REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21144, 30 September 1930, Page 10

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS.

AN AMENDING BILL. ' • OMISSION OF WORD “ILLEGITIMATE.” (Fhom Our Parliamentary Rbportbb.) _ WELLINGTON. September 29. Legal difficulties likely to follow the passing of the Births and Deaths Registration Amendment, Bill were pointed out by Mr W. Downie Stewart (Reform member for Dunedin West) when the measure was under discussion ‘in the House of Representatives this evening. The Bui provides for the omission of the word illegitimate ” from a registration certificate of the _ birth of an illegiti-. mate child. Provision is also made for the registration at Wellington of deaths of members of the New Zealand Naval Forces occurring outside the Dominion. Mr Stewart asked the Minister in charge of the Bill (Mr P. A. de la Perrelle) if any precedent existed for excluding the word 4 “ illegitimate ” from a certificate. It did not seem to him that it would save the position. Assuming that some question of inheritancy arose that depended on legitimacy, the measure was likely to lead, to legal consequences. No doubt the object was a Very benevolent one,‘but it was likely to give rise to litigation. He would like to know whether the Minister had had the advice of the Crown Law officers. Mr W. E. Barnard (Labour member for Napier) thought the point raised was one of some importance. One appreciated the motive in the Bill. Every member of the House was in sympathy with the proposal. On the face of it, it would appear that no evidence of illegitimacy could be obtained from a registrar, as be would have no record of it. Mr R. A. Wright (Reform member for Wellington Suburbs) said he did not think anyone would take exception to the object of the clause. The question, however, was that if the registrar was to omit the word illegitimate there would be no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate. A 4 member: We don’t want to make any distinction. Mr Wright: We do not want any social distinction, but it might be necessary to make a. legal distinction. The Minister thought that there had been a good deal of undue apprehension. In the English law, he explained, there was no particular provision in legality to wedlock. There had been cases where persons seeking employment had to present their birth certificate and had been prejudiced because of illegitimacy. When the House went into committee Mr Stewart said the Minister’s reply was vague. He felt very uneasy about it. Had the Bill been to the Statutes Revision Committee and been approved it would have been all right, but it was too late for that now. To him the Bill seenied quite a legal novelty. The Minister stated that the certificate of birth would show the child was illegitimate without establishing the fact by writing "illegitimate” across it. If there was any doubt the Bill could be modified a in another place. The Bill was put through all its stages and passed.