Public Records Bill

I move, That the Public Records Bill be now read a third time. This bill will repeal the Archives Act and the document and archives provisions of the Local Government Act 1974. At this point I note that the Hon Michael Cullen tried to amend this Act the last time he was in Cabinet. This has had a long gestation. The amendment to that Act is almost an archival gestation. However, we are here.

This bill will improve the standard of Government record-keeping across the wider public sector. An improvement in record-keeping improves the accountability of Government organisations, enhances democratic participation in government, and contributes to New Zealand’s national identity. If anyone thinks that State-owned enterprises are somehow away from being accountable, talk about that with the Waikato people who are so concerned about the possible actions of one State-owned enterprise. They will want to know how accountable that enterprise is to their livelihoods.

Record-keeping is an essential part of efficient government as it supports day-to-day operational, legal, and administrative requirements. Information is a valuable resource, and good management of it through record-keeping is simply good business practice. Taken together, and over time, those records ensure that accountability, participation, and national identity are advanced to the benefit of all New Zealanders. I stress again that record-keeping is simply good business practice. Often we are accused by the other side of somehow not understanding those business practices. If one talks to people in business, the difference is that they will destroy a record, not keep it. If they keep the records in the first place, it is the archiving of those records. There is no extra cost in that particular job.

The role of the Chief Archivist, which is to assist public offices and local authorities to achieve good record-keeping, has been strengthened in the legislation. She will be able to set standards across the public sector, including mandatory standards that will ensure that the key outcomes are achieved. Reporting and auditing provisions in the bill provide more information on record-keeping, which will enable a more effective assessment of how public offices are meeting their accountability requirements. The independence of the Chief Archivist, when making disposal decisions, has been continued from the Archives Act, which is an important check on the powers of Government officials. I really understand and respond to the comments that have been made by a previous archivist that there may well be a stalemate—a matter raised by the Green Party. This is a question of working with people to achieve, in the end, a mediated solution.

An advisory body, the Archives Council, will be established to work with the Chief Archivist, and will include two members with in-depth knowledge of tikanga Māori. This council will provide me with independent advice concerning record-keeping matters.

The bill also clarifies the relationship between archives legislation and the Official Information Act. Again, the Official Information Act is that additional safety for individuals, who can apply to the Ombudsman—as was stated in the Hugh Price case—to have those records released.

This bill confirms and extends the coverage of the Archives Act to State enterprises, local authorities, and all Crown entities, including tertiary education institutions. This will mean that full and accurate records are required to be created in all areas where public resources are used. This will enhance the accountability for such spending, both for agencies to the Government and for the Government to the people. The flexibility of using a framework allied to the standards issued by the Chief Archivist enables the single piece of legislation to stretch across all the activities within the public sector. This will ensure that the needs of people and Governments for records are met by using an appropriate and effective process.

A full and accurate record of government—one that is preserved over the long term—is very important for future generations of New Zealanders. They will be able to see how and why Governments made particular decisions, and how Government agencies implemented those decisions. They will be able to see the recording of, and the protection for, individual rights and entitlements, and, where necessary, those records will be able to right old wrongs. They will also be able to see how their families and whānau interacted with the Government. The records give us crucial evidence about who we are and how we came to be as a nation.

At this point, I want to say that I find it rather sad the Māori party is not supporting this legislation. It is extremely important in terms of righting old wrongs. An important outcome of this bill is that we continue to preserve this story of government, of individuals, of communities, and of New Zealand, for our future generations.

Again I would like to thank the select committee, and Dianne Yates, the chair, for their amendments, which have aided the clarity of the bill. I know that the archives and record-keeping communities of New Zealand have been waiting some time for new legislation, and will warmly welcome this bill’s enactment. This is a very special day for a very special New Zealand community that is dedicated both to keeping our story alive and to accountability.

I also want to pay special thanks to a colleague. Even as a history student, archives were not something that I was much aware of, but in the Deputy Prime Minister we have a friend of the archival community. When he entrusted this job to me, he helped me along the way as we sorted through the issues around archives. There are many in the archives community today who will join with me in thanking Dr Michael Cullen, who has finally—through me—been able to give birth to this legislation. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

There is only one issue in this bill that National has contention with, and I have articulated it very, very clearly. That is the issue of State-owned enterprises being included in the scope of the bill. We have no problem with Archives New Zealand. I am very impressed with what I saw during our visit there. I echo the views and the comments by the Minister about the role that Archives New Zealand plays. However, when it comes to looking at including State-owned enterprises in the scope of the bill, that is the difficulty we have. There is a direct conflict between the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the archives bill.

Let me state clearly, again, that section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act states: “(1) The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and, to this end, to be—(a) As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. That is the key. We are now going to require extra burdens and accountabilities that are already covered in the list of requirements that State-owned enterprises have to go through before the scrutiny of this House anyway. This is an extra component and an extra compliance cost that is not necessary. Holding State-owned enterprises to the same degree of obligation as central government agencies confuses the identity of State-owned enterprises, and their role in the public and private spheres.

The commentary states that the policy underlining the bill is concerned with Government accountability, the enhancement of democratic participation in government, and the preservation of important public archives that contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. That is great. I have no difficulty with that at all. We support that. This being the case, it is areas of Government influence only for which recording and archiving obligations should be necessary. That is the difference between our position and the Government’s position on this legislation. Given those few points National, unfortunately, cannot support the inclusion of State-owned enterprises in this bill.

I thank the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand once again for her comments on the Public Records Bill. The Government Administration Committee was pleased to work on the bill, which is about the history of New Zealand, and about the necessity of keeping good and accurate records of what happens in this country. As the Minister mentioned, archives have been a wonderful source for researchers and those who have been writing and researching the history of this country. It is up to us to secure and maintain records, and to keep them in a modern and accessible way. It was a pleasure to work on this legislation.

I think the member opposite Lindsay Tisch is tilting at windmills. I certainly hope the records kept of State-owned enterprises will show a good deal about windmills, power, and the role of State-owned enterprises in generating the energy of this country. Let us hope the windmills do show up in the history of New Zealand.

He also mentioned the issue of the accountability of the Chief Archivist. I refer him to other parts of the legislation that provide for appeals to be made if people do not agree with decisions of the Chief Archivist. There are certainly checks and balances, and audit checks, on the Chief Archivist, and the select committee did rewrite and tighten up some of those clauses.

I thank my fellow members on the select committee. I particularly also want to thank the staff of Archives New Zealand, who arranged for us to visit their facilities to show us how records are kept—particularly the very old records, including copies of the Treaty of Waitangi and the New Zealand coat of arms. It was very interesting to view Archives New Zealand, and to realise how important those records are for this country, how important it is that they are well kept, safe, and in modern conditions, and also how important it is to develop computerised records, which will enable better access for New Zealanders to those records. Once again, I issue a big thankyou to everybody who has been involved with this legislation. I commend it to the House and to the public.

I will take a brief call on the third reading of the Public Records Bill. New Zealand First supports the bill.

To be in Opposition is also to be responsible. It is quite specious to oppose the bill for one trifling issue, which has not even been accurately stated by the National Party. State-owned enterprises have to keep records, because they are in business. After 25 years, those records can be made available. I was in Parliament 25 years ago, in 1980, and I cannot even remember what we debated then. [Interruption] Yes, one or two members might not have been born at that stage. To say that something that was done commercially 25 years ago by a State-owned enterprise, by an organisation that has Government input, should not be released is really trifling with the House. It shows the irresponsible nature of the National Party in Opposition. New Zealand First is in Opposition. We want to be in Opposition responsibly, and any responsible Opposition should support a bill of which 99.9 percent is required by New Zealand if we are to maintain ourselves as a civilised society.

I touched on the Māori aspects of this legislation at the second reading. I was staggered that the Māori Party should vote against this bill. There was slight confusion when the vote was taken on the second reading, but it has become clear that the Māori Party opposes it. How can anyone in New Zealand—European, Māori, Chinese, or whatever—oppose legislation that relates to the history of New Zealand? I would have expected the Māori Party especially to let us know why it opposes a bill that states in clause 3: “The purposes of this Act are—…(f) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi …”. We are not talking about partnership; we are talking about the spirit of partnership, and the Māori Party opposes this bill. Clause 7 has a lengthy exposition on the Treaty of Waitangi: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …”, followed by four different paragraphs, and the Māori Party opposes it. I would have expected the Māori Party to take a call to explain why it opposes this legislation. I am very disappointed; that, after all, is what we are paid to do—to be here and explain our views. I would have expected the Māori Party to do just that, in the same way that New Zealand First is doing.

We in New Zealand First are here for the future. This bill is taking us into the future. We have heard today about an education policy that will take us into the past. I have seen Rod Oram’s article in the Sunday Star-Times that discussed a certain political party’s economic policy, which will take it into the past. We in New Zealand First are here for the future. Together with the people of New Zealand, we can achieve things, and we are doing that in supporting this bill today.