National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MĀtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill

I move, That the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a second time. The Education and Science Committee has heard submissions and has proposed amendments that bring greater clarity to the bill. The Government will support these amendments and will also propose some technical drafting amendments in a Supplementary Order Paper. My thanks to the select committee, with special thanks to the chair, Brian Donnelly, to the deputy chair, Jill Pettis, and to Helen Duncan, who is a trustee of the National Library and thus brings special knowledge about the National Library to her select committee work. I also want to thank the National Library trustees, Friends of the Turnbull Library, and the library community, because they have worked so hard for this solution.

This bill replaces the current National Library Act of 1965 and brings it up to date in four areas. First, it clarifies the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. The current Act does not include a statutory purpose for the Alexander Turnbull Library, and this has been rectified. The bill also states that the Crown is to continue to own the Alexander Turnbull Library collections in perpetuity. The status of this unique resource, which specialises in New Zealand and Pacific studies, is enhanced by the creation of a new body, the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library. This body will focus on providing specific assurances about the Alexander Turnbull Library’s collections and the character of the services that distinguish that library as a research library.

The select committee heard submissions that sought to ensure that while the Crown continued to own collections, there was provision for the loan of items for public exhibition on a temporary basis. The proposed amendments provide for a delegation to empower the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library to make documents from the Turnbull collections available for public exhibition. The amendments also prevent the National Librarian from transferring the ownership of documents owned by the National Library without ministerial approval.

The purpose of the National Library has been widened to include working alongside organisations with related aims, and to strengthen links with library and information communities. That simple sentence hides a multitude of aims and plans for the future. A new body, the Library and Information Advisory Commission, will advise the Minister about emergent issues in the changing library and information world, as well as issues concerning documentary heritage in a national and international context.

Revision of the 1965 Act provides a welcome opportunity to address Māori interests in the National Library and in the areas of documented heritage and information. Anyone exercising powers and functions under the bill will be required to protect the collections as documentary heritage and as taonga. The library’s existing and widely used Māori name can now be included, and the bill refers to mātauranga Māori alongside references to knowledge and information.

The third area updates legal deposit provisions to take account of electronic publications. This aspect of the legislation drew a number of submissions to the select committee, and I am grateful to the committee for its detailed work on this part of the bill. There are amendments to Part 4 that were recommended by the committee, and that I am pleased to support. It was clear from submissions that there is general agreement that documentary heritage should be preserved through the means of legal deposit. Legal deposit is a statutory obligation used in over 130 countries that requires publishers to provide copies of works to a national agency. Section 30A of the current Act is limited to books, however, and it is obvious that limiting the collection of recorded knowledge to paper formats will lead to collections being far less comprehensive than is desirable. This bill expands the range of documents that will be subject to legal deposit to cover any publicly available document used to store or convey information, whatever the medium.

This part of the bill was not well understood, and amendments are proposed to clarify the legal deposit process and the use of materials deposited. Because information technology changes quickly, it is essential that the bill addresses broad principles, and can accommodate changes to the ways in which information is collected, stored, and made available. The bill establishes that the purpose of legal deposit is to assist in preserving New Zealand’s documentary heritage so that it is available, subject to any applicable terms and conditions, for the benefit of New Zealanders. Under the bill, publishers are required to give specified numbers of public documents to the library by ministerial requirements, which will have the status of regulations under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act. A requirement for books will continue the practice of collecting books and paper-based documents. When this book requirement is made it will address the concerns of fine letterpress publishers, and take into account the cost and size of print run in setting the number of copies to be deposited.

A separate requirement will be made for electronic media, and this will address the concerns taken to the select committee. Technical processes for the collection and storage of electronic media are different, and requirements may need to be changed from time to time to deal with changing technology. The overall approach to the collection of electronic materials will also differ from that for books. While the library seeks comprehensive collection in the traditional print medium, this is not desirable, nor practical, for the electronic world—that is a wee message to the publishers’ association. Instead, the library aims for a selective approach, and one that will be developed following consultation with electronic publishers. In particular, the process will provide for the protection of publishers’ commercial interests—another thing for the publishers association—through consultation on terms and conditions about access to the deposited material. Requirements for documents other than traditional books and similar media will not be made until there has been consultation with affected parties.

The bill provides for the Minister to exempt documents, or classes of documents, from deposit. Also, it is not envisaged that requirements will be made for the deposit of motion pictures or broadcast material where current arrangements are considered adequate.

The final area of change proposed in this bill addresses a conflict in the Official Information Act in relation to oral histories provided to, or commissioned by, the National Library. Many informants were unwilling to provide oral histories if they could not make conditions of access. That was really sad, during the whole period of constitutional change to MMP, when we were unable to continue a really wonderful oral history archive. The bill amends the Official Information Act to exclude such oral histories from the definition of “official information” in the Official Information Act, and requires the National Librarian to comply with conditions on access to the histories set by the donor.

I am very happy to have this bill back before the House. We have so much to do, and with new legislation, a new National Librarian, and new committees, we are champing at the bit to get going.

I could spend most of my 10 minutes talking about my “mate” from Northland, who keeps confidences so well! What he was saying is not true.

During the select committee stage of this particular bill, one of the things that the Education and Science Committee did—and it really took the issue very seriously—was to take a tour of the National Library. Many of us had never been there, and it just gave us a context for the bill, and allowed us to see what we were working with. At this stage, I have to say that the experience was mind-blowing.

💬 John Carter: It’s got a lot of books in it.

It has more than books in it. The member could go and look at the pictures over there. It is a real national treasure, and I am not certain whether many members of the House fully understand its monumental nature.

There is another treasure within it, and that is the Alexander Turnbull Library. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill because we believe that it is important to fix up some of the tensions that exist around the 1965 Act in relation to how those particular parts of the library operate—the functions and roles, etc.—and how they relate to other, external legislation, such as the Financial Responsibility Act. We believe that it is very important that this bill does go forward, for the protection of our national assets. The bill clarifies some of those relationships and sorts out things. It will allow all those tensions to dissipate, and for both elements of the National Library, the National Library itself and the Alexander Turnbull Library within it, to move forward and to protect our heritage in the way that they should.

The bill does another very important thing, which the Minister responsible for the National Library only alluded to, and it is to do with oral histories in relation to the Official Information Act. The interpretation of the Official Information Act has been made in such a way that it really curbs the potential for the nation to be able to archive some oral histories that could explain very clearly what actually happened. For example, this nation has absolutely no idea of what actually happened during the coalition talks in 1996. The public has been presented with myths produced by those in the media, who have no idea what went on behind closed doors. The Official Information Act has put a real limitation upon the people who were actively involved in those decisions, by preventing them from presenting their oral histories. If we are going to be able in the future to really know about the history of our nation, it is important that we are able to get former Prime Ministers or Deputy Prime Ministers to tell it as it was, from their perspective. That is a quite important element of this bill.

The third element relates to electronic deposit, and that was a toughie—we really worked through it. So that people can understand the meaning of “electronic deposit”, I will explain the problem we had with the Newspaper Publishers Association. The association’s members often contract other agencies to feed them electronic information. Their concern was that if the law required them to make that information available to the National Library on an ongoing basis, which would then make it available to the general public, what would prevent other news agencies from being able to tap into what they had been purchasing? It was a quite important issue, and I thank Mr Peck, because he came up with the idea of bringing the protagonists and the antagonists into a debate situation to really get to the nitty-gritty of it. I believe that did allow the members of the select committee to conclude that, with the processes that are in place, there is no reason for the National Library to do that sort of thing; the systems that the legislation is putting in place, which we are confident will proceed, will not allow that to happen. It is not in the interest of the National Library for that to take place, nor is it the purpose of the National Library to do that.

We have some discomfort with some elements of the bill. We raised those at the select committee, but did not always get particularly good answers. I want people to think seriously about this issue, because it is not just a case of bashing around and playing politics. It is about addressing Māori interests in the National Library. We talked through a lot of those things. The explanatory note to the introductory copy of the bill talked about providing “a presence for a Māori world view within the National Library by the inclusion of the existing Māori name of the National Library, Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa, in the title of the Act.” That raises a whole lot of other questions. Is that what we are doing, or is it just tokenism? For example, if Aotearoa was the name of New Zealand that was utilised prior to the missionaries coming along, can anyone explain to me why both the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi use the words “Niu Tirini” not “Aotearoa”? Has our belief in Percy Smith created another myth, which we are now codifying in legislation?

We asked some other questions. For example, one way that this bill is honouring the Treaty of Waitangi is by having the guardians of the Alexander Turnbull Library, and the commission, appointed after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs. One could say that is tino rangatiratanga in action, that is partnership in action, but we have to ask a very serious question. The Minister of Māori Affairs was put into that position by not Māori but the Prime Minister. How can it be tino rangatiratanga unless the Minister of Māori Affairs is elected to that role by all Māori? It is just tokenism. It is an attempt, but I think one has to be prepared to look through the issues and see what exactly is going on here.

The third part of this is the introduction of Māori language into English texts, as if that is the way it should go. We do not have a Library and Information Advisory Commission, but the following unusual expression: Library and Information Advisory Commission Ngā Kaiwhakamārama i ngā Kohikohinga Kōrero. That is what the body is called. Let us ask ourselves what we are doing with the English language with that text, because this bill is in English not Māori. If it was in Māori, that name would be quite justified. It would be quite acceptable if it were an alternative expression for the Library and Information Advisory Commission, but it all runs into one.

I have no difficulty with the expression “taonga”, which is used here, because it obviously means those things that are valued by Māori. But what is the difference between “mātauranga” and “mātauranga Māori”? Why do we put the word “Māori” on it? The very use of the word “mātauranga” in an English text means Māori knowledge, Māori understanding. We asked the members of the National Library what they meant by “mātauranga”. For example, if we had the works of Euclid translated into Māori, would that be mātauranga Māori? Is Witi Ihimaera’s Pounamu, Pounamu mātauranga Māori? It is very much mātauranga Māori as far as I am concerned, but it is in English. They could not tell us the answer. They actually said it is very fuzzy. I therefore put it to the House that we need to think through some of those issues very clearly, and with a fair bit of rigour, or we will end up with warm fuzzy tokenism, and not much happening.

I do not think those issues are strong enough for us to vote against this bill, because they are outweighed by the positive elements. We are just raising questions, and have an element of discomfort with the idea of middle-class Pākehā bureaucrats washing away their guilt about their ancestors’ actions, by putting some fuzzy stuff into legislation. We asked questions about some of those things, and the library said it had consulted Māori. We asked whom it had consulted, and were told it had consulted the one Māori librarian in the National Library. We are putting in place legislation based on that level of consultation! The Māori Language Commission has also criticised the wording of this legislation, because it also has concerns that it is only paying lip service, and is not genuinely getting to the underlying depth of what we need to be doing to truly consider addressing Māori interests in the National Library. If it is just on the surface, just superficial, we may as well not be going through it, and that is the discomfort that New Zealand First has; we believe that at this particular stage there are real dangers that it is just on the surface.

I must commend to the House that extremely good speech made by Mr Brian Donnelly, and I have to say that I agree with every single word he said. It is not often that we can so agree. The National Party has agreed to support this bill, and I commend to the House the work of our representatives on the Education and Science Committee, in particular the work done by Dr Paul Hutchison, who will also be speaking on this bill this evening. As Dr Hutchison pointed out to me, it was his idea to go and visit the National Library. There is nothing like a bit of practical knowledge. Some of us actually visited the library before we came to Parliament as MPs. It is stunning—not only have I visited the prisons; I have also visited the National Library.

💬 John Carter: Are they the same?

No, I say to Mr Carter, they are not quite the same, but I am sure I should discuss it all with his mother—and one day, if Ms Pettis is a good enough girl, I will take her along to visit the library. I do commend the National Library to the House. It is one of New Zealand’s absolute treasures. I particularly enjoyed being able to search the records and find details of when various ancestors of mine first came to New Zealand and how they registered for and fought in the wars that now form part of our history—not that that will get me too many votes in this House—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: You never know.

As Georgina te Heuheu says, “You never know.” I particularly enjoyed looking at those records. A provision in this bill is about the requirement to have knowledge of the Pacific, and I commend that to the House. New Zealand has a history of work in the Pacific. At one stage we had a colony—our only colony—Samoa, which was then called Western Samoa. Samoa relies on New Zealand to assist it in relation to record keeping and details. My husband, who is of Samoan, Chinese, and American heritage, was particularly pleased to be able to find details relating to the American side of his own family, going back to when they were pilgrims to North America. Some of us might ask what that has to do with New Zealand. It actually has quite a lot, because it shows the depth of knowledge the National Library holds. I note that the Minister nods at that.

I am a little interested in the title. However, I will not speak further on what Mr Donnelly said, because I do agree with him in respect of tokenism. I am deeply offended by any tokenism towards Māori, Pākehā, or anyone else in this country, because at the end of the day we are all New Zealanders. Having said that, I do wonder, and perhaps the Minister or somebody who was on the select committee—probably Ms Pettis—could take a call. I know she is always very willing to speak in the House, although not always by taking calls.

💬 Jill Pettis: I am the shy, retiring type. You’ve got me mixed up with somebody else.

Yes, and the member is always so eloquent, too. I think “library” is an unusual description these days, because my understanding from the many people who used to be called librarians is that they are now called researchers. Libraries are now almost uniformly starting to be called research centres or information centres. The reason is that libraries are no longer just about books. They are about all sorts of other things, and I am particularly interested in the oral histories that the National Library is able to keep.

One of the things that often amazes me in this House is the amount of time that is devoted by select commitees to bills such as this that are very non-contentious, and the expense of that process, when I would have thought they could be dealt with by way of amendment to the existing legislation, which, in this case, is the National Library Act. I compare that with the amount of time this House has not devoted to, for instance, the question of the coalition of the willing and Iraq. We have to look at the priorities that this House often seems to have, and I am sure that John Carter’s mother, listening on her crystal set in Northland, will be wondering about exactly that point. I am sure she will be very, very worried about that.

As well, I am interested in clauses 30 and 35. I note the provision for notice of requirement for public documents. In my past life as a lawyer, the National Library forwarded me a notice requiring me to forward to it three copies of my documents—documents that I had written or had taken part in writing. I found it quite interesting that those documents were so required. I have to say that if people want three copies of what a person has just published, it would be nice to occasionally ask. I find it really insulting, as someone who has done all the work, to get a letter from a person I have never met requiring me to send copies to the other people who co-benefit from it. Of course, now I am expecting very soon to receive a note from the National Librarian asking for three copies of Collins Comments, the newsletter of the MP for Clevedon—myself. I have to say that it is in extreme demand. I am expecting a call right now from the National Librarian, who, no doubt, is listening to this speech, and saying: “I have to have three of those. One won’t do.”

💬 Georgina Beyer: Send them six.

Georgina Beyer is the member of the Labour Party for whom I have the most regard. She wants six copies. It can be done, but I tell her that I do mine electronically, because I am into electronic communications. It is so much quicker, so much cheaper, and saves forests. I see that Mr David Benson-Pope wants three copies, too. No, it is six copies he wants. I must say that he would learn a tremendous amount from my Collins Comments newsletter, as I note would several other people. Tonight I attended a function outside of the House and received three more requests for copies, and those were from people who do not even live in the brilliant electorate of Clevedon—

💬 John Carter: One is going to my mother.

Yes, one is going to Mr Carter’s mother. I have to say that the brilliant electorate of Clevedon has everything that any MP could want, including, I have to say, a good majority. Those are the sorts of things that make us feel particularly good, and I am proud to represent that electorate.

One of the issues Mr Donnelly raised was the Official Information Act, and he spoke tonight about the fact that the Official Information Act was brought in to stop Governments from having secret information—not that any particular Government represented in this House would have that sort of thing—and hiding it from members. At the moment, documents just turn up with great big black marks all through them—such as we get with sports funding issues. But it is great to see that there is to be some provision to allow the Rt Hon Winston Peters to talk about his side of the coalition talks, which no doubt is what Mr Donnelly was referring to. Having said that, I am sure there will be another set of documents for the other side of those particular coalition talks. No doubt at some stage Mr Peter Dunne would like to discuss his discussions with the Labour Party and the Progressive Coalition, which no doubt were so valuable. I see my friends in United Future, for whom I must say I also have very kind feelings, as they know—and they are waving to me now. I am sure they will all have their own views. There was a slight wave—a movement of the wrist. Amongst we members of the right—and I am sure those members want to come on our side; they are desperate to—that is a secret signal we have.

I commend this bill to the House. It is so nice to be able to support something that the Government has put up.

I rise to support this second reading. As we have all just been told, this bill replaces the old National Library Act and it tidies up some sections that we have all been very, very interested in over time. A number of submissions to the bill supported extending deposits in the library to cover electronic deposits. This caused a lot of discussion as we were presented with different understandings. The committee recommended some changes to help the library cope with the influx that would occur. During the financial year of the National Library the chief executive informed the committee in December last year that although the library was ready, it would still be quite a stretch, if I remember the words. United Future, nevertheless, is a little sceptical that electronic content can be captured with ease, which was the expression used. Given the shear scope of the published material available on the Internet, not to mention the fact that much of it is constantly updated—and this is something I believe that the Minister made reference to—the bill envisages the library would only harvest web content that it wanted to archive, but it obliges publishers to provide assistance to the library to read and to store information in both electronic and non-electronic form, if required. The fact that on-line publishers will now have to comply with that requirement to submit material to the library, and in a usable format, will add a compliance cost to that particular industry. It would be wise in the coming years to review the policy of lodging electronic documents as people get used to it.

We applaud the moves to exempt oral histories, as someone else pointed out, of past and present Ministers of the Crown, from Official Information Act requests. Those oral memoirs are usually lodged under the proviso that they are not to be released until a certain amount of time has passed, or sometimes until the persons are deceased. That enables contributors to speak frankly about their experiences, but the threat of an Official Information Act request on such information in their official capacity as Ministers would seriously undermine the willingness of those involved in public life to record their histories in the first place, particularly for those who are still active in their political careers. I know of one former Prime Minister who has regularly recorded his reminiscences over an extended period. That will be a fascinating source when it becomes available. We are pleased that the bill recognises the value of oral histories in building the complete picture of events in our nation’s lifetime.

Over the last few years there has been some concern about the library’s collection policies—in particular the fact that it periodically weeds books from its general collection. However, the Alexander Turnbull Library is dedicated to holding the library’s heritage collection, and collects one copy of everything published, via the legal deposit system. The National Librarian is also prevented from transferring the ownership of any documents without the approval of the Minister.

Some of the submissions expressed fears about the bill specifying that the collections bequeathed to the Crown by Alexander Turnbull must remain in the custody of the National Library at all times. This would mean that the material would not be loaned. Fortunately, the bill reaffirms the status of the Alexander Turnbull Library and ensures that its holdings are secure and are able to be loaned.

There is a wider question to be answered about the place of the National Library. The library’s stated objectives include collecting, maintaining, and making accessible national collections of documents, yet decisions on access to library resources lie with the hundreds of other libraries in the country, which have the bulk of resources and determine how they will be used. Access to international resources is now direct—library to library—without any intermediary; even the National Library, for instance. The combined collections, staffing, and expenditure in just some of the large public libraries in New Zealand, such as Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, are far greater than those of the National Library.

There is a danger, or perhaps it may be an intention, that the National Library could end up as a collection of last resort. United Future is concerned about the future of the National Library and its wonderful collections. We support this bill; we also make the suggestion that both the present and future Governments continue to think carefully about the future of that library and the ways in which it may best serve the citizens of this country.

It is a pleasure to speak on this bill. I was very pleased to be able to be on the select committee that considered this bill. Libraries are one of my favourite places. I have a very wise mother, who took her children to all the free places in town when we were very young, and libraries were one of those places; and repeating those same skills that I learnt from my mother, I did the same with my own children. It was a pleasure to participate in the debate on this bill through the select committee.

The bill replaces the National Library Act, so it is timely that we have a review of the legislation as it has stood for almost 40 years. Minister Hobbs has a special interest in this bill. I am delighted with the good work that she has done as our Minister in this regard. It is always good to work on legislation when we have a Minister who is so sincerely interested in that legislation. We were delighted to work with Marian Hobbs in progressing this bill through the select committee. The select committee worked very cooperatively, and it was a pleasure to work on the bill during those stages.

I just want to mention very briefly the aspect about the collection of electronic material. Following recommendations from the select committee the library aims to selectively collect electronic material. This will be developed following consultation with electronic publishers. We are all aware of the rapid changes that have taken place with technology, and the need for our collection methods to be modern and timely. The bill will allow the library to collect information for preservation purposes only, and any public access to it would be granted only in agreement with the publisher. That is an important safeguard included within the bill.

The bill is important because it secures our heritage for future generations. It is a more interesting aspect of human nature that as we mature we become more interested in preserving the past. The National Library most certainly plays a pivotal role in that, because having access to the historical documents of our nation is incredibly important. We are very grateful for the role that the National Library and its most skilled and expert staff have in protecting the resources for future generations and protecting the history of this nation for future generations. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House and wish it a rapid passage through its processes.

I rise to support the second reading of this bill. When looking through Hansard at the first reading speeches on the bill I was very interested to find that the first reading was also taken under urgency. The Rt Hon Wyatt Creech commented at the time that this was an important subject, but not one that justified turning the whole parliamentary system on its head. The same comment is relevant today. As a new member, I must say that I have been staggered at the legislation that comes forward during urgency. For those of us who are spokespeople for our parties for arts, culture, and heritage, it has been a busy day. We have had the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill this morning, and we now have the National Library Bill this afternoon. That says something about where the commitments lie for this Government.

The role of the National Library is an important one—that of preserving our nation’s culture, its heritage, and its literature, along with other materials that allow us to investigate or research our history. I have, on occasion, found the library very useful myself, when I needed to research topics and information before I came to Parliament. The information was often difficult to source, and the National Library certainly is a great resource. That, of course, was before I was an MP, and before I had access to the Parliamentary Library, which is an extremely valuable resource.

The commentary on the bill states that this bill replaces the 1965 Act, and provides for four things. The first of those is the clarification of the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. The Alexander Turnbull Library is currently run by trustees, but they are about to be replaced, if this legislation is passed, by guardians—not more than five people, the legislation states. The guardians will be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs.

As I read the bill, in particular subpart 3 of Part 2, it is clear to me that those new guardians will operate in an advisory capacity only. They will be responsible to the Minister, and it is the Minister, in fact, who has the power to make decisions and act. If we look at clause 16, we see that: “The purpose of the Guardians is to provide assurance to the people of New Zealand …”. Clause 17 states: “The function of the Guardians is to advise the Minister …”. So providing assurance and advice is the role of the guardians—nothing more.

The second thing the new bill provides for is addressing Māori interests in the National Library, hence the repeated references to consultation with the Minister of Māori Affairs, I presume. I would contend, in particular in the light of ACT’s “one law for all” policy, that the National Library should address the interests of all New Zealanders who have contributed to the history of our country. That of course includes Māori, but also Chinese, Europeans, and any number of nationalities that combine to make New Zealand the country it is today.

The third area this bill provides for is the clarification of the status of oral history. That is something other members have spoken about, and something not previously collected, but important, none the less, in recording our history.

The fourth area, and one I want to spend a little more time on, is that of extending the scope of legal deposit. That is to cover the area of electronic documents. Some publishers have expressed their concerns to me. Clause 30, “Notice of requirement for public documents”, worries me in that there appears to be no restriction to reasonable cost to publishers. Clause 30(1) states: “The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, require a publisher of a public document … to give to the National Librarian, at the publisher’s own expense, a specified number of copies … of the printed public document and, in the case of an electronic document, the specified number of copies of the medium that contains the document.” Another member mentioned compliance costs, and that is the area that worries me.

I have some difficulty in particular with clause 30C(4), which allows the National Librarian to make available content harvested from public websites—for example, that of stuff.co.nz or newzealandherald.co.nz—available via the Internet. That could have two implications, which I think are worth considering. The viability of some publishers’ commercial news archives would be threatened. What hope do those services have of surviving if the content they aggregate, and charge for, is available for free from the National Library via a smaller Internet-based archive?

The second concern is this: if the National Library, unintentionally it could be said, destroys the important revenue stream provided by those news archives, the publishers’ ability to continue to fund free websites will be severely tested. As a result of that, all Internet users may well be affected. That may well result in the erosion of the amount and quality of information available to the public via the Internet.

As I said, ACT supports this bill going to the Committee stage, but we will be putting forward some amendments. The first of those will be to amend the definition of restriction, in the bill, to provide for the recognition of legal restrictions that may exist for material on Internet sites. The second amendment will require the National Library to gain agreement from affected publishers, prior to the library making material available via the Internet.

As I said, ACT New Zealand does support this bill, despite the fact that the provisions covering the Alexander Turnbull Library can best be described as “fluffy”. The Minister has the power, and the new guardians fulfil an advisory capacity only. The addressing of Māori interests is, in many ways, camouflage, and certainly this legislation should cover the history of all New Zealanders. I have also covered ACT’s concerns about the legal deposits of electronic matter, but we are hopeful that amendments will deal with those concerns.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill, and I would like to pay tribute to the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. Their performance and what they have achieved over the years is truly something we should all approve of. I support the idea of the Alexander Turnbull Library remaining a separate subdivision of the National Library system. I know that it has an identity that goes way back, and that the various prominent citizens who have given their papers over to the Alexander Turnbull Library have done that on the understanding that those papers will be well protected. The library has that tradition, has a good organisation, looks after and indexes those papers very well, and makes them available to a wide number of people. In fact, when Dr Elsie Locke, my mother, died, we had representations from different libraries about where her papers would go, and it was quite clear to us after discussions among members of the family that they should go to the Alexander Turnbull Library. They have gone there and been well organised there. Its staff are in the process of completing that organisation, and we are very satisfied with what they are doing.

The thing that impresses me about the Alexander Turnbull Library, too, is not only the tradition but the support base—the volunteer base, as it were—that has developed around that library in terms of the Friends of the Turnbull Library in the various functions they have, which are well attended, the publications they put out, and their involvement with an important sector of the community in their ongoing work. It is good that, under this bill, guardians are being set up as a supportive body. I presume those guardians will be appointed from those people who are already very involved in the work of the library. It has a very important place in preserving our heritage and making it available to the public.

There is a section there on oral histories, and I know that the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library have paid much more attention to oral history, and to collecting oral histories in the libraries, over recent times. I think that is very important because a lot of our important people—people who are part of our history—do not get around to writing their autobiographies, or to having other people write biographies about them, and it is sometimes distressing when we know that their accumulated wisdom and experience will disappear if they die. It is good that there are now a lot of people around in the oral history area who are going out into the community and getting records of those people, which are now being deposited in the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library, and being well organised and made available. We can go and listen to those oral histories. That is a very good development, and it is mentioned in this bill.

There is also the question, and Marian Hobbs referred to it, about the exemptions that the Minister can make for certain categories of documents and Government documents. That is a question that relates to the National Library, the Alexander Turnbull Library, and Archives New Zealand. There are grounds for exemptions—no one is challenging that—but we have to be wary that those exemptions are not over-used, or used just because the Government is a bit embarrassed about things, or used to do the bidding of a particular Government department that wants to keep its papers unnecessarily secret, or unnecessarily secret for too long a time. We have that problem, a little bit, with our intelligence services, where, in terms of Archives New Zealand, they have been given exemptions for 25 years, and then their exemptions have been renewed for 25 years, so that virtually for a 50-year period we are not able to access any of those materials, even though a lot of them—materials that the Security Intelligence Service, for example, collects—are public domain materials: publications, leaflets, and those sorts of materials that would be valuable in an archive.

I am just referring to a problem that has been somewhat discussed by academics and by researchers. They are a bit worried about that, and recently have made submissions to the Prime Minister on this question of making a freer public deposit system for those materials, into the National Archives. I am just worried, given the reference in this bill to the “Minister granting exemptions”, and believe we have to be careful to keep an eye on that, so that it is not used as a reason, over a range of Government departments, for having long-term and broad exemptions. They all should be properly justified in terms of genuine security interests or genuine protection of people who should be protected. With those qualifications, I reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill.

DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to rise to speak very briefly in support of this bill, and to congratulate my colleague Minister Hobbs on her stewardship of the legislation. I acknowledge also the work done by other colleagues right across the political divide—some of which I have seen while serving on the select committee,.

One of the most interesting challenges that has been met is the sensible way that this pathway forward copes with the extraordinary challenges presented in terms of the capture of electronic material, in particular. That issue has been very sensitively and pragmatically handled, and I commend the bill to the House.

It gives me great pleasure to support this National Library of New Zealand legislation. I was interested to hear Mr Benson-Pope say that a sensible approach has been taken by all parties, but I note that in the first reading debate, the National Party actually opposed this bill. I believe that was for very good reasons, because at that stage a lot of technical aspects posed huge problems and for commercial reasons caused great concern, particularly for publishers, such as newspapers.

I note that this bill replaces the National Library Act of 1965, and when one thinks of the changes in technology that have occurred since 1965, there was no way that the sorts of things that the National Library would be required to look after could be envisaged for all time. Naturally enough, if one thinks of Schumpeter’s curve and the logarithmic way that new discovery is just rattling ahead in this new millennium, it is likely that in 10 or 15 years’ time—but hopefully not too soon—a new National Library bill might have to contend with things that we just cannot envisage now.

The bill deals with four major areas, and I might say at this stage that it was a pleasure working with the Education and Science Committee led by Brian Donnelly. One of the things that was a revelation to me was the National Library. I am afraid I had not visited the library, so I suggested that that be done, and we went over there. It is, indeed, an absolutely superb facility for the nation, not only in terms of its literary content—the wonderful range of books in the National Library itself, and the extraordinary collection bequeathed by Alexander Turnbull—but also the other facilities it has, such as the oral and photographic archives.

I was fascinated to learn that it is possible to go there if one wants photographs and the historical evidence that is accrued from just about any part of a large electorate like Port Waikato. I was able to get photographs from 1863 of Tuakau, Pokeno, and Rangiriri, which I now am planning to hang in my electorate office to give a feel of the history of a wide area of the Waikato. But what is just so wonderful is that this facility is accessible to all New Zealanders. One can easily access those archives, and the extremely helpful librarians will give one a range of options of how the material can be acquired, lent, etc. I just cannot underestimate for one moment how important that National Library collection is, and the same goes for the Alexander Turnbull Library.

The bill continues the National Library, and the purpose of the Alexander Turnbull Library is confirmed by the Crown’s undertaking “to preserve, protect, develop, and make accessible for all the people of New Zealand the collections of that library in perpetuity and in a manner consistent with their status as documentary heritage and taonga;”. I note that the status of the Alexander Turnbull is assured by the replacement of the present Trustees of the National Library with a new body to be called the Guardians of the Alexander Turnbull Library. When those people submitted, I was particularly taken with their sheer intelligence—maybe gentleness, but also an aspect of severity—their incredible commitment to the cause of preserving this hugely important collection, and their determination that the heritage bequeathed by Alexander Turnbull himself, and the others who subsequently bequeath to that collection, would be protected and respected in the years to come.

One of the other major areas this bill addresses is the Māori interest, and as Brian Donnelly said so eloquently, it is hugely important that in this year’s legislation—as compared with the Act of 1965, which contained no reference at all to the interests of tangata whenua or Māori—there is absolutely meaningful involvement and reference, rather than tokenism.

The area of legal deposit was perhaps one of the most contentious, and that is encapsulated in clause 30. Legal deposit is a statutory requirement, under which publishers and/or printers must provide copies of works to a national agency. The mechanism is found in the statutes of over 130 countries, so it is certainly not uncommon. Clause 30(1) states: “The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, require a publisher of a public document … to give … at the publisher’s own expense, a specified number of copies (not exceeding 3) …”.

A variety of technical aspects came out of the woodwork. One was a submission by a publisher who had a very limited publication of exquisitely leather-bound books. Those books were literally worth thousands of dollars. It would be a huge requirement were the publisher to be forced to give up three of those copies, and the bill allows for flexibility in those cases. So it is down to that detail, and appropriate detail, that the bill has reached.

I think the most difficult part was the concern about electronic transfer, and certainly the Newspaper Publishers Association was very concerned about that aspect. I note that the Dominion Post said on 9 December: “The National Library looks likely to win the right to compel anyone who publishes on the Net to help the library access and store their content. The obligation covers individuals publishing Web pages and professional publishers of subscription-based online information, who will have to provide ‘reasonable assistance’ to help the library access and store their material, if asked.” In fact, the acting chief executive of the library replied on 13 December, and the mechanisms to protect commercial rights have been worked through very well.

The last thing I would like to mention is oral history. I found this area particularly of interest, because two people I had something to do with—Hugo Manson and Judith Fyfe—spent many years taking the oral histories of prominent New Zealanders, and, in particular, former Prime Ministers. Unfortunately, that process had to be stopped because of access through the Official Information Act, but it was done with a huge amount of care for confidentiality, and respect for the people whose oral histories were taken. Hopefully, a mechanism will be worked out so that that process can be restored.

I end by saying that this is a very important bill. It has been worked through in a multiparty way, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.