Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill. First we come to the preamble. This is the debate on the preamble. The question is that the preamble stand part.

Point of order. I move that the provisions be read as one.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that the preamble and clauses 1 to 6 stand part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We come to the committee of the whole House stage having already debated as a House the second reading of the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill, of course, and I don’t intend to repeat my comments for that. But I do want to start by acknowledging those who made contributions in that second reading, and again reiterating my thanks to those who did so also at the first reading, those who engaged through the select committee process, and those who also reached out to Annie Oxborough and engaged, and our college and friend Glen Bennett is among them, and I thank him for that.

I do just want to add, Madam Chair, as you’ve allowed me to make a couple of introductory remarks before I field any questions from colleagues of the committee, just to state clearly for the record, that, of course, the debate, and indeed the passage of this bill should it proceed, is not intended as any disrespect on those who have been involved in the adoption process. On the contrary, I’m very well aware that there have been many positive stories of adoption. Every experience is different, and, as I noted in my second reading remarks, there are different circumstances, and, of course, Annie Oxborough’s family represents one such experience, but, of course, it’s not a universal experience, and it possibly goes without saying but I don’t want to risk such an omission to indicate any lack of respect for those who have done the right thing in many cases, and done extremely well by others.

The only other introductory remark is just to acknowledge a couple of the comments that were made at the second reading. We heard colleagues share quite personal stories of their own families, and their own lives, and their own adoption in some cases, and also that point that was made well by others following my own attempt to bring to light the idea that we have on the one hand an impractical step whereby one person, or at least one family, is affected by a bill that is taking up the time and energy of the House, and of course it would be impractical for so many potential applicants to come to this place and be treated in the same way by the same mechanism. Of course, we have the ability in this House, at a future date, no doubt, for a future Government to examine the question more broadly and come up with something that will be satisfactory across a range of different situations.

My only other reflection—and I know I said I had only one more, and I’ve now got one more to one more, which makes two more—is just that I was grateful, as members, I think, on my right had mentioned, that Annie is really the instigator of the bill. I’m merely the voice through which she has been able to bring it to this place in a procedural sense, and, of course, we have all had the weighty responsibility of telling her story through our ability to speak in this House. So she lobbied her local MP, and it was adopted, not so much as a matter of party policy but in terms of colleagues of mine in my political party seeing the merit in supporting the proposal—other parties likewise, and again I thank them for that, and the House as a majority for doing likewise.

On a personal note, it’s funny because I came to this place thinking that, as a lawyer, I was able to help one client at a time but couldn’t influence the law as a whole, whereas as a policy maker and as a politician one gets to influence policy and help many more people than one at a time, and here I am after nearly six years and this is the closest I’ve got to passing a bill and it’s only helping one person—but it’s helping and she’s no less important for that.

On that reflective note, as the process and philosophically regarding what it is I hope we’re about to achieve, I’m grateful again for the engagement that we’ve had so far, and look forward to the committee of the whole House stage.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member in charge of the bill for introducing us to the committee stage, and, again, I just wish to congratulate him on the work that he does to progress the bill through the House. I do have a couple of questions for the member, because we have had some quite wide-ranging discussion in the second reading earlier today.

One of the matters that has come to the attention of the House and that came to the attention of the select committee is about the application of this bill—and I note the comments that the member has just made—to other members of New Zealand and people who may have been affected in a similar way and who may wish to follow a similar approach.

The question I had for the member is whether this bill also has the potential to apply to other people and any comment the member may wish to make around those who could also be seeking similar redress through the Parliament or through another process.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a very helpful question. The member herself, having participated very thoughtfully in the select committee process, will be aware that this was a major point of discussion. We were careful not to imply that there was any greater direct significance to the case of others, but she’ll recall that we discussed—and I think it’s helpful to put on record now, hence my gratitude for the question—that it would be only in an indirect way that this would be useful for others, which is to say that if this puts on the political agenda—or the policy agenda, I should perhaps say—the idea that this is an area in which we need to pay some attention as a country, I think that will be useful. Not only does the bill itself not apply to others, it is a private—in that sense, a “private bill”. It is also the case that, even in terms of Annie Oxborough’s own situation, it is narrow, in the sense that it is only to amend her birth record, from which a birth certificate could be made, and it doesn’t affect, for example, any rights of succession that she might have or any other legal rights in relation to family links and ties.

I suppose while I’m on my feet, again, in the committee stage, I should point out that the motivation for different people in this situation will be different. We heard as a committee, for example, that, for some people, it is the much more practical reality that would drive them towards such a solution, were that generally available. I refer specifically to the gentleman who noted that he himself had been adopted, that he has a child now who was diagnosed with a life-threatening genetic condition, and he made the point to us, quite movingly, that had he known his own biological links and history—or whakapapa, as we might say—then he would have been able to seek medical help for his son sooner, understanding more fully the implications of that lineage, literally in the blood sense, knowing where had come from and what that might mean for his own offspring, medically speaking.

Thank you to the member Chris Penk for that useful response—I think that’s very helpful. One of the other—I guess what we would call crudely—unintended consequences, potentially, from this bill, which the member alluded to in his response, was about the potential for those who may take an approach like this to be able to seek access, for example, to estates when birth parents pass away. This is a challenging issue, I think, for people who have been separated, through a process, from their birth parents and then have been reconciled and been able to form a relationship later in their lives. But this is a matter that did come to the Governance and Administration Committee’s attention and could potentially open up opportunities for people to be able to seek access to the estate. So I’m just interested in, I guess, two questions for the member. One is around the appropriateness of that and whether it’s something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis, and any particular protections that have been put into the bill to protect from that situation occurring.

Thank you. Again, I thank the member Rachel Boyack for her thoughtful analysis and the question that followed that. I think we’ve been engaged in a bit of a balancing act here. We have sort of wanted to open the floodgates only enough to prompt a response that is more general, that would be able to help others in another way, but not in a way that would result in potentially thousands of such applications to local MPs, or other MPs, in areas throughout the country. So the wisdom of encouraging—as my colleague and friend David Bennett said—even a dozen or so cases I think would be a great burden. And I don’t mean that unkindly, but it would be a lot for the relevant Government agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, to contend with, to advise as many as 12 times, if we’re saying a dozen, just for the sake of argument. And, of course, for the House’s time to be engaged in a private bill on multiple occasions simply wouldn’t be practical. So I don’t encourage that. In fact, I officially discourage it.

But having said that, I don’t think that Annie would want me to give any suggestion that she is minded only to have this situation ameliorate her own situation. Indeed, she’s been an advocate, and members of this House have made it clear that they are advocates, for improvements in the way that other situations might be handled. Perhaps it could be in the future—and I speak not as a matter of party policy but just thinking aloud, so to speak. It might be a matter of a law being amended to allow such applications, so that those who wish to make such applications can do so. Those who are perfectly happy not to revisit the past in that way, you know, would have the choice not to do so as well.

I do note for the sake of the record—not only as it pertains to this bill but also as a relevant consideration, at least in my mind, as to the circumstances of this matter—that Ms Oxborough’s adoptive parents are no longer with us, so we haven’t had to be concerned that the effect of this bill would be disrespectful or might appear disrespectful in a way that would be inappropriate to those persons themselves, who, as I say, we mean no disrespect to, and likewise for others in such situations.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his engagement earlier, and I wish to assure the committee of the whole House that I don’t intend to take many more opportunities to speak on the debate, but I did want to put on record at least one more point. And, obviously, I’ll engage with any other questions that come. That’s just to acknowledge, from the point of view of emphasising the point, that this is a difficult and onerous process, not only for the applicant herself but also it’s absorbed a lot of time and energy and resources. Of course, that’s been perfectly appropriate, but I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the work of certain colleagues, including Jo Irain and also the staff in my electorate and community office, Cheryl and Emily; those who have drafted the bill and worked with us in quite an iterative way to ensure that it was as good as possible; the policy advisers; those who provided procedural advice, in terms of how the bill might be passed in this House. I acknowledge and thank them all.

I also thank those whose advocacy has allowed this matter to come to my attention. There was a media piece by Duncan Garner, and he noted that a contact of his—Mr Todd Muller—might be interested in taking on the matter. My colleague Mr Muller in turn got in touch with me and suggested that I may wish to take it on because Ms Oxborough was living—remains living, in fact—in my own electorate of Kaipara ki Mahurangi.

I do want to acknowledge all of those—and, of course, Annie herself. If this is the last opportunity that I have to speak on the matter, then I do want to place on record my thanks to Annie. The courage that she has shown has been very impressive. I don’t think it is an easy matter at all for some, actually, to approach their local MP about a matter that is important to them. In any case, I think others in this House would agree that we should not be regarded as intimidating persons to approach regarding any matter of politics or policy. But the reality is that if there is a sense in which we are less accessible than we might be, then I hope those listening will know that every member of this House, I am sure, would be grateful to have a conversation that is respectful and in good faith about things that are important to them, whether locally or as a matter of national policy—that is to say “nationwide”. And certainly that’s been my case, my experience with this. Annie has come forward with courage, she’s allowed us to tell her story on her behalf, and I thank her for it.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Annie Oxborough Birth Parents Registration Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.

💬 Chris Penk: Without debate, Mr Speaker?

Without debate.

Third Reading