State Sector Management Bill

We move now to the parts of the State Sector Management Bill that the Labour Opposition has significant concerns about.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s the controversial bit.

It is controversial, and it makes quite a significant change to very important parts of our democratic and constitutional infrastructure. Part 2 obviously deals with the National Library’s merger into the Department of Internal Affairs, and Part 3 deals with the Archives New Zealand merger.

I turn to Part 2. This is where Labour has a particular concern about why this is being done. Obviously, when we come to debate clause by clause there is no clause generally that will answer that question, but I think it is an important place to start our debate. The National Library is regarded by most people in the public sector and most of the stakeholders who work with it as a high-functioning, well-regarded organisation. I am sure the Minister in the chair, the Minister responsible for the National Library, would agree with that. In fact, Audit New Zealand has consistently over the last few years noted what a high-functioning organisation the National Library is.

The question is why on earth we are here today on a Saturday morning debating merging a high-functioning, nimble organisation such as the National Library—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I’ve got an answer for that.

I would be interested to hear that in a moment, I say to Mr Cosgrove. Why would we be merging a high-functioning, nimble organisation like the National Library into a large organisation with multiple responsibilities such as the Department of Internal Affairs, when we heard that the financial savings from this merger, for both Archives New Zealand and the National Library, could be as low as $160,000 a year—$160,000 a year—with about 15 jobs lost?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It costs more than that to run Parliament.

That is right. As the Hon Ruth Dyson said, it is probably costing more than that for us to be here today. If financial saving is the justification from the Government then it is indeed a very, very poor justification.

Part 2 begins by defining a number of terms, and these are quite significant. Although a particular Minister, we are told by the National Government, will still hold the portfolio for the National Library, we now see that the National Librarian immediately becomes subject to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. The chief executive will act as the employer for the National Librarian, who is in charge of our National Library. So immediately the Government’s claim that this bill—this particular part of the bill—does not dilute the independence of the National Library is called into question. When we get into the interpretation, we see that the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs now has that power.

In the remainder of Part 2 of this bill there are some mitigation measures around how the National Librarian will still be able to perform his or her role. But that does not get us away from the fact that we are reducing the independence of the person who heads our National Library today, let alone—and I will come back to this in later calls—the head of the Alexander Turnbull Library.

In the midst of the exercise that we did, the Department of Internal Affairs released the organisational design for the new department with the merged Archives New Zealand and National Library in it. We saw that, in this case, the National Librarian will be a third-tier manager in the Department of Internal Affairs—not even part of the executive leadership team, and not able to influence directly the overall strategy of the Department of Internal Affairs. Immediately, again, the independence and the influence of the National Librarian is taken out and reduced by this bill.

We ask ourselves to what end. This organisation is achieving well—though, admittedly, facing budget cuts, as my colleague Moana Mackey said in the second reading of this bill. The funding for the school library service has been cut from the National Library. But, still, it is performing well as an organisation. We ask ourselves why we would dilute that influence.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: What’s the answer?

We do not know, because throughout the select committee process we got no answer to justify why this was being done. In the end, it came down to some kind of ideological view about reducing the number of Government departments and possibly cutting the chief executive salary bill. That was about as good as we got. There was no justification for how this change might actually improve the services New Zealanders get. There was no justification for how it might actually enhance our historical and democratic infrastructure. It was almost as if it was about solving someone else’s problem—a problem that we could never actually identify.

As a consequence, I have put forward a typescript amendment in my name to insert a new subclause in clause 25, which amends section 9 of the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act, so that we can actually ensure that the National Librarian has some influence. At the moment there is no guaranteed access to the Minister for the National Librarian. I am sure that Minister Guy will undertake his job seriously and he will want to talk to the National Librarian from time to time. But it will be Mr Guy’s prerogative to decide. He will decide whether he should meet the National Librarian; it is not guaranteed in this bill. I have an amendment that would give the National Librarian the ability, on his or her own initiative, to advise the Minister and to report to the Minister, and to acknowledge that the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs is not necessarily the conduit through which they have to go.

This is the only way that we will be able to ensure that the National Library retains the degree of independence it needs as part of our system. The history of an agency—and we will come back to this matter in Part 3, which is around Archives New Zealand—subsumed within the Department of Internal Affairs and how it actually gets access and influence in the process is a very important matter. I urge the Minister to take a call and tell us whether he is prepared to support my amendment, because we on this side of the Chamber believe that the National Librarian needs that ability to speak directly to the Minister.

The other element missing is how we mitigate the measures that are in here. Obviously I want to make it clear that from a Labour point of view we believe that it is wholly unnecessary to merge the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs, but as we are here debating these clauses we want to try to improve them and ensure that there actually is the degree of independence that the National Librarian requires.

The other new clause we propose is clause 29A, which requires the National Librarian to prepare annual reports. At the moment that requirement has gone, because the library is subsumed within the Department of Internal Affairs. Yes, there might end up being a section in the department’s report where the National Library’s activities will be covered, but New Zealanders will now have a lot less information available to them about the activities of the National Library. So I am suggesting new clause 29A, which requires the National Librarian to publish a report for tabling in this House, and the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library—which, as I say, I will return to in a future call—will also have an obligation to prepare such a report. These things are extremely important because this is the only way that we will know that New Zealanders’ faith and trust in the National Library can be upheld. We need to have that requirement within this bill.

Those are two mitigation measures, but overall the position of the National Librarian is diminished by this particular part of the bill. We had submissions in the Education and Science Committee from people from bodies such as the Library and Information Association of New Zealand and the Friends of the Turnbull Library. All of them came to us and said that we needed to ensure that the National Library had status, mana, influence, and independence. All of those things are important. Although the National Library will never make the headlines, and it will never be the thing that people immediately refer to at their summer barbecues, it lies at the heart of—[Interruption] Judith Collins will. Quite often Judith Collins at her summer barbecues talks about the National Library. In between talking about Clayton Cosgrove she talks about the National Library, which is obviously important to her. The independence of the National Librarian is a subject that New Zealanders should be concerned about.

The committee was told by officials and press reports from the Minister that this change represented a reasonable practice internationally. Well, that is simply not borne out by the evidence that we have found. In actual fact, a national library is regarded in most countries as a key, core element of something beyond the administration of Government, which makes it incredibly sad that this National Government has reduced the National Library to being a mere part of the bureaucracy, a department that could be placed anywhere. Quite frankly, under the logic being applied in this bill, the National Library could be merged into the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. It really would not make any difference, because it is all about back-office efficiencies. We are all in favour of back-office efficiencies, but I ask why we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. We could have a high-functioning organisation supported to continue that work, rather than being subsumed alongside other parts of the Department of Internal Affairs that, quite frankly, are not relevant to its work.

Part 2 of the State Sector Management Bill really concerns us here in Opposition. It is very clear that Cabinet Ministers, in Government, have dropped the ball on an incredibly important aspect of our cultural and heritage sector. In fact, my colleague Grant Robertson just talked about this shift of where we plonk the National Library and what we do with the Alexander Turnbull Library. It would have probably fitted better in a structure of the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage, not sitting in the huge Government Department of Internal Affairs. The Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Nathan Guy, is looking at me, thinking, gosh, that might have been quite a good idea, and asking the Government why it did not think of that. But at the financial review of the Department of Internal Affairs, I asked some questions of the chief executive. He is new, keen, and determined to provide improved customer services—more efficient services that are accountable to the public. But he looked a bit perplexed about why the entities were to be merged. The justification we heard at the select committee was that a new information technology transformation was happening in Government departments. We heard that the National Library and Archives will be digitised and new technologies will be used, and that the emergence of those new technologies drove the decision, which is simply nuts.

I reiterate that if Minister Finlayson had been watching all the Cabinet papers that were going through the hands of Minister Ryall and Nathan Guy, he would have stood up, because he knows, and he would have advocated that the process should stop and that a fundamental error was being made in this component. Minister Finlayson has dropped the ball on our heritage and cultural sector and the importance of the repository of national collections.

The National Library was established in 1965. It brought together the General Assembly Library, the Alexander Turnbull Library, and the National Library. Some of these functions in New Zealand have great historical significance and date back to the 1850s. On Part 2, we seek assurances that the role of the National Librarian, the delegations of the National Librarian, and the Alexander Turnbull Library will all continue. But, for goodness’ sake, the Minister in the chair knows how ministries work, and this is becoming a superministry. These incredibly important functions that should be stand-alone functions are put into third-tier divisions of this new monster Department of Internal Affairs, with no lines to the Minister unless my colleague Grant Robertson’s amendment is passed today. I urge members of the House to at least consider that amendment that allows the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian to have reporting lines to the Minister. We need to open up those doors so they can take those unique elements of the National Library service not just to the chief executive, who has his door open but, for goodness’ sake, directly to the Minister. I think there are very substantial amendments that we need to look at.

I believe also that National has forgotten—this issue came up and is in our minority report—about the damage to the reputation of the Alexander Turnbull Library. The holdings of that library are private collections that New Zealanders who had a great love of books, our history, and our collected stories donated to the Alexander Turnbull Library. Those holdings will now sit under the auspices of the Department of Internal Affairs. That is absolutely, simply crazy, and it defies logic. Judith Collins laughs, but I am sure that in her family history there will be people who probably would like to have confidence that if they donate great collections of books to the Alexander Turnbull Library, for goodness’ sake, they will not be under the management and executive function of the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. It is absolutely stupid.

I know what happened here: the Government looked for efficiencies, economies of scale, and digitalisation opportunities, because there will need to be digitalisation of a lot of our material held. But that is not where this department, the National Library, and the role of the chief librarian should sit. It is an insult to those professionals. It is no wonder that those professionals, who have great dignity and intelligence, feel insulted by what is happening to them and to their passion for collections of great significance. They will find themselves in the Department of Internal Affairs, which is an awful name. I ask what that name says about telling about our stories and our unique identity as New Zealanders both to children in the country and to those internationally: “Go to the Department of Internal Affairs when you come to New Zealand. There’s an Alexander Turnbull Library run by the Department of Internal Affairs.” It is an insult, and it is no wonder that those professionals are quietly making decisions about their own future, which will delight Tony Ryall, because he wants those vacancies to occur, in the name of efficiency. He forgets what he is losing in institutional memory and the experience of amazingly qualified people who are seen internationally as great leaders of managing such repositories of information.

This is a shambles. This is what happened in Canada. The Minister in the chair should listen to the fact that when we looked at international examples we saw that when there was a merger in Canada—because we always look to similar things that are happening and where great ideas are happening internationally—there was a decline in services. I ask whether the Minister really looked and saw the impact of that. He was actually beaten by Minister Tony Ryall, who said: “This is what we are going to do. Have I got an idea for you! We are just going to make a superministry here. Now, who should we suck into this ministry called the Department of Internal Affairs? Not Creative New Zealand or the Ministry of Arts, Culture and Heritage.” That is where Archives and the National Library should have sat.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I am sure this Minister boldly stood up for his department.

No he did not. He did not advocate at all. But do not worry, because here we are in Part 2 looking after the delegations of the National Librarian and the functions of the National Librarian. Clause 27 relates to the continuation of the Alexander Turnbull Library. “Do not worry, New Zealanders, it will still be there.”! Great! Third tier in the Department of Internal Affairs—what an insult! What an insult to the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library.

I am afraid this bill will—[Interruption] Yes it is, look at clause 28. It is an insult. This bill has resulted in a deep vein of resentment against this Government and the high-handed and arrogant way it views public servants as just bureaucrats, whom it can shuffle around on the decks and not be worried about the impact, for $165,000 of savings every year. It says: “Have we got the answer for you for the super-service on archival material and library material!”. That is a disgrace. It has insulted professionals in New Zealand. It will not result in a better service for the public. It subsumes those who have developed independence and professional integrity into a super ministry. That will have a very negative impact on this Government when it comes to the election next year.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. We have heard a couple of excellent calls—

But I haven’t spoken yet.

—from Grant Robertson and Steve Chadwick. I am sure we will have some excellent calls from the member Darren Hughes later.

I disagree with one part Grant Robertson talked about, which is that the State Services Management Bill will not be discussed over summer barbecues. I, for one, being particularly geeky, will be talking about this at my summer barbecues—

💬 Grant Robertson: Go to Judith Collins’ barbecue, because she will be.

Oh, and Judith Collins. Maybe we will be at the same barbecue. A whole sector of the country will be talking about this bill at summer barbecues: the historians, the archivists, and those involved in the science and technology sector. They will be talking about it. Steve Chadwick is right: some of those people are feeling insulted professionally by what is happening in this bill.

I said I am geeky; it is true. I have been campaigning this year to stop library fee introductions at libraries in Taranaki and in Tauranga. I introduced an amendment to the Local Government Act to ensure free access to library books. It is just so important. Our libraries are our community hubs. The National Library is the hub of our country. It is the host of our nation’s intellect, our creativity, our entertainment. It is an amazing source. It is particularly important for those 3,000 other libraries around the country that it supplies.

What questions will be asked at those summer barbecues? One of the questions is why we are doing it. Another relevant question is why we are doing it under urgency. But why are we doing it full stop? When we look at the Cabinet paper that sparked this bill, we see that the National Library and Archives New Zealand were described as well-regarded institutions. The Library and Information Association of New Zealand wrote in its submission: “structural changes made should enhance rather than detract from the many services provided by the National Library and enjoyed by New Zealanders today. The rationale for the merger is superficial, the savings seem to be minimal, and inevitably there will be a loss of productivity during and after such a major restructure.”

The key question—which is absent from the Cabinet papers, and from mention by the Government officials and the Minister of State Services—is what the impact will be for library users. It is amazing that in a bill that talks about library users and archive users there is hardly any mention of what the improvements will be for those who access the National Library. There is no mention of that. There is no mention of how we are enshrining best library practice in this bill.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Professionalism doesn’t matter.

Professionalism does not matter.

I will touch on four points to do with Part 2. First, I will look at the role of the National Librarian; second, I will look at the technology and digitisation debate; third, I will look at the overseas image and the impact this bill will have on that; and, fourth, I will ask why.

First I will look at the role of the National Librarian. This bill changes the role seriously. It reduces the role from an executive to an employee. It puts the role into a third-tier relationship. One submitter commented that it is like being dropped from the All Blacks and moving down to a provincial second XV. We are seeing the National Librarian drop in mana, in influence, and in the ability to talk to the responsible Minister and convince him or her of the need for action. When it comes to the Alexander Turnbull Library, the position has dropped even further, to a position that is even worse than the provincial team—maybe to a high school first XV bench. It has dropped down to the fourth tier. Ironically, the Guardians/Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library will have more access to the Minister than the National Librarian will have under this bill.

The Green Party will today support many of the Labour amendments, including changing clause 25 in order to bring back access to the Minister for the National Librarian. I am thinking of the Minister when I support this amendment, because it is important that the Minister gets the best possible advice. He does not want to be given the low-down on the National Library by a dry Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs; he wants to hear from someone with fire in their belly, someone with a bit of passion for libraries and for the importance of libraries. I am thinking of the Minister. I hope that National supports that amendment, because the Minister needs all the advice he can get. I support it. Likewise, the public needs all the good advice it can get. We will support the amendment to add new clause 29A.

Part 2 changes the relationship with the Minister. We can write all we want in the bill about ensuring statutory independence, but the reality is that it will come down to the people who are in those positions. Who will the Department of Internal Affairs chief executive be? Who will the National Librarian be? How will they work together?

It is a false premise that because the Department of Internal Affairs and the National Library do broadly similar material they should be merged together. Conglomeration can be good, but in this case it seems to be conglomeration for conglomeration’s sake.

When we look at technology, we see that we need to take our hat off to the National Library. These excellent, hard-working Kiwis are world leaders in their field. It is not a huge proportion of its income that deals with digitisation, but they are leaders in their field already. If it ain’t broke, let us not try to fix it. I am a fan of digitisation personally. I think we should be digitising as much as we can. But that is not the major rationale for literally pulling an independent department and having it taken over by the Department of Internal Affairs.

I have heard no reason presented by anyone as to why digitisation needs to be in conglomerated departments. Already the National Library is sharing information with things like the EPIC database and the Matapihi website. It is working with other Government departments in backroom service provision.

When it comes to digitisation, the key issue, like many things in life, simply comes down to cold, hard cash. If we want to see more digitisation of our national treasures in New Zealand, this Government needs to put more cash into it. It cannot do it on the cheap. It is not just a convenient way of looking like we are acting. If it is serious about it, it needs to put in more cash, not shuffle the deckchairs.

In terms of our overseas image, this bill is taking us backwards. A third-tier position for our National Librarian is not best practice. The Library and Information Association of New Zealand said that we risk “losing standing as a major culture and heritage organisation for New Zealand.”, which will have impacts nationally and internationally.

Why are we doing this? Ultimately, it is all because we want to have fewer Government departments to remember. It is all about trimming the State sector.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Slash-and-burn.

It is about slashing and burning. Dr Don Gilling pointed out that 28 departments and programmes out of 69 that were funded in the last financial year are smaller than the National Library, and 16 are smaller than Archives New Zealand. The fact that those departments are small is not a robust argument for their being taken over by this new super-department, the Department of Internal Affairs. I tell those 16 and 28 smaller departments to watch out, because Steven Joyce is coming. Ultimately, we might have one super-department under Minister Steven Joyce. Kia ora.

It has been interesting to hear the debate this morning. I think it is worthy that I make a contribution at this stage. Importantly, I have had 18 months in this role. There are real synergies between the three departments. We have heard a lot of political rhetoric, and I want to address that this morning. There is a really strong focus with these three departments, the Department of Internal Affairs, the National Library, and Archives New Zealand, to get more information online and more accessible to every New Zealander. Just this week the Government announced all those communities that will benefit from the roll-out of the $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband. That is really positive.

I will focus on Part 2 of the bill, which involves the National Library. It has a wealth of material online. The Appendices to the Journals from Parliament are now online, dating back to the 1860s.

The changes to this bill are very minimal and technical. It preserves the cultural and institutional capability of both departments.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s a major culture shift.

It is interesting that the Hon Steve Chadwick interjects that it does not. I would like to ask Steve Chadwick why Labour, in the 9 years it was in power, did not address the terrible issues to do with the National Library’s leaking roof. It took this Government to come in and invest $52 million. In the first couple of weeks of becoming a Minister, I went for a tour of the National Library, and there was a hosepipe coming out of the roof and into a bucket. So here we have members of the previous Labour Government banging on during the Committee stage about the importance of these cultural institutions, yet they did nothing in the 9 years they were awash with cash in terms of fixing up the library so that it had a decent roof on it, so that important collections like the Alexander Turnbull Library collection would not rot.

This Government has made a very valuable contribution over the road to the important rejuvenation project of the National Library. The other thing that is really important is that in this Budget we have been able to roll out $12.6 million into a digital archive—and that is new money, and it is really, really important. It has been very well received by the sector.

The other thing worth noting is that Mr Robertson, in his address, said that the savings could be only about $165,000 per year. In actual fact, as I look at the out-years, the information I have says that the savings will be up around $1.5 million per year. So once again, I am not sure where Mr Robertson gets his comments from.

The other point—and I have heard quite a bit of rhetoric about “third-tier”—that it is important to realise is that within the Department of Internal Affairs is an example of a third-tier manager who employs 205 people; it is the person in charge of the passport operation. That person employs 205 people, and creates and generates third-party revenues of about $55 million. The performance of the New Zealand Passports Office, and New Zealand’s visa-free status across 50 countries, indicates a classic example of someone who is performing very well in a third-tier role and has the support of the New Zealand public.

The other important point I make is that Mr Robertson said he was in favour of combining back-office functions and cost savings. That is very, very important, and I am pleased that Mr Robertson agrees with the thrust of this bill. He has publicly stated in the House today that he supports combining back-office functions and cost savings, which is great. Mrs Chadwick talked about it becoming a superministry. When Mr Robertson was publicly saying in March that there was going to be a big combined department of information, he was saying that it was way too radical. But now he is saying that we should not be touching it at all. So I think there is quite a bit of confusion on that side of the House. On the one hand, they are saying that what Stevie Chadwick was proposing before would have been way too radical; and now, on the other hand, the opponents of the bill are saying that we should not be touching these important cultural institutions, at all. So I look forward to hearing more debate on this bill.

It is appropriate while I am on my feet to talk about the Crown Law opinion, which was released following the waiving of legal privilege by the Attorney-General. I thank the Attorney-General for releasing it. Let us put the facts on the table. I am interested to hear our opponents negate this important Crown Law opinion. The Crown Law document states: “In our opinion, the Bill: … Preserves the current statutory purposes of the National Library and Archives New Zealand; … Makes no change to the current level of statutory independence enjoyed by the National Librarian; … Increases the level of statutory independence enjoyed by the Chief Archivist;”.

💬 Moana Mackey: He has to table it now.

It is publicly available. It goes on to state that “the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian are carrying out their roles and functions independently, to the extent that those roles are legally required to be carried out independently. It would not be lawful for the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to interfere with the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian’s performance of their statutory duties,”. It states that the bill also “Preserves the role and function of the Alexander Turnbull Library as set out in the current legislation; and … Preserves the role and function of the statutory advisory groups prescribed by the National Library Act and the Public Records Act”. The National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 and the Public Records Act 2005, which National supported, carry on. “In short,” this Crown Law opinion states, “the changes to the National Library Act and the Public Records Act seem entirely limited to dealing with the fact that the National Library and Archives New Zealand would cease to be separate departments of the Crown and would become part of the Department of Internal Affairs.” That is a very powerful Crown Law opinion, and I look forward to hearing members opposite trying to negate this.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister of Internal Affairs has been quoting at some length from an official document, and I request that he table it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Is it an official document?

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: It is publicly available.

In responding to the comments made on the other side of the Chamber, I note that the Minister made clear in his speech that it was a public document, in the public domain. In that regard, there is no need for him to table it.

As far as I am aware the point made by the senior Government whip is wholly irrelevant. If the Minister was quoting from an official document in this Chamber, he needs to table it—that is what the Standing Orders state.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Standing Order 367 states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may, on a point of order, require the Minister to table the document. The Minister must then table the document unless it is of a confidential nature.”

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: It is publicly available.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That does not matter. You have read out the Standing Order, and I followed the process in that Standing Order. I requested that the Minister table the document. The question of whether the document is already in the public arena is completely irrelevant, and he is in fact challenging your ruling.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I do not think the Minister was challenging my ruling. He was simply saying that the document is publicly available. I have had an indication from the Minister that he is willing to table the document.

I seek leave to table—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: You don’t need to seek leave; you just table it.

I table it.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

I thank the Minister in the chair, Nathan Guy, for taking a call. He went to great lengths to read out a Crown Law opinion stating that the State Sector Management Bill will not affect the independence of the National Library and will not prevent the independent voice of the National Library and the National Librarian from being heard.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. The document that Minister Guy quoted from earlier has been tabled—I am observing the proceedings—but it has not been stamped. My colleague has approached the Table to try to get a copy of it, and I now see a twink pen or a whitener being handed to the Minister to remove things from the document, which has already been tabled. That document is now the property of the Committee and of the House, not of the Minister. The idea that it would be tampered with after it has been tabled and not yet stamped is very concerning. It is now the Committee’s property. A member of the Committee wants to look at it immediately, and it should be available to the Committee member.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: That’s why we need an independent archivist!

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I assure the member that Parliament does have an independent archivist; it is the Clerk’s Office. The document has been tabled.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I trust this is a new point of order.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is. I think it is appropriate, given what has just been said, that we get an assurance from the Minister that the document he has tabled, in the interim between it going to the Clerk and being stamped, has not been altered or tampered with in any way. I would like an assurance.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member could have taken that from my statement before that the document has been tabled. If the member is saying that I am telling him that a different document has been tabled, then that is a reflection on the Chair. I have confirmed to the Committee that the document has been tabled, and the member should accept that at its word.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I give you an absolute assurance that I was not doing what you were suggesting. I was not questioning your word. I was simply asking, given that twink bottles were floating around—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Does the member wish to withdraw and apologise?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Absolutely. I never question your integrity; I just wanted that assurance from the Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Thank you. You have that assurance.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think the problem is that some members could not see the document as it went across to the Clerk, whereas I did and I can—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The matter has been dealt with. I have now given the Committee three assurances that it is the same document. I do not need to know whether members are confused, disorientated, or cannot figure out whether it is Thursday or Saturday. None of that is relevant. The document has been tabled. Everybody is satisfied, honour is restored, and that is the end of the matter. If I hear another point or order of this matter I will—[Interruption] No.

That was an example, if there ever was one, of why we need an independent archivist. We want to avoid this kind of situation. The Minister in the chair is the Minister responsible for the National Library and Archives New Zealand.

💬 Hon Members: “Mr Twink.”

Yes, “Mr Twink.” We are only in the Committee stage of the bill that seeks to bring together Archives New Zealand and the National Library and put them into the Department of Internal Affairs, and already serious questions are being raised about the independence of the process and whether important Government documents have been tampered with. If we cannot get through the Committee of the whole House feeling assured that there will not be any political interference, what will it be like when we merge the two entities?

I want to comment on the Minister’s contribution. He read out the Crown Law opinion that the provisions in Part 2 will not have any impact on the functioning of the National Library. Of course, that was the case back when these two entities used to be together in the 1990s. If the Minister would get out of his ivory tower and talk to the people who work in the National Library, they would tell him that despite the legal situation—and a Crown Law opinion would have said exactly the same thing back then—the reality was that they did struggle in terms of independence.

The reality was that they struggled to have their voice heard when they were under the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Education. So instead of reading from some piece of paper to make himself feel better—because, legally, Crown Law has said that he should not worry about anything—why does he not talk to the people who worked in that entity the last time it was combined under the Department of Internal Affairs? They will tell him that what he has said in the Chamber today is absolutely not correct. That is why every single submission to the Education and Science Committee opposed this measure. In reality they could not carry out those important constitutional functions of being independent and protecting important public documents when they were subsumed by a big Government department like the Department of Internal Affairs. I think it is very disappointing that the Minister chose to not address those facts.

I come now to clause 30, which talks about documents being made available for public exhibition. Now that the National Library will be part of the Department of Internal Affairs, I am a little bit concerned, because another group that is covered by the Department of Internal Affairs is the New Zealand Fire Service, and this is a Minister who will not let Opposition MPs visit fire departments without his permission.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: That’s not true.

It is true. The New Zealand Fire Service is actually quite independent from the Government, except that the Department of Internal Affairs covers the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, which regulates some of the areas of the Fire Service. If this Minister has been stopping Opposition MPs from visiting the Fire Service, what does that mean—

💬 Sandra Goudie: That’s what the previous Minster did.

Sandra Goudie should take a call instead of screaming across the Chamber.

What kind of confidence can we have that clause 30 will be adhered to and that the public will have access to all the information in the National Library without ministerial interference when the very Minister who will be in charge of the Department of Internal Affairs and the National Library is a Minister we have to question about whether documents are being tampered with or properly filed with the Clerk? He has also stopped Opposition MPs from visiting fire departments in their own areas.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: He says that’s not true. We need that on the record.

Does the Minister say that that is not true, and that Opposition MPs are allowed to visit fire stations without his approval? He is very quiet now. Can we visit fire stations without the Minister’s approval? Yes? No? Maybe?

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: I have a policy. Mr Hipkins knows it.

Oh, he has a policy. Yes, we know; it is that we are not allowed to visit without the Minister’s permission. What does clause 30 mean in terms of ensuring that documents are made available for public exhibition and to members, when the Minister himself has blocked people from visiting other parts of the Department of Internal Affairs, even though he should not have the power to do that?

I come now to Subpart 2, which is about the transfer of employees of the National Library. The reason I raise this is that in Part 1 there is a lot of information about the transfer of employees to the new Ministry of Science and Innovation. Some very important points were mentioned, such as the fact that they would all go over on existing terms and conditions. It very clearly stated that provisions under the KiwiSaver Act and the Employment Relations Act did not apply to these employees. I am talking about the 90-day right-to-fire period for new employees.

Part 1, which deals with the merging of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research, Science, and Technology into a new ministry, made it very clear that those employees would not be required to be on a 90-day trial period. They would be deemed to be carrying on their employment. But in Part 2 we do not have those clauses.

Part 2 has one clause on the transfer of employees, whereas Part 1 has pages and pages. I would like to know from the Minister what that means for employees of the National Library when they are transferred over to the Department of Internal Affairs. The Minister has not ruled out those employees suddenly finding themselves on a 90-day right-to-fire probationary period, even though they may have been working with the National Library for more than a decade.

I would like the Minister in the chair to tell us whether the employment of employees transferred from the National Library to the Department of Internal Affairs will be deemed to have been continuous or whether those employees will suddenly find that they are categorised as new employees and that they are on the 90-day right-to-fire probationary period. So will the Minister—hello? No, the Minister is not paying any attention to what members are saying, which is very distressing. Clause 35, in Part 2, is very short when it comes to the transferring of employees. If there is anything urgent about this bill being debated today, on a Saturday, it is that we let the employees of the National Library know whether their employment will be secure under Part 2.

In Part 1 it is very clear that employment will be deemed to have been continuous. Employees will continue to have a job, and leading up to Christmas I think it would be particularly nice of the Minister to take a call and clarify that clause 35 covers this and gives those employees certainty that they will still have a job. We are here under urgency, because apparently the merging of these entities is so important that we need to be here on a Saturday. Well, nothing could be more important than clarifying what clause 35 means for the employees of that National Library.

I hope that the Minister will take a call so that those employees can know that they will still have a job leading up to Christmas and that they will not have 3 months of uncertainty, during which time they could be fired for absolutely no reason whatsoever—with no reason having to be given—while at the same we know that the Government is sending a razor gang out there to slash funding in the public sector. So I think the Minister should take a call on that particular part.

I come now to clause 24, “National Librarian”. I know that this is an area that some of my colleagues will pick up on in more detail. Clause 24 has some quite odd wording. As we know, the National Librarian will now be a level 3 manager in the Department of Internal Affairs. So he or she will go from the being the person who runs it to being not even a second-tier manger but a third-tier manager in the Department of Internal Affairs.

Clause 24(2) states: “The National Librarian is the person for the time being appointed to that office…”. That definition jumped out at me. I do not think “for the time being” needs to be said, unless it is suggesting that there will be a time when a National Librarian is not employed in that office. I wonder whether this is a little indication about where the role of National Librarian is going. I know that my colleague Jacinda Ardern has more to say about that. The words “The National Librarian is the person for the time being appointed to that office by the chief executive …” are—

💬 Grant Robertson: Kind of like while they feel like it.

That is right. It is like saying: “At the moment you’re allowed to have this job—for the time being—but don’t get too comfortable because in the future this role may not be there.” That is not the kind of wording I remember seeing for other positions within the public sector. It stands to reason that the National Librarian is the person who is doing the job and that the chief executive appoints him or her. It does not need to be clarified that it is just in the here and now and that he or she should not make any long-term plans. So I would like the Minister in the chair to get up and allay concerns on this side of the Chamber.

I will take a brief call to ask some questions of the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Internal Affairs, with regard to Part 2 of the State Sector Management Bill. I hope he takes the opportunity to respond.

The National Library has the largest collection of Māori language resources in the country, and although the 2003 State Sector Act is not changed substantially by this bill, the implication is that the organisational change in the bill may have a particular effect on how the National Library and the National Librarian currently operate. Te komiti Māori was established by the National Librarian in 1996. It advises the National Librarian on specific aspects of the Māori language collection. Also, there are protocols for donors of collections to the National Library. It is unclear whether the role of te komiti Māori will be affected by this bill. The concerns I raise are in relation to, specifically, the Māori collection, and whether the National Librarian will retain the responsibility outlined in the 2003 Act around kaitiakitanga, preservation, and the role of the collection. I also want to ensure that adequate advice will be given to the National Librarian in carrying out his or her functions, because, as I read the change, the National Librarian will be dropped to a tier 3 type of role. The bill implies that the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs may take on some of the responsibilities with regard to how te komiti Māori operates, and clarification on that point would be useful.

I also understand from the submission that was provided by te komiti Māori to the chief executive that it too has significant concerns about the way in which the restructure might affect it. Notably, it believes that there could be a risk to the library’s national profile and position as a respected and trusted national institution responsible for the care of documentary and cultural heritage collections. It is also worried that there could be a reduction in the library’s capability and focus to carry out the purposes of the Act as they relate to kaitiakitanga, taonga, and mātauranga Māori. Specifically, it could lead to an overall diminishing of current levels of effective library services to Māori and partnerships with Māori, as these aspects are integral to providing quality librarianship and information management.

I suspect that those comments were made because if a value-for-money exercise is being undertaken across the whole of the department, it obviously will have effects across the departments under the umbrella of the Department of Internal Affairs, and could lead, whether directly or indirectly, to a compromising of the emphasis on the Māori collection, which te komiti Māori believes should be maintained. People cannot go anywhere else in the world to find a good Māori language collection except the National Library. Te komiti Māori wants to be sure that the emphasis and responsibilities outlined in the 2003 Act will be maintained and guaranteed despite the organisational change, yet that is not clear.

The Minister should take a call on these types of issues, because I believe they are absolutely critical if we want to retain the integrity and esteem of the collections held within the National Library and the way in which they are managed for future generations. I understand from that same submission that there is a review of services to Māori within the National Library. It would be interesting to see how that review might or might not impact on further changes in this bill, or, indeed, the principal Act. I am sure that the Māori Party would be concerned about any diminishing of emphasis on the Māori language collection held by the National Library. It would not, as we would not, want to see any diminishing of effort on that front. We believe that the collection is second to none.

I am very concerned about the role of the Chief Archivist and what the changes in Part 3 will mean for that role. The Chief Archivist will face the same issues as the National Librarian, and I will talk about those in just a moment. The advice that the Education and Science Committee received in the form of submissions from a variety of submitters expressed real concern about the role and independence of the National Librarian and the fact that that was going to be compromised by merging Archives New Zealand and the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs. I think the critical issue here is whether the Minister of State Services could be seen to exert more influence on the National Librarian under this legislation now that it is part of the Department of Internal Affairs than he would had the National Library remained independent. I think it would be fair to conclude that to be correct.

I have no faith whatsoever that under this Government the independence of the National Librarian will be preserved, because this Government constantly claims that departments are acting independently with no influence from Ministers, but the reality is that that is not the case. We had a very recent example where a Minister effectively told a Government agency not to publicise a transport designation right before a by-election campaign, because he thought that would impact the outcome of the by-election campaign. That department did exactly what the Minister requested. The Minister stood up in this House and said that he did not do that, but the reality is that in the “nudge nudge, wink wink” way that these things work, what happened was pretty clear. I do not think anybody in this House or any member of the public believed that Minister when he said he had no influence on that matter. With regard to the National Library, the concern is that we will see the same type of thing taking place.

I am concerned about the role of the Alexander Turnbull Library and its integration, effectively, with the Department of Internal Affairs. This department runs a huge range of functions that are totally incompatible, let us be frank about that. It goes from censorship to the National Library, to the Fire Service, to civil defence, to local government, and to a whole range of other things. All of those things are within the Department of Internal Affairs. I do not believe that one of the rationales for this move is that it will be more efficient. I simply do not believe that this move will result in any greater efficiency.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Ministerial Services.

Ministerial Services fits within the Department of Internal Affairs.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Absolute conflict.

There is an absolute conflict there. It does not get much more connected to ministerial operations on a day-to-day basis than the Department of Internal Affairs, which runs individual Ministers’ offices. It will also now have responsibility for the National Library. It is pretty clear that there are some conflicts of interest there.

I will talk particularly about the Alexander Turnbull Library, because this bill changes the appointment provisions for the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library. That appointment will no longer be made by the National Librarian but by the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. There is no guarantee that the person making the appointment of the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library will have the relevant expertise. Under existing legislation, the National Librarian, who has specialist knowledge and expertise, is guaranteed to make the choice of who will run the Alexander Turnbull Library.

The custody of the collections of the Alexander Turnbull Library will now reside within the department, instead of within the National Library as a separate department.

There was a range of submissions on the issue of the Alexander Turnbull Library, which I think are worth talking about in more detail. Several submitters expressed concern that downgrading the status and identity of the library would damage its national and international reputation. The Alexander Turnbull Library is very widely respected, both nationally and internationally, and its independence is very important. There was a concern that this bill will compromise the intention to maintain the identity and status of the collections of the Alexander Turnbull Library, make it more difficult to obtain funding, compromise the Chief Librarian’s independence, risk a conflict situation if the National Librarian’s recommendation for the appointment of the Chief Librarian was not followed, and so on. Among the submissions there were recommendations to amend the bill to provide for an annual report for the Alexander Turnbull Library and/or the National Library to be tabled in the House.

Under the current legislation—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will allow Chris Hipkins to continue, as he is in full flight.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson. It probably will not be another full 5-minute contribution, because I am coming to the conclusion of what I was saying, but one of the concerns—

💬 Sandra Goudie: Yay!

That was Sandra Goudie. I like to hear from Sandra Goudie. I would like to hear what she has to say. I am not sure whether she is capable of making a contribution; I am not even sure she knows what the Alexander Turnbull Library actually is.

💬 Grant Robertson: A library—a place with books.

Well, we definitely will not find Sandra Goudie in it. Under the current legislation, the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library report independently to this House. There is a clear line of accountability and clear reporting directly to this House. That will not be the case under this bill, because it will all be amalgamated within the Department of Internal Affairs’ reporting line to the House. One of the things we have seen in recent years is a drive by Government—and I think some of it is actually very justified—to dramatically reduce the volume of information that is reported to the House in terms of statements of intent, annual reports, and so on. What we will see is a much less comprehensive description of the activities of the department coming through, particularly in an environment where the Department of Internal Affairs, which has such a wide array of functions, will be trying to compress those into a concise summary for the House. We will lose a lot of the very valuable detail in terms of the reporting function that the National Library currently undertakes when that change takes place.

Other recommendations that have come forth through the submissions included a recommendation for the Chief Librarian to report directly to the Minister—to have in the legislation a clear, direct accountability to the Minister—rather than report through the Chief Executive. In that regard, the amendment put forward by my colleague Grant Robertson to clause 25 basically creates an ability for the National Librarian to advise the Minister on any matter relating to the functions and powers of the National Librarian. It is important to note that this bill does not give the National Librarian by right that ability to directly advise the Minister. So one of the amendments put forward by Grant Robertson—and I think it is a very important one—gives the National Librarian the express power to provide advice directly to the Minister on any matter relating to the functions and powers of the National Librarian. That is very important because it removes that filtered level.

The Chief Executive will have a range of pressures, one of which will be a resourcing pressure. The National Librarian should be able to go directly to the Minister and say that the Department of Internal Affairs, which the National Library is now part of, is not providing the necessary resources or support to the library in order to carry out its functions. The National Librarian needs to be able to go directly to the Minister and say that, but this legislation, as put forward by the Government, does not provide that opportunity. The amendment to clause 25 set out by Grant Robertson gives the National Librarian that power.

The amendment would add a new clause 25(5). It states: “In exercising the functions of the National Librarian under this section the National Librarian shall not be responsible to the chief executive but shall act independently.” I think that is incredibly important. The independence of this role is the primary concern of the Labour Opposition in our contributions to this debate. This bill waters down the National Librarian’s independence and makes the National Librarian a third-tier manager subordinate to the chief executive. The National Librarian will be subordinate not just to the chief executive; there will be another person between the National Librarian and the chief executive and the Minister. The National Librarian is going from having a direct relationship with a Minister of the Crown to having further layers of bureaucracy ahead of him or her. That raises real concerns, given the significance of the role of the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t think Brendan Boyle wanted it. He put it up in a way which is really impossible.

I am certainly not sure that Brendan Boyle wanted this responsibility.

The second amendment put forward by Grant Robertson, to insert new clause 29A, relates to annual reports. It places an obligation on the National Librarian to “prepare, publish and present an annual report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament …”. Again, that function has been removed by this legislation. Basically, it means that the reporting function for the National Library will be subsumed within the Department of Internal Affairs, so this House will not have access to the volume of information about the activities of the National Library that it has been used to getting. This amendment put forward by Grant Robertson reinstates some of that reporting.

I move, That the question be now put.

I will follow on from where Chris Hipkins just left off, and I will comment particularly on the contribution made by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy. When the Minister spoke earlier, I anticipated a solid reasoning of why this amalgamation would make a real difference, and that did not happen. What I did hear was that he was unable to provide any assurance to us that attending or visiting fire stations around the country would be able to happen freely, but he certainly did not give a good interpretation of why this legislation is important. Why we are sitting here, under urgency on a Saturday, to listen to that? Members talked about whether it would be a topic of conversations around barbecues over the next few weeks; I think it actually will be. I think it will be used as an example of what this Government proposes to do and what it is actually doing.

I will go back to one thing that the Minister raised, which was the issue of new technology. When we were listening in the Education and Science Committee, this issue came up over and over again as a vindication of why this legislation had to go through. It is an information technology - driven rationale. There is no other rationale that we could come to, to understand why on earth this is being done, except for the fact that there might be some sort of ideological reason why this might happen. We could pick on librarians, and they are unlikely to fight back. Librarians can be bullied, and they are not likely to march on Parliament.

Independence, as Chris Hipkins was talking about before he sat down, is indeed compromised by this legislation. It could not not be compromised. I want to look at the part of the bill that covers independence in reporting. The bill changes the status of the National Librarian from chief executive to employee. There is a feeling that by making this person, the head of the National Library, a third-tier employee of the Department of Internal Affairs, a department that, as we have heard, has massive amounts of other responsibilities—it is a grab bag of just about everything in Government that does not fit into a particular ministry—somehow this employee will have exactly the same ability to influence and maintain the independence of the National Library as happened before. It is simply not the case. There were 31 submitters who appeared before the select committee, and 100 percent of those submissions—and Colin King knows this for a fact, because he was sitting there and listening as well; he is nodding his head—opposed this change. They basically centred their objections on the fact that the chief executive has been relegated to being an employee and the role will be diluted by organisational layers, the National Librarian will lose the right to the Minister, and the National Librarian’s influence and independence will be adversely affected.

Mr Nathan Guy has put before us the Crown Law report, which we had not seen previously, along with a bottle of white-out—talk about a lack of ability—and he read selectively from that report. But the bottom line is that if we submerge the head of a department into the third level of a hierarchy and then expect that person to operate with the same independence as he or she did beforehand, we are dreaming; we are completely dreaming. There is no way that bureaucracies operate like that; anybody who has been in a bureaucracy knows that. The National Librarian of course will have to report up the chain of command. Of course the National Librarian will not have the same ability to exercise independence as he or she did previously. Of course the National Librarian will not be able to assure New Zealanders that that is the case.

I move, That the question be now put.

I appreciate the opportunity to take my first call on the State Sector Management Bill, and in particular on Part 2. I felt prompted to speak on this bill after hearing the contribution of the Minister of Internal Affairs, Nathan Guy. For those members who were not here at that time, I say that I was listening intently because I was seeking the purpose of the bill generally, and in particular the purpose of this significant part—Part 2. I did not get any answers, other than that, apparently, we are making this significant merger because the Minister went on a tour of the National Library and saw a leak in the roof. Apparently that is the reason we are now merging the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs.

We also heard from the Minister, and this is something that vexed me greatly, the claim that the previous Labour Government had somehow run the National Library and Archives New Zealand into the ground. I make the following point: I was not a member of the Education and Science Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, but I do note, as reported in the select committee’s report, that one submitter who worked in this area noted that “The past management of the archives function…has an unfortunate history, characterised by arrested development, lack of resourcing, poor understanding, litigation, rancour, and distrust.” Another submitter commented that “Thousands of unique items that have relevance today have been lost by fire, water, vermin, and indifference.” I think that was both a metaphorical and a literal reference, and it came directly from a submitter who was referring to the 1990s—the point when, as I understand it, we last had a go at merging these functions.

I ask the Minister, given that in his first attempt he did not submit to the Committee why we are making this merger, whether he could articulate that again for the benefit of the Committee. At the moment I see no specific point relating to those functions that demonstrates this need. In fact, in seeking the reason why this might be occurring, I felt inclined to draw on some other experience that I have had as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We have recently undergone a similar consolidation through the Legal Services Agency. At least in that case it came off the back of a report by Dame Margaret Bazley, proving that we probably needed to make significant changes in this area, and that is where this consolidation occurred. Our committee was at great pains to ensure that in doing so we maintained the independence of office that was needed to maintain the public confidence in the Legal Services Agency as it stood. I do not feel I have the same confidence in the way that this merger is taking place.

As has already been remarked, the National Librarian will be a mere third-tier manager within the Department of Internal Affairs. We need to understand what that will mean at a functional level in terms of the reporting requirements of the National Librarian directly to Parliament. As a third-tier manager, experience holds that when that individual comes to a select committee he or she is unlikely even to necessarily have his or her own hearing. I ask the Minister whether members of Parliament will have the ability to question and cross-examine the National Librarian directly—

💬 Moana Mackey: As they can now.

—as they can currently. I ask the Minister whether members of Parliament will have the ability to directly question the National Librarian.

There is no response from the Minister, but I can see by the small glint in his facial expression that he has registered my question. I hope that at some time he can clarify that for us. Perhaps he could do it in the next part, when we talk about the same issue with the Chief Archivist. That is one of the most important abilities we can maintain; not only their ability to report directly to Parliament but our ability as members of Parliament to directly question them.

I have a second question for the Minister, which comes under section 9A, inserted by clause 26. I would be interested to hear some explanation from the Minister on where he anticipates the National Librarian, as a mere third-tier manager, can use these quite strong delegation powers that have been gifted to him or her. Section 9A sets out what a delegation must include.

I move, That the question be now put.