Public Records Bill

I move, That the Public Records Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. This bill repeals the Archives Act and the document and archive provisions in Part 17 of the Local Government Act 1974. It reflects the changes in technology, legislation, and record-keeping practices that have occurred in the last half-century. Public records provide evidence of Government activities and are a key component of ensuring public accountability. They enhance democracy by informing citizens about issues, decision-making processes, and results. They also contribute to who we are as a nation by recording people’s experiences with Government. The growth of email and the Internet has created a new set of challenges, including the erosion of administrative record-keeping practises and the increasing complexity of recording business transactions. The bill addresses those challenges by establishing record-keeping requirements for public offices and local authorities.

Archives New Zealand was established as a stand-alone Government department in 2000. The Government strengthened the role of Archives New Zealand to enable it to provide leadership, to set standards for consistent and effective record-keeping, and to enhance communication between agencies. Public records are a key component of ensuring that Governments are accountable to society for decisions made and actions taken. Public records provide essential evidence of people’s rights and entitlements, the actions of Governments—both positive and negative—since 1840, and record a history of individuals, whānau, communities, and society as a whole. Good record-keeping within Governments improves the accountability of Government institutions by providing reliable evidence of their decisions, actions, and interactions.

Public archives are a tremendously rich resource of evidence about our collective past. They enhance New Zealanders’ sense of national identity by enabling us to piece together the ever-changing story of who we are and how we got here. Archives New Zealand has holdings of 80,000 linear metres of textual records, 750,000 photographs, 300,000 maps and plans, 1,300 works of art, comprising the New Zealand war-art collection, and 20,000 motion picture reels. Archives New Zealand is also custodian—and I notice the empty gallery—of the Treaty of Waitangi and the women’s suffrage petition.

Since the Archives Act was passed in 1957, the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act have come into being. They also provide systems for accessing and managing Government information. The Public Records Bill clarifies how those other Acts interface with the archives legislation. We have also seen the establishment of State-owned enterprises and Crown-owned companies, which have resulted in ambiguity about what agencies are covered by the Archives Act. The bill addresses this. It provides a broad definition of public office, and a mechanism to encompass any future governance models. The bill creates a record-keeping framework that will ensure that public records are managed appropriately until their authorised disposal. Disposal is a technical term in this context; it means the transfer to Archives New Zealand for permanent preservation or destruction.

The bill also ensures that there is broad coverage of the activities of Government and that public archives will be accessible. Transparent processes give the Government and the public confidence that the evidence of the Government’s actions contained in public records is properly managed. The policy for records of local authorities is similar to the framework for central government, but will reflect their community focus and autonomy from central government. This means that local authorities are not subject to the reporting or auditing requirements of the bill.

The following are key provisions. The bill confirms the duty of the Chief Archivist to exercise leadership in record-keeping in public offices and in the management of public archives in New Zealand. The bill continues the authority of the Chief Archivist to decide which Government records may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of and confirms independence from ministerial directive in discharging this duty. The bill will apply across the broad public sector to include not only public service departments but also tertiary institutions, State schools, district health boards and other Crown entities, State-owned enterprises, and offices of Parliament—amongst others. The bill provides a broad definition of records and confirms the inclusion of electronic records and non-textual media.

The bill recognises that there is a legitimate interest in decisions made about record-keeping in Government. It establishes an Archives Council, which will advise the Minister on archives and record-keeping matters. Two members of this council must have knowledge of tikanga Māori to ensure that Māori views are taken into account. There are increased consultation expectations imposed on the Chief Archivist, including a requirement for public comment to be sought on disposal recommendations. The bill continues the role of the Chief Archivist in protecting and providing access to Government records that have long-term value and that need to be kept permanently as archives. Such archives must come under the Chief Archivist’s control after 25 years, but this can happen earlier by agreement. The right of the public to inspect such archives, free of charge, is confirmed.

Where there are reasons for controlling access to public archives, such as protection of privacy, this is protected; and the public office that transferred the archives will make decisions on access according to relevant legislation, such as the Official Information Act and the Privacy Act. There will be occasions when public archives are better kept by the office that created them—for example, some specialised electronic records. The bill is flexible enough to allow these arrangements, while ensuring the archives are protected according to standards set by the Chief Archivist. Disposal decisions made under the Archives Act will remain valid through a transition provision. They will also apply to access decisions and other arrangements made for the transfer of archives to Archives New Zealand, and those also continue as if they were made under the provisions of the bill.

The bill confirms that the Chief Archivist has a role in fostering archival capacity within the community and in facilitating access to archives. The bill sets a context in which the Treaty of Waitangi is to apply in public record-keeping and specifies what actions need to be undertaken in order to comply. I commend the bill to the House.

I am pleased to stand to speak to the Public Records Bill. National will support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee. However, we certainly want to have a good look at it when it is before that committee. There are one or two issues we will have some questions about during that stage, and we will probably seek advice on them, as well.

National agrees with the underlying principle driving the bill. The purpose, as the Minister said, is to create a record-keeping framework for Government records, and we support that. Over recent years it has become so much more important that we as New Zealanders make sure that a proper record of our history is in our archives and that we properly recognise those things that are distinct and unique to us in our identity as New Zealanders. Legislative provisions that date back to 1947, given advances in technology alone, make it necessary for us now to have a look at this very important area of activity.

I want to raise a couple of points relating to some of National’s concerns. The Minister referred to the Treaty of Waitangi clause, and I acknowledge that this seems to be a new approach to issues around the treaty. I remember that when the Government was passing its health legislation in 2001—I am not quite sure about the date—a general treaty clause was proposed. I asked at the time why we should not, rather than having a generic treaty clause—which ultimately always seemed to lead to litigation, or which, on another view of it, may mean nothing at all—judge what it is we want to protect, then specifically spell that out. It seems to me that clause 7 does that. It states: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …”, then sets out what is sought to be protected.

For instance, paragraph (a) of clause 7 states that clause 11 requires the Chief Archivist to ensure that processes are in place for consulting Māori. I am not saying that we necessarily agree with that, because the issue of consultation in a range of legislation seems to have gone a bit overboard; none the less, it sets out what is considered important in respect of treaty obligations in this case. Paragraph (b) states that clause 14 requires that at least two members of the Archives Council have a knowledge of tikanga Māori, and paragraph (d) states that clause 26 recognises that an iwi-based or hapū-based repository may be approved as a repository where public archives may be deposited for safe keeping. That is interesting, and I look forward to receiving some advice from the officials in the select committee as to how that is to work and about what it actually means. It is important to recognise that many hapū and iwi have frameworks or processes whereby they keep things they consider to be of value, not just to themselves but to us as New Zealanders. So it is likely that that is an appropriate provision, as well.

As I say, National is particularly interested in clause 7. For myself, I am interested to see that it takes a different approach to the treaty and spells out what it is that the Government thinks ought to be protected, as against having some nebulous treaty clause, which, over the years, has come to mean not a hang of a lot, in some cases.

The other area is the interface between official information and public records. Under the Official Information Act, it is not an offence to destroy official information, yet the definitions of official information and public records seem to overlap. So there seems to be a gap there. If that is not the case, then we will find out soon enough. I listened to the Minister’s speech, but I do not expect that an issue such as that would necessarily be traversed in a first reading speech. I just flag with her that we possibly have an issue there, as well.

There is one other area I would like to raise, because one of my colleagues had a group come to him with an issue that touches on the Privacy Act. Archives are a record that belongs to us all after a certain time, and the bill constantly mentions access. There are people whose lifelong work, or whose job or profession, is in archival research. In fact, a lot of what we will do in the future, and the decisions we make today for the future, are based on that as well. A concern has been raised that in this bill an attempt may be made to try to restrict access, to the point where privacy issues unnecessarily impinge upon legitimate archival research. That is an area of real concern. We would not want to see that happen, and we will be scrutinising the bill’s provisions to ensure it does not. Otherwise, we certainly support the thrust of the bill. It is in the interest of all New Zealanders to make sure we have a good process for keeping records. Ostensibly, this bill appears to do that.

It is a sign of the maturity of the country when we begin to take into account and give high regard to our past. Therefore, New Zealand First supports the Public Records Bill going to the select committee. Apparently 20 years ago, I am told, such a bill was in the House, and it may be that this bill will have a similar fate. In 1984 this very matter was being discussed, and someone called a general election. Fate intervened, and 20 years later it is back here with us. I am not necessarily saying that that will be the fate of this bill, because it deserves a much better fate than that.

In looking through the years and with the knowledge of modern technology, it may be that we can say that this bill comes in the fullness of time. We have today the ability to store and restore documents and records, and a far greater knowledge of how they can be preserved long term. We see the immense value of a systematic approach, not only for central government but also for local government, in the way these matters are taken in hand. For future researchers, would-be historians, planners, and so on, this bill in time, when it is implemented and put into practice, should be a ready source of easier access. That brings me to one of the issues we do see, which is that access is maintained and is there, with some qualifications.

However, the issue in this bill that really intrigues me is that for the first time, as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu has just said, there is a properly constructed purpose clause about the Treaty of Waitangi—at long last. New Zealand First has called for that over the years, and has talked about the Treaty of Waitangi clause being—to use the old-fashioned historian’s phrase—“high-sounding nothing”, in Metternich’s words. But at long last, a bill has arrived in the House with a treaty clause that expands and sets out with clarity what that clause means for this bill with regard to the issue of public records. We in New Zealand First are pleased to see that.

Clause 7 states, in relation to the functions of the Chief Archivist and the Archives Council, what advice will guide them with regard to tikanga Māori. It also picks up the fact that there may be some unique methods of record-keeping—and there are, of course. Last of all, it states that hapū or iwi may have places where those records may reside. In respect of that, I would hope that the same access procedures are able to be carried out wherever those records reside.

We have worked through the provisions relating to functions and duties, and they seem to us to be eminently sensible and straightforward. I will not take the time of the House much longer, but I say that we hope those issues that are not so clear on first reading will become a matter of concern at the select committee. Specialists always find unique matters that are of particular and peculiar concern to them, and if those specialists are out there, we hope they will come readily to the select committee and help to put together what looks to be a sound bill, and a bill that will preserve for the future a more adequate knowledge of the past.

I am presenting this speech on behalf of my colleague Keith Locke, who cannot be with us today. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It establishes a more systematic approach to the keeping and disposal of public records, even though it still gives too much leeway to Ministers to withhold documents from the archives.

Laudably, the bill strives to achieve collection in the archives of all appropriate public documents. The new body, Archives New Zealand, will be an independent Crown entity, and there will be an advisory Archives Council. The Chief Archivist will be independent and not subject to ministerial direction. The Chief Archivist has the power to issue mandatory guidelines covering the retention and disposal of public records, and may direct local government to preserve particular records. The Chief Archivist will also arrange for independent audits of record-keeping in Government offices. There will be more a independent, systematic, and transparent approach to archive collection.

It is also good that the archives will be open to the public free of charge, although public users may have to pay photocopying costs. Free access is important because we want to encourage historical research, and the fact is that many of our amateur historians do not have much money. They are doing it for love, not profit. Many of them are retired and are living on a pension, but the product of their labours is often of great worth to the community.

Researchers get very frustrated when key materials are not in the archives or they are shut out by restrictive access rules. This is not a new problem, but wording in the new bill gives Ministers and heads of Government departments a lot of discretion in keeping material out of the public domain. It is good that there is a general provision in clause 21 for the mandatory transfer of public records after 25 years. However, this provision is immediately qualified by clause 22, which gives Ministers, after consultation with the archives Minister, the power to defer the transfer of records for any period determined by the Minister, and then gives the Minister the power to renew that deferral at any later time for any further period. The Minister can refuse to transfer documents that might prejudice security. In reality, there is little that will prejudice security 25 years after the fact, other than the identities of still-under-Government operatives. Twenty-five years ago the cold war was still raging, and Muldoon was still in power.

After 25 years, Ministers may well prevent the release of material, not for real security reasons but to protect their departments from public embarrassment. For example, I have recently received, under the Official Information Act, and at the end of quite a few requests, a memo dated 28 July 1975 from one Brian Lynch, writing on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. It reported on a meeting Mr Lynch had with the then Fretilin secretary-general, and now East Timorese Foreign Minister, Mr Jose Ramos Horta. In the memo, the secretary admits without any qualms that he lied to Mr Horta. In paragraph 4, he writes that: “Despite the confidence we displayed to the contrary, we are sure that the Indonesians have not in fact dismissed the possibility of achieving integration by force if they consider the situation requires it.” At the same time, Mr Lynch said to Mr Horta that: “He was sure that at senior Indonesian Government level, armed intervention had been ruled out.” That is, 4 months out from the Indonesian invasion, the New Zealand Government knew that it was on the cards, yet lied about it to the East Timorese. According to the documents, the content of the Lynch/Horta discussion was then passed on to the Indonesians.

We are not just talking about a ministry being embarrassed for its dishonesty. Taken together with all the other East Timor documents released in recent years, they show that the invasion of East Timor and all the agony that followed may have been avoided if the New Zealand and Australian Governments had stood up and been counted in 1975. Instead, they collaborated with the Indonesian regime, and covered it up. At the end, they wanted to keep friendly relations with the Suharto Government, even if it meant sacrificing the East Timorese people.

That is where the bill is dangerous in another way, in that one of the grounds for a Minister not transferring documents is that doing so might “prejudice international relations of the Government of New Zealand”. I argue that making public the documents on our disastrous past relations with the Indonesian dictatorship actually improves our relationship with the modern democratic forces in that country. Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade may have the opposite view, and the Minister may well act on their advice.

Whatever the outcome of that argument, the Minister can fall back on the third reason in the bill for refusing transfer of documents, which is that the transfer might “prejudice the entrusting of information” to New Zealand by a foreign Government. To continue with my Indonesia illustration, it may well be argued that we cannot release the East Timor documents because there are letters and cables in them that the Indonesian Government wants to keep secret. At first sight, any undue restrictions might be countered by the Chief Archivist’s right under the bill to inspect records held by a department. However, the Chief Archivist’s access to any classified or restricted material can be vetoed by the head of the relevant department.

To give members an idea of the outrageous restrictions that can be imposed, let us look at the Security Intelligence Service, which says that information on SIS staff cannot be released until 100 years after their deaths. Technical information on SIS operations also has a 100-year time limit, and subject files, a 50-year limit. It is precisely the most embarrassing and controversial parts of our history that we can learn the most from. An error understood is an error not repeated. How can we really learn from what the SIS may have done wrong, if we have to wait 50 or 100 years, by which time all the people who could enlighten us are well in their graves?

We need procedures to stop unnecessary delays in transferring material to the archives. The Australian Law Reform Commission, for example, has proposed independent review bodies to stop material staying classified well beyond the normal archives deadline. It says that those reviews should continue at 5-year intervals. The commission has hit the nail on the head when it says that: “Information must not be classified for extraneous reasons—for example, to conceal breaches of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; to prevent embarrassment to a person, organisation, or agency.”

One might argue that we have the Official Information Act process with recourse to the Ombudsman, which applies to most information still held by Government departments, and that is a useful fallback. But for historians, that is always of limited use, because it is often hard to know exactly what to ask for in documents one has never seen, and departmental officials are used to playing sophisticated games with the inquirer. In any case, someone writing an interesting history is looking for the unexpected; something that he or she did not know about, and would not think to ask for.

Open archives are much more valuable for such research. There is one reason why we do not want many outs for the Ministers and top bureaucrats in the Public Records Bill. Hopefully, we will see several contributions from researchers, historians, and lawyers in the select committee process to address any of the bill’s weaknesses in that respect.

I rise for the ACT party in this first reading of the Public Records Bill, which, as the Minister introducing it believes, shows an increasing respect or reverence for our history, in what she calls the ever-changing story of who we are and how we got here. A speech like that on a bill that most members would consider very technical, dry, and non-contentious, is a chance to reflect.

I have to say that I enjoy history. I love the magazine that we get from Antrim House every month or two. I even confess to enjoying Sounds Historical—and I can see a lip curling on the other side of the House because Mr Hughes would consider that that was a typical fogeyish pleasure—and I really do enjoy historical tourism. I can spend days in museums.

But I worry about this bill. I worry about the preoccupation of New Zealand with its history, and I worry about the claim that that shows some form of maturity. Exploring a contentious or glorious past, examining our navels over and over again, and taking enormous care about recording our history might actually be quite irrelevant if, in fact, we are too immaterial or irrelevant a people for anyone, including our children, to even stay around. Let us think about the times one goes on foreign travels to see those mysterious and vast ruins and jungles of Asia, or artefacts in South America and so many other places where people have lived for thousands of years and transformed the landscape. But nothing is remembered, and the reason—completely unlike the history of, say, the United Kingdom, Rome, or many of the countries dominant in the world today—is simply that history is irrelevant if the people who think it is important are no longer relevant.

I worry that we will put a great deal of effort into keeping archives, when we have, in fact, lost respect for the truth—respect for the idea that it really does matter what we are storing. Even the casual phrase the Minister used to introduce this bill: “the ever-changing story of who we are and how we got here”, has been changing because of political correctness. It has been changing because parts of our history are inconvenient. It does not matter how good our archives are, if we think—as Dr Michael Bassett recently told us the Waitangi Tribunal thinks—that history should be at the service of modern politics, and that rewriting the story is OK if it serves a valuable purpose. If we can decry the efforts and good intentions of our forebears because we now hold different values, then there is not much point in having a really flash Archives Act or public records legislation, and in storing it all. If we really have become insignificant, our songs and stories will pass into dust, whatever we do to try to preserve them.

I also worry about this bill because I wonder who will bother to read most of the stuff. The attention span of our audiences is about 15 seconds for most items of what is considered important news. I contrast that with, say, the Dominion of only 50 years ago, which could have had tens of column inches reporting a debate on a significant topic and properly reporting the nuances of each member’s speech. We were a more serious people. Maybe the Pope is right—if we are to spend our time in playing sport and being entertained, then there is not much point in keeping enormous records. [Interruption] Maybe he has a record!

Worse, we do not believe in history when we pass legislation like the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which was passed this year, and under which the Government instructs probably around 700,000 New Zealanders to lie about their past. What use is public records legislation and a pretended respect for history when the Government passed a bill only 6 months ago that says to 700,000 New Zealanders that when they are asked about a criminal record, they should lie and say they do not have one. It is absolutely hypocritical for us as a people to be doing that.

It is really interesting how things disappear by rewriting history in that way, simply because—and here is the justification that was offered—it shows compassion and it is proper to forgive. How significant is it—of what worth is it—to oblige local authorities all over the country to keep their records for 25 years when, if the records become inconvenient and offend someone, the ethos of the Government we have now is to wipe them, suppress them, make sure they are rewritten, pretend they do not exist, and airbrush them?

That is what happens when we show, through a Government measure, the truth that history does not matter. It may seem a bit of stretch to raise the matter of the Public Records Bill in relation to the clean slate legislation the Government forced through such a short time ago, but I believe that it shows a deep hypocrisy in the elite, ruling classes of this country when they can pretend such respect for history towards things that do not matter, then pass a law to instruct people to lie about things that do matter.

I also sound a note of caution that there are some pretty broad discretions in this bill, about declaring things as having to be compulsorily stored. We should remember just how hard it is now to store things. Really interesting things disappear. I am sure we have all had the experience of losing a document we have worked on for a very long time. It vanishes because electronic storage is hard for us to understand and control—and that is the situation when we really want to keep a document. How accurate will our future records be—of what we really thought and meant—when electronic records will be so easily culled, and for good reason? People will simply not want ever to dredge through an awful lot of the material now being generated in a modern bureaucracy, including material of a modern local authority.

So I ask the select committee when it looks at this bill to consider and keep in mind the reality of trying to require people to guard and protect records that they do not think are important at the time, when it is quite possible that the records that really matter—the records that show what was really thought and why things were really done—will be ephemeral or transitory. Such records can be removed or may not even be kept.

The other thing I was struck by was the Green member’s contribution that the unintended consequence of trying to force more openness than the actors in an event would want, is that they simply will not keep records. In relation to the Official Information Act, we have already had something of that effect. People do not keep minutes they do not want disclosed. Even that record from 1974 of the deliberately deceptive comment to the Fretilin member in East Timor, referred to in the Green member’s speech, may well not have been kept today, because it would be known that a record like that would be accessible under the Official Information Act.

So we should not think there are free lunches; we should not think there are costless solutions. I hope the select committee, when it looks at this bill, remembers that if it imposes any significant or too heavy obligations, the likely result will be that the record will either never be created or will mysteriously disappear. The difficulty of telling whether it is a mysterious and unintended disappearance or a deliberate disappearance will be too great for anyone to revisit. I hope the select committee will be realistic in looking at this bill, worthy though its intentions are.

I just want to take a brief call in the first reading of the Public Records Bill. United Future wishes to see this bill go through to the select committee. By and large, we are quite impressed with both the content and purposes of this bill. We have been alerted to a history that has occurred over the last 47 years, and it is probably good at this stage to bring it into the 21st century with an appropriate update and empowerment in terms of record-keeping. To that end, we are very happy to see this bill progress.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, areas of concern have been raised. The select committee in doing its task will probably look at those, and I hope will seriously consider some of the matters that have already been raised.

There are a couple of other matters that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and the select committee. One has to do with clause 14, which deals with the Archives Council. The clause states what the composition of the council ought to be, and subclause (3)(b) insists that there are at least two people on it who have a knowledge of tikanga Māori. I do not think anyone should have any problem with that, but I am concerned that it may be limiting when we compare it with clause 7 that talks about the well-defined Treaty of Waitangi rights and purposes.

There are other great peoples and languages in New Zealand. For instance, not too long ago we were looking at the role of the Chinese population as a wave of workers in our country, and this Parliament has made an apology to that population over some of the issues that took place. If I recall correctly, we made a clear statement to the Chinese people that we wanted to honour them.

I am sure, then, that some of the archiving of our history will require the use of other linguistic skills. Therefore, we need people on the Archives Council—or at least access to such people written into that clause—who can understand the languages of some of the other groups that have settled in New Zealand—Yugoslavs come to mind. It may be that we should not limit that clause just to the current position; so I would like the select committee to look at who is required to be on the council.

Other clauses worth looking at that I want to draw to the attention of the select committee are clauses 61 and 62—in particular, clause 62, which deals with penalties. I wonder whether the amounts of the fines—in the case of an individual $2,000, and in every other case a maximum of $5,000—will be adequate deterrents, and whether they will help in maintaining archives in New Zealand. Certainly, I think that that value system should be looked at.

It is on that note of referring those items to the attention of the select committee that I say on behalf of United Future that this bill is really worthwhile for our nation. I commend it to the next stage.

National also will support this bill going to the select committee. The Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand identified the purposes and objectives of the bill, and we have no difficulty with them. However, we do have some concerns about the proposition that I will flag now, and we will be looking closely at what submitters have to say when they have the opportunity to make their submissions.

The major issues that we contend need to be looked at more closely include the Treaty of Waitangi clause, which specifically identifies what are treaty issues rather than normal forms of the wording. We will have to pursue that further. The second point is the interface between official information and public records under the Official Information Act. It is not an offence to destroy official information, yet the definitions of “official information” and “public record” seem to overlap.

So there are some concerns. I note the Minister is still in the House. Those two areas are of concern to us, but I also note the work that was done way back in the earlier days when submissions took place in 2000 and 2001. I have here the submissions on the draft discussion paper on the proposed bill. They date back to June 2001. A number of issues were raised at that time. I will not ask the Minister about them now, because I know the time will come during the select committee stage and the Committee of the whole House.

I want to flag that a number of issues and concerns were expressed. Submitters were concerned that not enough time was spent in going through this. The No. 1 concern was that the process leading to the development and circulation of the draft discussion paper did not permit sufficient time for stakeholders to fully debate the issues raised. The ad hoc committee was convened to debate the proposition that was ultimately circulated. The result posed more questions than it answered. It is a very telling point that the result posed more questions than it answered and was short on firm proposals.

So I now flag to the Minister and officials that there are a number of questions we will want answers to. During the select committee stage an organisation like the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand will hopefully be a submitter, along with others. I have a list of those who made proposals to the draft proposition.

I am also specifically concerned about the carry-through into the bill from the existing legislation, the Archives Act. Specifically, I am looking at section 16(2) of the Act, which requires the preparation of schedules of classes of public archives that are considered to be suitable for destruction, and section 16(1), which permits the Chief Archivist to authorise the immediate destruction of any specified classes of public archives. That is an area that, along with section 17—in particular, section 17(2)—requires lists to be prepared of specified public archives or classes of public archives that are not worth permanent preservation.

At this stage National is happy to support this bill through to a select committee. I know there are some technical issues that will need to be worked through, and we will deal with those at the select committee.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The House adjourned at 5.47 p.m.