KEY POINTS:
The Government has been forced to back down on its proposal to tightly restrict public access to birth, death and marriage certificates, and is offering a compromise deal that looks set to gain enough support to become law.
Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker yesterday made public a series of proposals to amend the controversial Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Amendment Bill - which had drawn flak from historians, genealogists, researchers, biographers and media representatives.
The bill was drawn up to fight identity theft, but its move to clamp down on access to personal records drew a flurry of opposing submissions.
Now Mr Barker - aware that the Government lacked enough support from other political parties to get the original rules passed into law - is proposing a watered-down version.
"The bill was written in the strongest possible way to protect the public from identity fraud and misuse of personal information," he said.
A letter he has written to the select committee considering the original bill "now seeks to balance those protections against the need for transparency and access to records for legitimate purposes".
Mr Barker's changes would allow open access to the records, but provide some safeguards: People who want to apply for certificates or printouts would have to present adequate identification; a register would be set up so people could find out who had accessed their information; and a person could request that their records not be disclosed to the public.
Mr Barker said the approach was consistent with the bill's original intention, but maintained "generally open" public access to the information.
Greens MP Keith Locke hailed the proposals as a "major backdown" and a victory for freedom of information.
He indicated the Greens would be prepared to vote for such an amendment, although he would want some kind of public-interest criteria attached to the provision for individuals to hide their own records.
"There will be further discussion of the details, but my feeling at this time is that such a provision - with appropriate qualifications - would not lead to a wholesale closing of access."
It appears the Government has discussed the proposals with some of Parliament's other smaller parties and it seems likely to secure enough votes to turn the compromise deal into law.
But National is in no hurry to endorse the proposed changes. It prefers to reserve judgment until it has had time to scrutinise the detail.
National's internal affairs spokeswoman, Sandra Goudie, said she could not see yet how the proposals would make a huge difference to people having ready access to the information.
"National certainly will be giving it a great deal of scrutiny," she said.
"We're not rushing to embrace it. Our current position is to oppose the bill and we'll maintain that position until we can see justifiable reason to support it."
Mr Barker said there had been "informal discussions" with other parties about the amendment, and he felt it struck a good balance.
He denied the compromise was a backdown, arguing that under MMP negotiation and discussion was always needed.
"I think the debate has shifted on both sides."
