnic communities—we have over 200 ethnic communities in this country, Aotearoa New Zealand—the improvements introduced in this bill would ensure that they have access to Government information and services.

This Government is focused on inclusion. We are focused on ensuring that all cultures are valued, that every individual person is valued—no matter who they are, no matter where they come from—and that they can all achieve their full potential. The bill that we are discussing right now has implications, because it refers to the statutory system for death notifications. The Law Commission’s review of this bill, especially of the burial and cremation law, is an important issue for the ethnic communities of Aotearoa New Zealand, and this particular bill will actually actively seek input from our ethnically diverse communities, and it will be important to go out and to consult and to ensure that all of their views—from all of the 200 or so ethnic communities in Aotearoa New Zealand—and their human rights are considered and acknowledged.

This bill will also aim to create a more cohesive piece of legislation, as it changes the language and the order and the content of removing redundant provisions that were previously introduced. We will look at certain recommendations that the Law Commission has handed down to us, as I said, especially with the cremation law and other administrative and operational matters. One of the things that we would also look at, that our former speaker from this side of the House spoke about, is the use of digital and online channels to ensure that we look at the historical records and ensure—

Sorry to interrupt the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 December 2017. Pō mārie .

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.