National Library of New Zealand (Te PunaMātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill

I move, That the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a third time. This bill replaces the current National Library Act of 1965. It clarifies the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library, and states that the Crown is to continue to own the Alexander Turnbull Library collections in perpetuity. A new body, the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library, will provide assurance to the people of New Zealand about that library’s collections and services. The bill has been amended to allow for the temporary loan of items from the Alexander Turnbull Library’s collections for exhibitions in New Zealand or overseas.

The bill establishes the Library and Information Advisory Commission. That body has the brief of advising the Minister on the rapidly changing field of libraries and information, and of providing a national and an international overview. That move supports a more outward-looking National Library, empowered by the legislation to work alongside other bodies with related aims.

Māori interests are also addressed in the bill. The provisions go well beyond the addition of the library’s already commonly used Māori name and the inclusion of Māori names for the bodies established by the bill. Any person exercising powers and functions under this bill is required to protect the collections as documentary heritage and taonga, and all references to knowledge and information in this bill are paralleled by references to taonga Māori.

In passing this bill, this Parliament will be just ahead of the United Kingdom in extending legal deposit to cover electronic as well as print materials. All around the world there is agreement that libraries must take appropriate steps to ensure that countries’ documentary heritage, which is increasingly presented and stored in electronic form, is collected and preserved and is accessible for future generations. What has been at issue is how the commercial interests of publishers can be safeguarded. It is acknowledged that access to electronic material is a very different matter from managing access to a limited number of copies of printed material.

The world of information and communications technology changes at a dizzying rate, and this bill has been designed to try to avoid the need for frequent revision to accommodate such changes. Those issues are addressed by providing for legal deposit requirements to be made by ministerial requirements that have the status of regulations under the Regulations (Disallowance) Act. Books and other print material will continue to be collected as comprehensively as possible, in similar fashion to the current arrangements, while electronic materials online and off-line will be addressed selectively by separate requirement. That requirement will be made following consultation with affected publishers about format, and about terms and conditions of access.

The final matter addressed by the bill is an amendment to the Official Information Act to deal with a conflict between that Act and certain oral histories commissioned by the library. With the passage of this bill, the National Librarian will be required to comply with the conditions of access made by those donating such histories to the library.

On behalf of the Hon Marian Hobbs, I would like to express my thanks and hers to the Education and Science Committee for its detailed and collaborative work on that aspect of the bill, as well as to the library community and the information community for their positive contributions. I would also like to thank the committee of advisers that the Minister called together, chaired by Dr Lydia Wevers, who have advised all the way through the process on this bill, particularly on the protection of the Alexander Turnbull Library, the Government’s relationship to that collection, and the ongoing safeguarding of it.

This bill fulfils a promise made when Labour came into power in 1999 both to secure the Alexander Turnbull Library and its collection’s unique status, and to support the National Library as an institution of central and primary significance in New Zealand’s creative life and economy. We are pleased that the issues for the modern library and for the protection of our evolving heritage have engaged the interest and support of members on all sides of this House. The library community is eagerly awaiting the passage of this bill, and I commend it to the House.

I rise to support the bill, and I am very pleased to be able to commend the Minister for her comments on the fact that all parties in the House have supported this bill all the way through. I would particularly like to commend the members of the National Party who were on the Education and Science Committee, Simon Power and Dr Paul Hutchison. I note that Dr Hutchison had the brilliant idea, as a good practical man—he was formerly an obstetrician before coming to this House—that we should have a look at the library before we considered a bill about it. There is nothing like a little bit of fieldwork, so to speak. [Interruption] I note that young Darren Hughes is making a comment, which is good. It is good to see that he is working.

Library people—I note that there are several here today, and hopefully many are listening at work—are a special breed of people. They are the people who, in many ways, keep a lot of our culture together. Culture is not just about the ability to play a violin, to do a particular dance, or to make a particular food. It is actually a lot about the way we live. Specific mention has been made about the need to clarify the status of oral history under the Official Information Act, because it is very, very important for the history of New Zealand and for the emerging of a New Zealand culture that we actually understand the histories and the reasons that certain things happened in this country, and particularly also in politics.

We all come from families that have oral histories. Some particular cultures in New Zealand have more of a history of oral culture because they did not actually have a culture that had writing or some other form of written communication, and for them in particular, oral history is most important. However, today with our Official Information Act and Privacy Act, it is also incredibly important that oral histories are kept because a lot of people do not want to write down too much in case it comes back to haunt them. I note Annette King is looking up at that comment.

It is particularly pleasing to have a bill once in a while that we can actually support. I note the work of Mr Brian Donnelly, who is here today and who was the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee, and who helped steer this through. It is always difficult, I am sure, for any Government to be able to get full party support on a bill, and it is very nice that we can finally say that there is in fact a promise that Labour made that it actually kept, but obviously with the help of all the other parties in the House. [Interruption] I can see that that particular member is now awake.

I would particularly like to commend the bill to the House, and to say that the National Party is particularly pleased to be able to support it and the librarians who do the wonderful work at the National Library.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I call Bernie Ogilvy.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I realise that we have a bit of an energy crisis, but the lobby is now in darkness. I wanted to have a look at the Official Information Act—I wanted to read it—but I cannot actually see in the lobby to be able to find the volume. It is a serious question. Turning the lights down so far that the lobby is in such darkness that members cannot get access to Acts is ridiculous—

💬 David Parker: Use the switch.

The member says to use the switch, but they have actually been switched off. I think that the lobby lights should be turned up a bit so that I can actually find the Act I am looking for.

I support the member; I think the lights are turned down a little bit too low for safety and comfort.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. I am going to direct that the lights be turned up to sufficient luminosity to enable members to go about their work.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is just a clarification of the order of speaking. In allocating speeches, the Speaker has consistently ruled that the United Future party is not a member of the Government—it occurred today during question time. Therefore I raise the question of why, in this particular case, the call has been given to United Future given the size of our party and given the role that New Zealand First played in terms of chairing the select committee. It is a matter of clarification; that is all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. The procedure we run through is: first, the Minister is called; we go to National, as it is slightly bigger than New Zealand First; we then go back to Labour or United Future. It is normally a Labour call, but it is either/or, and that is why we are there. Next we will come to New Zealand First, because it is well recognised that New Zealand First is the second-biggest Opposition party. We have always done that—certainly all this year. That is why the call is not going to United Future in its own right; that party is combined with Labour for this purpose. The next call was really Labour, after National.

I rise to support the third reading of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Bill. As a member of the Education and Science Committee, I regard it as certainly one of the highlights of my introduction to Parliament to see my way through such a bill held in such affection. One of the things that certainly stood out during the time spent on this bill was the invitation to visit the National Library as well as the Alexander Turnbull Library. As we all went, we became very conscious of the value, the history, and the tasks that everybody was doing there. In fact, I was so impressed that I made a recommendation to the Clerk of the House that in the future when new MPs begin, they all do a tour of the National Library in order to understand something of what is available both to us as MPs and to the nation as a whole.

One of the things that I was most interested in and was able to see completed was that the legal deposit was extended to include electronic documents. That was a most useful inclusion and extension into this bill. Of course, we have to realise—as those on the select committee realised, and as those in the National Library will realise—that for those who live in far-flung regions of the country and are beyond practical access to local libraries, resources such as a national database, which is electronic and non-electronic and which is now accessible via the Internet, has the potential to be incredibly valuable to everybody. Because of that, we all felt very strongly that this had to be one of the highlights and purposes for strengthening this bill.

The other thing that really stood out was the effort to share the treasures that lay within the library itself. I know that this bill does not address, as yet at least, this whole matter in full. It is one of those questions that will, I think, be a challenge for the National Library to extend itself beyond just what it has been doing in the past. I know it was the heart intention of one of those who made submissions that that certainly would be one of the great things that will occur as this bill is put in place. I certainly commend this bill to the House on behalf of United Future. As long as the present Government and future Governments think very carefully about the future of the library and the ways in which it best serves the citizens of this country, this is a bill that will for ever be an encouragement for our nation.

First, I want to make it clear that my point of order earlier was for clarification, not because I wanted to have priority over the previous speaker. New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill. We have in fact been supporting it in a practical way through its processes. A couple of members have mentioned the trip that the select committee made to the National Library. The library really is an icon. It is an incredible facility that New Zealand has. It is an invaluable national treasure. It preserves our cultural heritage. It preserves it by keeping material that tells us not only about what people did at certain times but also about what they thought, what really drives us as a nation, and what defines us as a nation.

It is really important that this bill is enacted, because the existing organisational structure created some serious tensions within the organisation of the National Library itself, around the governance of the Alexander Turnbull Library, and around how they related to each other. New Zealand First believes that this does clarify those relationships, and also the National Library’s operations and functions in terms of preserving our heritage, ensuring that there is access to it—and there are still issues about access for people in rural areas—and protecting and developing our heritage, which is so important. We congratulate the Friends of the Turnbull Library and the members of the National Library who went through some very hard times in coming to some conclusions and arrangements by which we will be able to move into the future.

The second area of considerable debate and consideration was around the legal deposit of electronic publications. With the degree of electronic publications today, to ignore the issue of legal deposits would really be to miss out on a huge portion of our current knowledge and heritage, etc. There are some issues around copyright. The Newspaper Publishers Association of New Zealand was very concerned about the possibility that it would have stuff that different organisations had contracted in from overseas agencies, etc., which the library would be able to access and which would then be accessed by other organisations.

Firstly, the National Library does not want a minute-by-minute update on every piece of information—it could not handle that; there would be an information overload—and, secondly, it would be inconsistent with the very purpose of the National Library to enable that access. It is now working on protocols in a constructive and cooperative fashion to ensure that the needs of all parties are met regarding that matter.

I also raise the issue of oral history. Certainly, within Māori heritage, oral history is of extreme importance, and it is extremely important that it is taken down and recorded in an appropriate fashion. The other issue relates very much to members of this House, where the practice has always been to get an oral tape of an outgoing Prime Minister, with the understanding that the tape would be kept for 50 years, and that that would be accessible under the Official Information Act. As a result of that understanding, there would obviously be reluctance by members leaving the House to be as open and honest as they possibly could be.

Personally, I am still aggrieved by the fact that the full history behind the negotiations in 1996 has never been made available to the public. As a result, the public are in error in terms of their understanding of the mechanisms and rationale behind some of the decisions that were made at that particular time.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Correct the record right now. Tell us all.

I am running out of time. I just want to mention that, within the bill itself, there is a protection for people who are giving oral histories. A person giving an oral history can lay down conditions, and the National Library has to stick by those conditions that are set down at the time the person provides the information. It is very important that we ensure that protection—not only for politicians, but also in regard to Māori history.

New Zealand First has some misgivings about the writing of the bill, and with the way that some of the language used in the bill expresses some issues around what people are thinking. For example, the Māori Television Service Bill, which has just been debated, has a clear title. When it refers to particular organisations that have a Māori name—such as Te Pūtahi Paoho—it uses that name. But in this bill there is confusion: people are trying to be so politically correct that they are corrupting the English language. For instance, the Māori name for the National Library is put in the title of the bill, which is in keeping with Māori interests, but a lot more has to be done with it than that.

Of even more concern is the fact that, with some of the bodies that have been set up, there is a blending together of Māori and English. For example, the bill refers to the “Library and Information Advisory Commission Ngā Kaiwhakamārama i ngā Kohikohinga Kōrero”; what does that actually mean? It is not as if the second part is in brackets as if it is a translation of the original; it is all blended in together. What is even worse is that there used to be the Friends of the Turnbull Library, but now we have come up with this other thing, which is called the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library—Māori and English are all blended into one.

The Māori Language Commission raised various concerns about what we are doing with the English language here. English is very rich, because it has the facility to import terms and expressions from other languages, and to make them part of the English language. We have done that in New Zealand English with words like “whare”, and “Māori” itself, which have been imported into the language and which have become part of the English language. Yet what we have here is a word like “taonga”, which is not referring to Māori treasures, but which is now being asked to refer to everything that is in the library. If that is the case, when we get to “Mātauranga”, and it comes across into English, why not just use the word “Mātauranga”? We know what that is referring to in English—but, no, that is not what is done here. The bill says “Mātauranga Māori”.

There is a lack of rigour in the thinking behind the language that is being used in this bill, and that concerns us, because it then raises questions about what is behind the bill. For example, if the Minister of Māori Affairs and Te Puni Kōkiri can come up with a bill for this House that does not make use of strange little language mechanisms, and which does not corrupt either the Māori or English language, then why do we have a National Library bill that does?

As I say, we have some very real concerns. We asked what is meant by “Mātauranga Māori”, and we asked whether a translation of Shakespeare into Māori would be mātauranga Māori, or whether Witi Ihimaera’s work—which is mātauranga to me—would be considered mātauranga Māori, even though it is written in English. I asked what is being referred to here, and the advisers could not give me an answer. That raises some questions about some fuzziness and a lack of rigour in the thinking behind this bill.

New Zealand First is saying there needs to be some more rigorous thinking around all those language issues, and around all the treaty issues. We should not just subscribe to those issues as though they are a new religion, but establish what the realities are, and what the outcomes of some severe, rigorous thought would be. Nevertheless, we will be fully supporting this bill.

I have just read the select committee report, and I think it is a very good report. Members from all different parties in this House came together to work on it, because this is an institution that is so well respected in our country, and people know what a pivotal role they play in being the keepers and the guardians of all the materials that make up the story of our country. The people who work within the library have a very special role for us in this House and for our country, and it is appropriate that we update the Act of Parliament that governs that institution, because the current legislation is nearly 40 years old. Parliament has come together to pass a new bill for a modern age, where the kind of information the library is responsible for has changed hugely.

When the 1965 legislation was being debated by this Parliament, the idea that information would be stored on CD-ROM, on websites, or in an electronic form would not have been considered by lawmakers. This bill brings those forms of storing information very firmly within the ambit of the National Library, just as books, periodicals, and magazines have been in past times.

I am very interested in the work that the Library and Information Advisory Commission, which is established under this bill, will do in the future. It will provide the Minister with advice on the rapidly changing field of information—not only here at home, but also abroad. The bill not only recognises all the good work that has been done by Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa in the past, but also sets it up well for the future. I support the bill’s third reading, and I wish all involved with our National Library the best for the future.

One observation I made during the Committee stage of this bill, and, indeed, during its second reading, was that MPs wondered why the National Library legislation was getting priority. I notice that it has been dealt with under urgency during most stages, and, in looking at the Hansard, I note that a comment was made that a bill going through Parliament can cost up to $800,000. When one looks at this bill, one sees that there is really nothing in it that requires legislation. There is no reason that the National Library could not proceed. There is only one requirement in this bill, and only one reason the bill is going through Parliament, and I call it the “Helen Clark protection clause”.

In fact it is quite clear that our Prime Minister has been giving an oral history. She gives it every month. In that oral history she has set out frankly all the coups and other things that go on within the Labour Party, believing that it would never be discovered. She found out 2 years ago that actually all of those documents were discoverable under the Official Information Act.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Ha, ha!

I ask the Hon Judith Tizard whether that is correct. The Prime Minister discovered that it was all discoverable under the Official Information Act. If we go to schedule 3 we find that it states, under “Official Information Act 1982 (1982 No 156)”, the following: “Omit from paragraph (e)(ii) of the definition of official information the word ‘; and’ and substitute the word ‘; or’. Add to paragraph (e) of the definition of official information: ‘(iii) any oral history provided to the National Library of New Zealand …”. This is the “Helen Clark Protection Bill”. It costs $800,000. I would like to know what is in that official information, which today could still be discovered but will not be able to be once it is gazetted, that Helen Clark thinks the House should be put into urgency in order to—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Eh?

No, I realise that the House is not in urgency today but this bill is getting priority. Here we are back from the Easter break, and the most important matter facing the House is to pass a bill in which, if one looks at it, the only real change we are making to the statute law of New Zealand is that no longer is an oral history given by a person discoverable under the Official Information Act. The only oral histories that have been given that any of them would be worried about are the oral histories given by our Prime Minister. I understand she has done it, thinking that conditions can be put on it that that oral history cannot be looked at until well after she has gone, that she is intending to write her history based on it, and that she was devastated to discover that other historians would be able to get it.

I hate to break it to Helen Clark at this late stage after she has spent $800,000, but it is my view that her oral histories are discoverable through High Court actions. I expect—Governments regularly get involved in High Court actions—that sooner or later some barrister is going to realise that in the oral histories of the National Library are the accounts by the Prime Minister of what really went on. I suspect that we will discover all sorts of things. For example, we might find some very, very interesting things about how this Government has been handling State-owned enterprises and how it has been taking all the money rather than building new electrical generation. If we were to go into the oral history we could well find that information there. We might discover, for example, the answer to one of the great mysteries—why is Judith Tizard in Cabinet?

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I’m not.

That is right. Why is she a Minister? Why does she carry the Prime Minister’s handbag? It may all be in the oral history. I have no doubt that the real reason is thoroughly embarrassing.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Why did I win Auckland Central and why did you get the sack?

It is very interesting that the Minister thinks that is the reason. She says it is because she got Auckland Central and I got sacked.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Auckland Central and Wellington Central.

That is an interesting reason, as well. The Minister is now telling us that it had something to do with Wellington Central. I thought that she was the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues. Every time I get jammed on the motorways in Auckland I think: “Thanks to Judith Tizard, nothing is moving.” No doubt if we were to have a look at the oral histories we might see the frustration that our Prime Minister no doubt feels with the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues, because the longer that Judith Tizard has been in charge of the traffic the slower it has gone.

It is very interesting that we are spending $800,000 of taxpayers’ money in order to declare that an oral history is no longer official information. We have not had from any Minister an admission that that is what we are doing, nor have we had at any stage in this bill a justification for it. We either believe in Official Information Acts or we do not. The Official Information Act actually states that all information that Ministers have, including information they have in their heads, is official information and ought to be able to be discoverable by the public.

I have listened to members talk about how important information is, but we have discovered in a National Library bill that we are passing legislation stating that those interesting documents are not available. I have to say in fairness to Helen Clark that Jim Bolger was also devastated to discover that all of his documents were discoverable under the Official Information Act, and he apparently was very loquacious in giving his oral histories. It is probably fortunate for both Mr Bolger and Helen Clark that no historian or member of the media tumbled to the fact that if they had put in Official Information Act requests for their oral histories we could have discovered what Helen Clark really thinks of George Bush and why she really is going to Europe. We might have found out all sorts of things about what the Labour Party’s real policies are, but now, thanks to this bill, Helen Clark’s oral histories are a State secret that cannot be revealed.

Further into the bill there is a very interesting statement. Clause 10 states: “(2) If an oral history has been provided to the National Library by a person on conditions (for example, conditions relating to access to the information)”—I bet she has got them—“that have been agreed to in writing by, or on behalf of, the National Librarian, the Crown and its agents (including the National Librarian) must comply with those conditions. (3) This section—(a) applies whether or not the oral history was created or acquired by, or on behalf of, the Crown; and (b) does not limit the Archives Act 1957.”

That is what this bill is all about. I say to the Minister promoting the bill that if there is a good argument as to why Helen Clark’s reminiscences should be kept secret for as long as she says, why were we not told openly and frankly that this is why the bill has been given urgency—that that is why the Government regards this bill as the most urgent matter in front of the nation? What is in Helen Clark’s oral history that requires us to pass a special law to make sure that it remains secret? Why were Ministers not open and frank with the committee and the House as to the real reason for this bill that members have described as a feel-good bill? The rest of it is a feel-good bill, but with two clauses in it to make Helen Clark feel good that New Zealanders are not to know the real history of this Labour Government.

This is a Government that says it is in favour of history and that it is in favour of telling all, yet here it is passing a bill to keep Helen Clark’s real history secret. I suspect that when it is finally opened, probably in 80 years’ time, we will discover a whole lot of reasons for Helen Clark thinking that Parliament should spend $800,000 keeping her oral history secret.

After listening to that speech, all I can suggest is that the bats are a bit loose in the belfry. Winston Peters is the conspiracy theorist around this place, and Mr Prebble does himself a disservice in trying to emulate him. I have had the pleasure of speaking on this bill before, and the pleasure of sitting on the Education and Science Committee. We listened to very good submissions and advice we received on the bill. I know that the New Zealand library community is looking forward to this bill receiving its royal assent. I think the best thing we can do as members of Parliament is shut up, sit down, and get on with it.

On behalf of the Green Party, I would like to say how pleased I am to see this National Library bill go through its third and final reading this afternoon—almost a year since it was first introduced to the House in May 2002. I am sure there will be a sense of relief, and, indeed, celebration once this bill is passed, given the years of uncertainty and, at times, distress faced by supporters of both the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library over the last decade or so. My heart has gone out to employees and friends of the two libraries, who have had, for example, to try to stop the destruction of material, the selling-off of books, the cutting of funding, the casting-out of good staff, and so on. The cultural devastation, which peaked in the “managerialist” era of the late 1990s, has cast a long shadow over New Zealand’s recent library history.

We are indeed fortunate to have had a Minister and a Government in power who have an understanding of the critical role that national libraries play in our society, economy, history, and culture. I thank Marian Hobbs, and those who worked with her, for putting this bill forward, in what I really believe was just the nick of time. The National Library bill is the culmination of years of hard work, negotiation, and compromise among and between people in organisations with a whole range of different vested interests, but who all share a commitment to preserving and clarifying the status of both libraries.

This was brought home to members of the Education and Science Committee during the hearings process when we heard what might truly be called a fairly eclectic assortment of heartfelt submissions from a whole variety of different viewpoints. I would like to pay my respects to all the submitters who made the effort to contribute to trying to improve the bill, and I am glad that quite a large number of changes were subsequently made, as a result of points raised by submitters. I realise that some people have been frustrated that their particular concerns have not been picked up on, but a number of the issues raised were important but were not within the scope of the bill. I hope some of these will be dealt with elsewhere, as appropriate.

Overall, the bill has presented a long-awaited opportunity to tidy up and make clear not only the overarching governance arrangements for the libraries but also a number of organisational details, which are critical for implementing the underlying intent of the legislation to safeguard, maintain, and enhance the National Library and Alexander Turnbull Library in all aspects of their collections and work. I hope future Governments will not meddle with what is being established here today, until such time as it is truly necessary to do so. The libraries deserve a long period of stability in which to build again on their many strengths, and to incorporate the new provisions of the bill into the detail of their daily work.

I think this is an appropriate moment to acknowledge the new National Librarian, Penny Carnaby, and the sense of optimism she brings to her position at this critical juncture in the library’s history. I would also like to acknowledge particularly the Friends of the Turnbull Library, who have fought so hard and so long for the Alexander Turnbull Library to maintain and regain its rightful place as a unique, independent, and invaluable part of our country’s heritage.

While I am on acknowledgments, I would also like to thank all the library staff who gave up hours of their day to take select committee members on our own private and very informative tour, at a time of day when I am sure they all had better things to do. I never like to assume that the work of MPs is more important than anyone else’s work, but I hope the bill we are passing tonight will be the best concrete expression we could give of the genuine appreciation and support many of us have for the invaluable and irreplaceable work of the two libraries.

Bill read a third time.