Opposition to the changes

Some opposition parties, genealogists, historians and media thought the changes to the registers were an over-reaction. Many submissions opposing the amendments were put to the Select Committee.

One of the main points of contention in the debate on the BDMRR Bill was the "low incidence" of identity theft in New Zealand (see "Fraud in God's Own", below).

Some journalists held deeper concerns. Karl du Fresne said:

"The bigger issue is that we live in one of the most open, transparent democracies in the world and any attack on that transparency has to be resisted. This [the BDMRR Bill] doesn't just concern journalists - it should concern anyone with an interest in democracy and freedom of information."

Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff broadly supported the original BDMRR Bill.

In a submission to the Government Administration Committee, she argued that the government must be clear about the purposes of the registers - and use information gathered only for those purposes - or in instances where there is a legitimate public interest in access.

Fraud in God's Own

When some media claimed there were "eight incidences of identity fraud in 2006" they took into account only identity theft for passports. The most frequent examples of identity theft - misused cheques and fraudulent benefit claims - fall under the category of "fraud".

It's hard to estimate exactly how much identity theft goes on in New Zealand.

Forensic computing expert Chris Budge (pictured right) says Australian studies estimate that a quarter of reported frauds to the Australian federal police involve the use of false identities.

He believes that identity theft in New Zealand is also an issue:

"The fabric of our identity system is primarily our full name and date of birth. In the absence of these details, such things as postal address, account number and mother's maiden name become important. With name and date of birth, there's the potential to fool susceptible customer-service staff."

Commenting on the original BDMRR Bill, Chris Budge said that it "may assist in mitigating the risks faced by some potential victims - but criminals will very likely find another way to locate and exploit victims."