3. KEITH LOCKE (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of Internal Affairs
Does he agree that the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill will impede legitimate public research carried out by historians, biographers, genealogists, and journalists; if not, why not?
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
The bill ensures that people will still have access to records, provided that they have a legitimate purpose and permission for access to, and use of, that information. People will continue to have open access to historical information. However, as I have said, I am interested in ensuring that submissions strike a balance between the protection of information on registers, and access to, and use of, that information.
Sandra GoudieIs it not a fact that the Government has lost its parliamentary majority for this bill because of this Minister’s arrogance, incompetence, and failure to consult?
No. We had agreement for the introduction of the bill and its first reading. Secondly, as far as consultation goes, I consulted that member on a confidential basis before the bill was introduced, and despite assuring me about that confidence she went out and leaked it immediately.
Is it fair for anyone writing a critical biography without the family’s agreement to have to wait 50 to 100 years to get basic birth, death, or marriage information; and does this not mean that biographers will have to live very long lives?
No. Nearly every biography I have read has been written with the permission of the family, and in such cases people clearly often seem to accept that it will be a warts-and-all biography. The fact is that this provision has to balance up access to information with the Government’s responsibility to protect the privacy of those individuals and to protect them from the predations of fraudsters.
Darien FentonHas the Minister seen any reports on the concerns about access to and use of personal information like this, and has he seen reports indicating support for the bill as it stands?
Yes. I have seen a report that states that 52 percent of New Zealanders surveyed were concerned about identity theft, another report that states that this is one of the fastest-growing types of crime in the world, and another that estimates the cost of it to New Zealand at about $400 million a year. I have also seen a report in the Dominion Post that stated that consumer representatives and industry experts say that New Zealanders need to wake up and be vigilant in preventing identity theft. In that report Wellington fraud investigator Barry Jordan stated: “It has been too easy too long to change your identity in this country. The steps they are promoting are … necessary.”
Tariana TuriaTēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnātātou katoa. Has the Minister received the submission from the Māori society of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists that recommends that access to information on births, deaths, and marriages be unrestricted in order to facilitate whakapapa research in the lodging of land claims; if not, when was he thinking of consulting Māori about issues so vital in preserving the rights of Māori people that are guaranteed by the Treaty?
My every intention is to ensure that people who want to have access to their family records will have it unrestricted and unfettered—that is Māori and Pākehā.
Hon Peter DunneIn the light of that last answer, what assurances can the Minister offer to those parties in Parliament currently representing 63 out of 121 votes in opposition to the bill that their concerns will be met, as will those of the genealogists and the historians, and that a regime will be put in place that will ensure that the status quo with regard to access to that data remains?
I have spoken with the genealogists, and they have raised their concerns directly with me. I feel that the bill can easily be amended to deal with those concerns so that people do have access to their family records. On the other hand, the bill needs to strike a balance between access to information and protecting the privacy of those people whose records are on that information—and protecting those New Zealanders from the predation of identity fraudsters.
How can the Minister talk about the problem of identity fraud when convictions for passport fraud have decreased from 38 in 2003 to eight in 2006, and does this not show that our current tools are working and that we do not need to keep our public records under lock and key?
Passports are only part of the identity fraud issue. As I said in answer to an earlier question, New Zealanders suffer about $400 million a year in identity theft. Another particular case I would draw to the member’s attention is that of William Kevin Roach, who stole the identity of a young baby—4 years old—and 40 years later, the family were confronted with having a new identity parading around as their child. This person used that identity to steal $100,000 from the taxpayer. This Parliament should be concerned about both issues.
Is it not wrong for the Government to talk about identity fraud in the private sector when, in fact, officials, such as Trevor Morley, president of the Institute of Professional Investigators, states that access to information on births, deaths, and marriages is critical to detecting fraudsters and that we should not prevent genealogists and others from having access to records—there is no reason for that?
I just want to remind the member and the House that there is no intention to have the bill restrict people from having access to their family records, at all. That I consider to be totally legitimate. But other consumer representatives say that New Zealanders have to wake up about identity theft, and one of the most easy pieces of information to get about a person in order to build his or her identity is on the open register as it is today.
I seek leave to table an article from a well-known historian and biographer, Graeme Hunt, explaining that this bill is an attack on press freedom.
Madam SPEAKERI seek leave to table a second document. It is a reply by the Hon Rick Barker to a question from Peter Brown, which shows a dramatic reduction in fraudulent passport applications.