State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16246. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
State Sector Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 December. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is crystal clear to all New Zealanders that after 9 years of a wasteful Labour Government we need to rebalance our economy. We also need to redesign and have a first-class State services sector. 
The State Sector Management Bill achieves all of those goals. It provides for the formation of a new Ministry of Science and Innovation it harmonises the National Library and Archives New Zealand under the Department of Internal Affairs and very importantly it preserves the constitutional independence of the Chief Archivist. On that basis it gives me pleasure to commend this bill to the House. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 One has to wonder where that member Colin King was a decade ago if he thinks this issue is all peace and light. Labour will definitely be opposing the State Sector Management Bill. 
There is an element of this bill that we do not have a problem with at all and that is in respect of the amalgamation of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research Science and Technology to form the new Ministry of Science and Innovation. We think that is great. That is fine and I think we will wait with great interest to see what will emerge from the new Ministry of Science and Innovation especially with Minister Mapp at the helm. Great things are obviously— 
Sue Moroney 
: Anything could happen. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Anything could happen at all. 
But the aspect of this bill that we are very opposed to for very serious reasons is the proposed merger of Archives New Zealand and the National Library with the Department of Internal Affairs. These institutions are a key part of our democracy—absolutely key. They are about keeping Government departments transparent and the information held in those departments protected. When the Minister of State Services gave his opening speech on this bill it was the most limp speech that I have ever heard. It was quietly given in a measured way and it looked as though it would not panic the punters. But actually this measure shows the determination of National to continue an unrelenting attack on public servants whom they see as just being bureaucrats and bean counters not as people who value their jobs do their jobs with passion and pride and take with great seriousness the roles and the functions of their jobs. The Minister saw this merger in his speech as being simply a little merger that tucks Archives New Zealand and the National Library—including the iconic Alexander Turnbull Library—into the Department of Internal Affairs. National’s position is that we should not worry because it has sorted out everything about the roles and functions of the National Librarian and of the Chief Archivist. It says we should trust it to know what it is doing. 
This merger looks to be all very simple and sort of logical but actually behind it there is an insidious and unrelenting lack of respect for public servants who have done their job. 
I found it interesting that Colin King stood up and gave a silly little speech just reading the opening paragraph of the commentary on the bill—National members have been told to speak just for about 10 seconds on every bill so that they will be out of here by about midday. Mr King was not around a decade ago. A decade ago there was a failed experiment in which Archives New Zealand was put under the Department of Internal Affairs. What goes around comes around; now we are doing it again. Relationships were so bad between the Department of Internal Affairs and Archives New Zealand that they went to court 10 years ago. So what a waste of time and money this merger is. 
The Minister could only come up with the justification that this great merger all in the name of increased efficiency better services for the public better accountability and great improvements in the quality of service provision from the so-called bureaucrats—who are wonderful respected professionals in their jobs—will save only $165000. Archives New Zealand and the National Library have always had an absolutely clean audit from the Audit Office—no problems; nothing that needed to be tidied up. They do their job professionally as stand-alone entities so why in the name of efficiency would one merge them into the Department of Internal Affairs for the sake of saving the princely sum of $165000 and risk that grievances will arise again in the future? The roles of the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian will be third-tier positions and they will not even have face-to-face meetings on a weekly basis with the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. I think that is an absolute insult. 
If Chris Finlayson who does know about the functions of the National Library and Archives New Zealand and about the importance of the material that they preserve had been a little more aware of what was being proposed by stealth by Tony Ryall if he had been a bit more aware and read his Cabinet papers in time he would have jumped up and said this was a foolish move. An absolutely flawed move like this took us to court a decade ago. As a lawyer Minister Finlayson knows that. He knows about the risks if the public record is not kept transparent and people are not held accountable for it. Minister Finlayson knows about the risks but he failed to challenge Nathan Guy and Tony Ryall so this cute little merger this cute little amalgamation went through. Members can look at the resulting effect: 15 jobs are lost. Mr Ryall would say “Only 15—what’s that? That’s great. It’s all in the name of efficiency.” These are not just jobs. These are people who are held accountable for and who know how to manage the public record of both libraries and who know how to look after the body of historical archival material held by the Alexander Turnbull Library. These libraries are not something that can be merged with the Department of Internal Affairs quite easily even though National says the merger does not affect their roles because it has sorted those out in the bill. 
I think this situation is an absolute disgrace. The Chief Archivist and the National Librarian must have statutory independence and their independence is limited if they become part of the Department of Internal Affairs. What happened a decade ago when this happened? It was logical: they struggled to find a voice. If they are put into the third-tier level of management in a huge department a burgeoning huge department then how will they have a voice? How will they have their independence? How can the National Librarian and Chief Archivist go and meet their Minister? That will not happen. They will be swallowed up in the department and will struggle to have a voice to advocate for the record that they manage. This is an absolutely stupid move. It is a flawed move. It has already caused great distress in the library and the archive sector of New Zealand. Those who work in the sector are not fuddy-duddy bureaucrats who feel threatened by the loss of a job; they are there to preserve the function of their job and it has been shown that they have an excellent record. For the sake of $165000 a year and the loss of 15 jobs National thinks this is a great little cute move but it is not. 
In conclusion I say the merger is not necessary at all. It will not generate better public services; it is driven purely by an ideological desire to reduce the number of Government agencies. This is flawed logic. The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage failed to represent and advocate for Archives New Zealand and the National Library as being very important functions of a creative country in a sector that has a great sense of history. The merger will fail and I ask members to watch to see what will happen with the next audit report. We will argue against this merger in more depth when we get into the Committee stage of this bill. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia ora everybody. Nga mihi nui a koutou. Kia ora. This is my first day back in Parliament after 3 weeks on parental leave. It is great to be here on a Saturday. Three weeks ago my wife gave birth to a healthy little baby Zoe Elizabeth Hughes. I wonder what impact the State Sector Management Bill will have on the records and archives we are producing now in Parliament and around our communities. What access will she have when she is 18 and when she is 30? That is the key question we are asking today with this bill. 
I was privileged to join the other members on the Education and Science Committee hearing the submissions. I heard one clear message from all of the submitters. There was a clear message that the merging or the takeover as it was described of the National Library and Archives New Zealand will be bad. It will be bad for Archives New Zealand it will be bad for the National Library and it will be bad for Kiwis accessing those services. 
I was fortunate enough to have a tour of Archives New Zealand with some of the staff. Boy what a fantastic institution it is. I got to see maps of New Zealand from the 1950s with potential nuclear strikes. I got to see handwritten deeds of sale signed with moko. Truly they are national taonga deserving of our utmost respect and utmost care and the risk with this bill we are debating today under urgency on a Saturday is a lack of care and a lack of due diligence and prudence. There is a lack of reasons why we are even addressing these issues today. 
I will briefly touch on some of the impacts of this bill because there will be some and touch on some of the reasons—or slogans as I put it—given for why this bill has been introduced and reasons why I am opposed to it. To begin with the submitters to the select committee presented a great number of risks and reasons why we should not proceed with this bill. We heard that the National Library of New Zealand and Archives New Zealand have different roles: one is a library and one is responsible for archiving. We heard that their independence is at risk. We are putting the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian within a bureaucracy and down three or four tiers from their current position which will reduce their impact and their access to Ministers. It will reduce their ability to have mana to proactively argue and to actually hold the chief executives of Government departments to account and tell them when they are doing a bad job when it comes to archiving. 
We heard that it will impact their budgets although one good thing that I will give to the Government is that separate votes will continue. But we will see budget pressures faced and the risk is that the Department of Internal Affairs one financial year will say that we will just have fewer books that year. We also heard from submitters that this change is impacting on the morale of the staff. These guys do fantastic work day in day out for the country’s sake to protect these taonga and having 15 staff at risk is damaging morale. 
We also heard on the select committee why we are doing this. The reasons that I heard and that I read in the Cabinet papers simply amount to slogans. We heard slogans: future-proofing financial savings efficiencies and digitisation. These are simply slogans without argument or solid facts to back them up. Throughout the select committee process there were no facts and figures and no robust arguments were presented. In that case there remains simply slogans. 
When it comes to the finance we are talking about maybe $165000 a year. It seems crazy that we are doing this for literally $165000 a year. It is as if the Government looking for inspiration for its legislative programme for the year went back and looked at the Shipley-Bolger playbook from the 1990s. When it comes to worker relations it has gone back to the Shipley-Bolger playbook and when it comes to these wonderful Government departments it has gone back to the Shipley-Bolger playbook. We have returned to the 1990s. In the select committee we once again heard that there were compelling reasons why these departments were separated by the Labour Government. 
In summary we oppose this bill for a considerable number of reasons. We have simply heard slogans as arguments for it and it essentially amounts to an ideological solution in search of a problem. Kia ora. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 ACT is happy to support the State Sector Management Bill which amends a number of Acts in order to amalgamate several Government departments. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Morena. Morenatatou e hoa makuawhakawhaiti mai ki roto i te Whare neiitenei ata. Eharai te mea he nui ngakorero. Kuarongoingakorero a te mema mo te Kakariki. Me mihi ki a ia me tanaekengahaipapamotetahipepi. Me mihi ra ki a koe e hoa ka mutu waihoterakorero ki reira. Engariitua atu o tera kuarongo au ingakorero a te mema rai te mea kei te ahua rite tonu ki a au i te mea kua tae mai wetahi ki a au ki te whakatakotoieramomokorero ki muai a matou o te PatiMaori ara ngauauatanga ka tau mai ki rungaingakaimahi o roto i te National Archives me te Whare Pukapuka o te Motu. Kuarongoake engarii roto ingawhiriwhiringakare au i te tino kite i te whakatinanatanga o eramomowhakaaroi te mea he tino taonga e takotonei ki roto inga whare nei. Hoi ano ka whakarongo ki ngakorero e rere haere nei a koakenei a te wahangaKomiti a katahi ka whiriwhirihia hei tauawa. No reira kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Good morning. Good morning to us all colleagues assembled in the House this morning. It is not as though I have a lot to talk about. I heard what the member from the Greens had to say and I must congratulate him on becoming a father. Well done colleague. We cannot let that go by without acknowledging it. But park that there. Furthermore I note what that member said because it is much like that with me as well. Some have brought that sort of thing about difficulties being placed upon National Archives and National Library of New Zealand staff before us the Maori Party. I have heard about it in the negotiations but have never seen those kinds of thoughts implemented because there are treasures of real significance stored in those buildings. However I will listen to the contributions flying about here and then later perhaps during the Committee stage make a decision at that point. Thank you all 
.] 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the second reading of the State Sector Management Bill. This bill is a continuation of the Government’s drive for efficiency and effectiveness across the State services sector. 
Rather than use the Government’s words to talk about one particular issue that the Opposition has raised I thought I would give members the words of the Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott. She says: “We are happy to see that the bill retains the statutory roles of the National Librarian Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library and the Chief Archivist”. Finishing with those words I am proud to support this bill. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 The State Sector Management Bill is a drive but it goes in no particular direction it seems to me. It is a drive towards basically showing people that doing something is better than not doing something. But doing something for absolutely no real reason does not seem to be a particularly good use of our time here on a Saturday morning. 
One thing that brings us together as parliamentarians on a Saturday morning is the feeling that we could have done this better and that the Leader of the House could have organised this a bit better so that instead of being here in Parliament on a Saturday morning we might have actually been spending our time with our constituents. As we all know in our electorates there are many things we could be doing this morning. We do not have very much time before Christmas comes along. 
Firstly I will touch on what has already been mentioned in terms of the Archives and the National Library. The Education and Science Committee sat through 31 submissions of evidence and—Louise Upston will know this as well—every single one of them without exception opposed the bill. The submissions were some of the best I think I have ever heard while sitting on a select committee in my short career here in Parliament. 
Submissions were made by people who had worked under the 1990s regime and had seen the mess that occurred as a result of putting the Archives in particular inside the Department of Internal Affairs. They pleaded for us to keep it separate. They showed us that in almost every other country in the world best practice was to keep archives outside the Department of Internal Affairs. From there it could serve as an independent watchdog and a repository of information that benefited the whole of New Zealand—the whole of New Zealand. 
Instead we are burying both the Archives and the National Library inside the Department of Internal Affairs which will make the heads of both of those departments third-tier positions. That means that they will not despite what we were told in the select committee have access to the responsible Minister. It seems like the Minister would not necessarily be doing anything even if they did have access to the Minister so perhaps that is a pointless point to bring up. 
This measure has been done under the auspices of making something more efficient and more effective. It saves about $160000 a year. We could probably do an internal reshuffle and save more than that if that were able to done. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: One day in Parliament in urgency. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: We would probably save as much as that if we had a Leader of the House who actually organised himself. I have to say that 2 weeks ago we had made plans right through this weekend to get out in the electorate and do things before the Christmas break. Those plans seem to have been shot down. 
Let us move to the research and science provisions in the bill which present less of a problem to this side of the House. In fact I congratulate Minister Mapp on coming up with a good name: the Ministry of Science and Innovation [ 
Interruption 
] That is true. I was reflecting on what would have happened if Wayne Mapp by some remarkable feat had won the 1981 Mt Roskill selection and had come in as the member for Mt Roskill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: As a Labour member? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: As a Labour member for Mount Roskill—that is right. I was thinking about how he would have risen through the Labour Party as a result of being in Mt Roskill. It is an interesting thought; I did not spend too long thinking about it. 
Dr Mapp came up with a great name: the Ministry of Science and Innovation. We may ask what is in a name. Well the answer is not a whole lot. If we dig below the name we see the same old same old approach coming out yet again. 
I will give members two examples. First of all putting two departments together will not save any money for at least 7 years according to the Auditor-General’s report. That report supposes that no extra people have been taken on board as a result of new things that the new ministry comes up with. It will be 7 years. 
The other thing that was interesting when the select committee looked at this bill was that I expected perhaps in the preamble something slightly more inspirational about what this bill is trying to do. It is bringing together two pieces of Government bureaucracy. The officials said that they had not had time to think about that and that they had been too busy trying to merge the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology. In a sense that says it all about this legislation. It starts off aspiring to be something that really tries to take us forward but it does not. It falls at the first hurdle; it really does not move us forward any more. 
I will give the House a second example which is in respect of appointing the head of this new ministry. From the very beginning I have had no issues or problems with the person who was chosen for this job. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Was it Christine Rankin? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: No in this case it was not Christine Rankin. But I ask members this: if we were going to start a brand new ministry that really looked to be inspirational and aspirational about what we want to do as the Minister has spoken about in every speech he has come out with what would we do? I will tell the House what I would do. I would advertise across the world and try to get the best person for the job from perhaps the other side of the world perhaps from Finland or Denmark which the Minister keeps mentioning as the example of where we want to be in the world. Maybe we should go to Denmark and see whether we can attract anybody from Denmark to New Zealand who can show us what happened there. We could have looked at Sweden or Singapore. 
What happened in this case? Again this is no reflection on the person who was eventually appointed. What happened? We opened that recruitment process for 2½ weeks. I know from talking to a lot of people around town that the recruitment agency did not have the resources to go further abroad and make an international search. There is absolutely no way that we can say with our hand on our heart that we have trawled the world for the best possible person and got the best possible person. If we had done that and the current head of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology had been selected I would have said that it is fantastic to have a Kiwi a New Zealander who is able to do the job. But we have not. 
This is another example that permeates right through the Government of where we have sold ourselves short. We have lacked the vision we have lacked the plan and we have lacked the aspiration even though this is one of the main areas where the Government wants to pick up New Zealand’s economic performance. We have lacked the drive to drive this ministry forward to the place it should be. 
Here we are on a Saturday morning looking at a bill that puts the Archives and the National Library back into the Department of Internal Affairs despite the best advice from just about everybody who has ever worked in both of those areas. In the research science and technology area we could have made a real difference and really lived up to the great name that the Minister has come up with but instead we have fallen sadly short. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak on the State Sector Management Bill the purpose of which is to amalgamate a number of existing agencies to achieve gains in terms of financial efficiencies effectiveness and future viability of agencies. These amalgamations will improve services within existing baselines reducing cost in the short to medium term and future-proofing the long-term delivery of Government services. I commend this bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 If ever there was an example of Government legislation that is a triumph of ideology over common sense then the State Sector Management Bill is that legislation. We are sitting on a Saturday morning under urgency because apparently the most important thing that this Government has to do before Christmas is merge Archives New Zealand and the National Library. God forbid that we should go into 2011 without having merged Archives New Zealand and the National Library! I hate to think what that would mean for the economy of this country and the people of New Zealand. I think that shows the priorities of this Government. It has the people of Aotearoa New Zealand at heart! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It was time for a change. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It was absolutely time for a change in the way we manage our National Library and our archives. 
The merger of Archives New Zealand and the National Library absolutely defies belief. It was only 10 years ago that we separated them out because of all the problems they were having when they were administered by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Education. 
On the subject of Archives New Zealand interestingly enough I think there is quite a lot of correlation between the National Government’s attempts to rewrite history and its desire to run down the role of Archives New Zealand. Archives New Zealand plays a key constitutional role in New Zealand. It ensures that the documents of Government are retained and are available for scrutiny by the people of New Zealand. Should we really be surprised that this National Government has shown no respect for the processes under the Official Information Act? When we put in our Official Information Act requests to the Government the information comes back late. The Government refuses to release anything but if it is forced to release anything we get blank pages or words crossed out because the Government does not want the people of New Zealand to know that the advice it has been getting from its officials shows that the path we are on is not good for our country. So I do not think we should be particularly surprised that the Government would like to undermine the role of Archives New Zealand because that would make it a lot easier for John Key and his team to rewrite history which they have tried to do many many times already. 
This bill will result in the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian being nothing more than third-tier managers in the Department of Internal Affairs. Those roles require independence. One has to ask how the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian can remain independent when they are beholden to a chief executive above them and to managers above them and are far more beholden to a Minister than ever before. 
Let us ask ourselves what the mischief is that the Government is trying to solve. Members across the House have sat on select committees that both these entities have come before for their financial reviews. Both of them are very very well run. They are very efficiently run. They get very good reports from the Audit Office and from select committees. So they are not organisations that are in trouble in any way. They are not organisations that are underperforming. The cost savings that the Government has been trumpeting are simply not there. 
One of the things Government Ministers have said is that if they bring these entities together the big information and communication technology project to digitalise all of this information will be easier to do. Well according to people who actually know about that digitisation it is doomed to fail because of the complexity of this merger and the way that the new entities will be set up. In fact that information and communication technology project is under threat from this merger. 
So why is the Government doing it other than out of blind ideology—blind ideology—and a feeling that it hates Government departments and nameless faceless bureaucrats despite the fact that they are preserving our history for future generations of New Zealanders? The Government has no plan for our economy so instead it will say: “Aren’t we great? We fired a whole lot of people in the State sector. Aren’t we doing a really good job? Look at us managing public funds properly.” even though there will be no savings from this merger and even though it puts at risk very expensive projects that have been ongoing for a long time. More important it undermines the very independence of these two constitutional roles which this House should be protecting. 
I will follow on from my colleague David Shearer and his comments about the other part of this legislation which is the combining of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. Labour members do not oppose that. I do not think it will make any great change to be perfectly honest. In fact when Dr Mapp came to the select committee for his first appropriation— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Was he awake? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —yes he was awake and he was enthusiastic about his new role—he quite eloquently laid out why the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology were separate. Committee members remember talking about the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. Dr Mapp very eloquently pointed out that the Ministry of Research Science and Technology is the ministry that provides policy to the Government. He told us that it was Government-facing. Then he said that the Foundation for Research Science and Technology was different because it was the funding arm for the area of science and research and development so the Foundation for Research Science and Technology faced out towards the science community. That he explained was why the two entities need to be separate: the Ministry of Research Science and Technology served the Government and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology served the science community and those two roles were very very different. He remembers saying that because he is smiling now. So I wonder why given how eloquently he professed at the select committee that the two entities needed to remain separate all of a sudden we are combining them for no apparent benefit. There will be no cost savings for at least 7 years. 
I also note that this week the Minister of Housing announced exactly the opposite approach for the Housing New Zealand Corporation: the Government will take policy away from the operational arm of the Housing New Zealand Corporation because it needs to keep those two separate. So I am not sure why one thing works for the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Department of Building and Housing and something completely different works for the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology but kei te pai that is all right. We do not think it will do a whole lot of damage. It is really just shuffling the deck chairs. 
It does not answer the more important questions in the area of science and research and development which are why the Government slashed the funding the previous Labour Government had put in place and why it removed the research and development tax credit which was unanimously supported by the sector as a tool it needed to lift private-sector investment in research and development and replaced it with a bureaucratic grants system. If Labour had put that in place members opposite would have been all over us about how bureaucratic it was how inefficient it was and why we had not introduced a tax credit. But they could not accept that a tax credit was a good idea and it was Labour’s idea when it came to research and development. Bill English has always had a funny thing about tax credits. He gets wound up about them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And scientists. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s against science. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He’s anti-science. The fact is the research and development tax credit was a good idea. It has been replaced by a very bureaucratic idea which is far less efficient than Labour’s was. The Minister for Crown research institutes keeps going on about how great this Government has been for science. I want to know whether he would say that to my friends whom I went through university with— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: There are too many. 
MOANA MACKEY 
:—that is right there are far too many—whom I studied science with who have been laid off from Crown research institutes under this Government which is apparently the great Government of science because of funding cuts. 
Minister Tony Ryall is in charge of this legislation. Another thing he does not talk about is that a lot of the cuts in science funding have come through health cuts. A lot of scientific research is carried out under funding from the Ministry of Health. I know many people who have lost their jobs. They are highly qualified scientists. That is not to mention the science advisers that have also been fired and who have gone overseas— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hey in this Government even the science Minister will get laid off. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Quite possibly—who knows? This Government has not been good for science. Here we are merging the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. That is fine. I do not think it will do an awful lot. It will not result in cost savings or better outcomes for science so one has to wonder why we are doing it. I have taken that view from the Minister of Research Science and Technology himself who absolutely convinced me at the select committee in 2009 that this merger was not something the Government should be doing that the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology carry out two very different roles. I took that view from the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp. 
I come back to the core part of this legislation which is the absolute ridiculousness of merging Archives New Zealand and the National Library. Maybe we should not be surprised; this Government has shown absolutely no respect for libraries and librarians and the role they perform. It cut the school library service. People living in provincial New Zealand used to have access to someone at the National Library who could make sure that children growing up in the provinces got the same access to information as children growing up in the cities did. Well that is gone. Guess what they were given? An 0800 number—as if that is the same thing! Provincial schools were up in arms about that because they used the service regularly. It meant that children in rural areas got the same access to information as kids in the cities did. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: What a lot of rubbish. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Anne Tolley to visit some schools in her electorate; they will tell her. But they are not allowed to because when she visits a school the staff are told that they are not allowed to discuss education with her. They are not allowed to discuss education. Because she is their local MP they can talk about local issues only—although I note that she has started to visit schools now that we are coming into election year. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the State Sector Management Bill. This bill amalgamates a number of existing agencies. What do we get from that? We achieve gains in terms of financial and operational efficiencies. It is about improving effectiveness through synergies within those departments. But the best thing this bill does is guarantee the future viability of these agencies. We have inherited a financial mess from the last Labour Government. The amalgamations will improve services within existing baselines and will reduce those costs in the short to medium term. On that basis I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 5. 
Question agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 66 Noes 45. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the State Sector Management Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 66 Noes 45. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit to adopt the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 
. In speaking to this— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to be clear. Has there been an agreement to allow the member to speak and is what he has requested within the scope of the bill? If it is within the scope of the bill then it would be considered as part of the Committee stage. If it is outside the scope of the bill then there is no reason to allow this member to have a speech. I ask that you make a ruling on this matter immediately and that we take some time to understand what is being proposed here. As a speaker he may—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. There is a constant barrage across the House and this is quite a technical point. I want Chris Tremain to continue with his point of order. 
Chris Tremain 
: I am just asking that you have some time to consider what is being proposed in the debate that the Hon Trevor Mallard is putting on to the floor of the House. There have been previous instances in the last month or two where this tactic has been tried and it has I would add been successful at that point in time for the Opposition. But with the benefit of hindsight it should have never been allowed. If the presiding officer had been given the opportunity to consider what was being proposed it would have been ruled out of order at that time and the debate would not have been allowed to proceed. So I ask Mr Assistant Speaker Barker that you consider whether what is being proposed is within the scope of the bill. If it is it will be dealt with in the Committee stage. If it is outside the scope of bill then I ask that it be ruled out of order immediately. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to members— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am entitled to make a ruling. It is the Speaker’s prerogative. I do not need any particular assistance on this matter thank you. Fortunately we have had some time to think about this matter in advance. The point of Mr Mallard’s instruction is that it proposes to set an amendment that seeks to amend the bill to allow for amendment to the functions of the Tertiary Education Commission as set out in the Education Act 1989 by removing the commission’s role as a policy adviser to the Minister for Tertiary Education. Mr Mallard’s instruction proposes an amendment that is foreign to the bill and if it is foreign to the bill it is not a proper instruction. It is therefore out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was considerable consultation on this particular approach and the advice I received is that any member can move an instruction to include something in a bill. It is regularly done by Ministers for matters that are outside the scope of the bill as a method of including them in the bill. That is the point of the instruction: if something is already part of the bill and it can be considered by the Committee without an instruction there would be no place for instructions whatsoever. Mr Assistant Speaker Barker you know that instructions are regularly used in order to widen the scope of the bill and to include in a bill matters that are related but out of scope. 
Clearly this is a related matter. It is a State sector reorganisation matter. It is actually a transfer of policy function between two State agencies so it is a State sector reorganisation matter. The House of course can vote against it now or the House could deal with it later. In fact the logical thing for the Government would probably be to save a lot of time and deal with it now because it will deal with it later in the education area. It is a photocopy of Anne Tolley’s amendment. The Government supports it completely and the Government could save a lot of time by doing it in the right place rather than in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) which is the wrong place. 
I go back to the original point. Can you explain Mr Assistant Speaker Barker given your ruling what possible area could be the subject of an instruction? The history of the House has been that instructions from the House to the Committee to consider matters are used for things that would otherwise be outside the scope of the bill. The right to do that has been both the Government’s and the Opposition’s. My anxiety with your ruling—because I want to be on the other side of the House in the not too distant future—is that you will be removing the right of anyone to move an instruction to extend the scope of a bill in order to include in it matters that would otherwise be out or order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I just say to the member that matters that come before the House have to conform to the Standing Orders and the rules of this House. One cannot amend those by way of an instruction to the Committee by motion. The only method members have to do that is by seeking leave. I have had cases of bills amended by leave as other presiding officers have. There has to be unanimity; it is not a majority decision. 
The member’s amendment is outside of the scope of the bill. It is foreign to the bill and it cannot be done by a motion. I have ruled it out of order. The member has asked what possible options members would have in the future. Members will have in the future exactly the same options they have today. They may seek leave and it must be a majority decision. The matter is closed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a slight extension of the previous point of order. It goes to the question of the history of the moving at this stage of the debate of motions that have certainly not been by leave that have extended the scope of the bill. That has happened on dozens of occasions since I have been a member of Parliament. Generally it is within the field of the bill but the extension is for something that would not have otherwise been allowed. 
If you are ruling in this way I think you are setting a very dangerous precedent whereby Governments will not be able to extend the scope of bills. I can remember during the whole State sector reorganisation when much more major things came in at this late stage of the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will clarify it for the member one further time. There is a difference between extending the scope of the bill by resolution and something that is foreign to the bill. I am saying that this amendment is not within the scope; the amendment the member has moved is foreign to the bill. It is quite outside of the bill. In that particular case the only method the member has available is to make the amendment by leave. The member is failing to make that distinction. 
I make the point to the member again if he cares to listen that the member can move an instruction to the Committee on an amendment when it is consistent with the bill or associated with the bill but if it is one step removed and it is foreign to the bill then the member cannot do it by a motion. In that particular case the member can do it only by leave. I have ruled the member’s amendment out and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order goes right to the core of your ruling which is whether this instruction is foreign. This is a State sector restructuring bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: My ruling on that instruction is that it is foreign to the bill. It is clear. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling that the Supplementary Order Paper that my colleague was promoting was foreign to the bill. I wonder whether you have had a chance to reflect on Speaker’s ruling 79/3. It is quite an ancient Speaker’s ruling from my perspective as it goes back to 1931. It sets out the conditions in which an instruction that may be foreign or contradictory can be referred to the Committee or in which the House can confer a power on the Committee that it does not ordinarily possess if that is the will of the House. I think 79/3 brings it into the competency of what the member Trevor Mallard was attempting to move. I wonder whether on that scale— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I respond to the member and say that if the member reads 79/3 he will see it is entirely consistent with what I have said. For the member’s assistance: “It is competent for a member to move an instruction the subject-matter of which is neither ‘irrelevant nor foreign nor contradictory to the decision of the House taken on the introduction and second reading of the bill’”. I have said that the member’s amendment is foreign to the bill. I have ruled absolutely in accordance with the Speaker’s ruling from 1931. I thank the member for refreshing my memory. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That 
it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider and if it thinks fit to adopt the typescript amendment to clause 25 
. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to Grant Robertson that his instruction to the Committee is out of order because it seeks to give the Committee the power to do something it already has the power to do. The Committee has that power; it does not need it again. This House does not need belts and braces. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider the amendments set out in the typescript amendment in the name of my colleague Grant Robertson to insert new clause 28A.  
This is a— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: We will not have a speech on that motion. I say to the member that the member’s motion fails for exactly the same reason that I failed Mr Robertson’s. If an amendment is already on the Table and the Committee has the power to consider it it is within scope and it does not need an instruction to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the State Sector Management Bill that it have the power to consider an amendment from Grant Robertson that is yet to be tabled in this House and is relevant to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that we will not have motions that anticipate possible amendments. The Committee of the whole House has that power of itself and the Committee having the power to consider any fine amendment moved by Grant Robertson will decide on its own whether it agrees with it. It does not need an instruction to the Committee to do that. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having listened to the three points of order from Trevor Mallard all of which have been ruled out for lack of compliance with the Standing Orders; having listened to the shadow Leader of the House raise a point of order that in fact confirmed your ruling and did not provide any evidence for it to be revisited; and having listened to the member for Wellington Central try the same tactic I suggest to you that we are now at the point where the Opposition is trifling with your ruling. On two occasions you have declared the matter closed and I suggest that we move on with the business at hand. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Provisions relating to research science and technology 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 Some of the early provisions of the State Sector Management Bill cut to the heart of what the bill is really about in terms of research science and technology issues. First I want to come to the aspect of the definitions contained in this bill. 
A number of submitters made some comment on that matter—in particular on clauses 7(1) and 7(2). One or two of the submitters wanted to try to put into the bill and to have much more fleshed out the definitions of what constitutes science research technological development innovation and benefit to New Zealand. They felt that the bill as it stood at that point did not go into that sufficiently. They wanted to see those terms expressed more fully explained and defined more fully in the legislation and I think there was some sympathy for that view. 
In particular the submitters cut to the definitions that are applied by the OECD in terms of science research and technology. Those definitions which are widely accepted as being the authority on research and development are the Frascati definitions. They define basic research as “experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts without any particular application or use in view.” In those terms basic research is what one would call the foundation work that we do in science. Applied research—and I quote from the Frascati definitions again—“is also original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. It is however directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective.” We can see the difference between the two definitions. 
Our science in New Zealand obviously straddles both of those areas. We have fundamental research taking place particularly in our universities. The work of the Crown research institutes tends to be more of the applied nature although I have to say that even in those institutes a significant amount of good science is happening particularly in the basic earth sciences. But I think the feeling was that those definitions in a sense set the bill up so there was no problem in understanding what was being referred to in clauses 7(1) and (2). 
The applied and the more experimental research is somewhat different from those two areas. Again I will quote from the Frascati definitions: “Experimental development is systematic work drawing on existing knowledge gained from research and/or practical experience which is directed to producing new materials products or devices to installing new processes systems and services or to improving substantially those already produced or installed.” We can think of many many examples of that one of which is the development of the red kiwifruit. That is really a development of something that currently exists but the new knowledge and new science that was applied to kiwifruit enabled a new product to come about. 
In many ways that example cuts to the heart of what this bill looks to do which is to look for innovation in terms of our science research and technology. The bill tries to build on that aspect of what we do in our science and research institutions. That is where we get the greatest amount of economic benefit; the economic benefit comes from improving what already exists. There is nothing wrong with that. Obviously a lot of things come out of blue-sky science and we do some extremely good blue-sky research in our science institutions. But not much of it—or very little of it—actually goes on to produce real economic benefit. The core of the economic benefit comes from the area covered by the Frascati definition that I just read out which applies to experimental development that builds on and develops processes and aspects of our science system that are already in place. 
We discussed at some length in the Education and Science Committee whether it would be worth putting the Frascati definitions in the bill. I think we came to the basic conclusion that with regard to the use of the phrase “RS&T” in clauses 7(2)(e) and (f) although the Frascati definitions are good and comprehensive they are really already embodied inside that definition. They are embodied in the bill already. It is well known what they mean and they are well accepted throughout New Zealand so we thought it was probably unnecessary to draw that definition out any further. However we agreed to amend the phrase “RS&T’ used in clauses 7(2)(e) and (f) to read “research science or technology” but we did not change the definition of “RS&T funding” in clause 4. 
I come to the second issue raised by submitters on this part of this bill which was the phrase “the benefit of New Zealand” in clause 7(1). Again it was felt by some submitters that we should have that specifically brought into the bill and stated up front. The committee did not discuss that in great depth but we felt that the phrase “the benefit of New Zealand” is probably intended to have its ordinary natural meaning. In fact most of us would believe that it is pretty self-explanatory and that to expand it and try to define it would do the opposite to what the submitters wanted which was to make that definition clear. If we had defined it that might have made it much more restrictive in terms of the future interpretation of the legislation. So we left that particular part of the definition “the benefit of New Zealand” in place. 
In conclusion I think this particular issue of the definitions is really important as we are moving towards a bill that in a sense develops a new title of research and innovation and that was well discussed. I think we have now started off this new legislation with a full understanding of exactly what the various definitions mean. We are clear about that and it is based in the commentary on the bill. I will leave it at that. Thank you. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Part 1 of the State Sector Management Bill is part of a new strategic approach that the Government is taking in the area of science and innovation whereby we are bringing together the two agencies that provided advice to Ministers in this area. We are bringing a much greater focus on the delivery of science and its outcomes to the New Zealand store of knowledge which will improve our ability to commercialise any ideas and products therefrom. 
The bill brings together the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research Science and Technology into the Ministry of Science and Innovation. The Ministry of Science and Innovation will have separate boards which have been given statutory powers and responsibility for the granting of various innovation funds to people involved in the science sector. 
The Minister of Research Science and Technology the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp has often made the point that he has always met with both the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research Science and Technology every time he has considered these issues. That indicates that in terms of the Minister’s dealings with the department we will have an improved relationship. But more important I think that those involved in research science and technology innovation in New Zealand will see an improved responsiveness from the centre and a much greater focus on the shared priorities that we have across the science and innovation sector. I am sure that later on in response to questions we will be able to give them some more detail on that. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 What a load of twaddle! I am sorry but nothing in the State Sector Management Bill will achieve all the grandiose stuff we just heard about. I am not sure but apparently the Minister of State Services has had great conversations with the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp about how he would have great discussions with the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology. Well the only discussion I have had with Dr Mapp on this matter was when he told a select committee that the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology should not be combined. That is the only thing I have heard Dr Mapp talk about when it comes to the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology. 
The Minister of State Services says we should have a strategic approach. How is this merger a strategic approach to assisting research science and technology in New Zealand? There is nothing strategic about a Minister who less than 18 months ago said this merger should not happen suddenly deciding that because the Government needed to be seen to be doing something it should happen. The Minister also said this merger would help with the delivery of science and science outcomes. I see that the Minister of Research Science and Technology is now in the chair and I would like to know which exact clauses will suddenly help the commercialisation of science in New Zealand. What really worries me about that contribution is that nothing in this bill will do that. Labour will not vote against Part 1 not because we think it will be great but because we do not think it will necessarily do any damage. But if the Government seriously believes that there will be a step change in science in New Zealand from combining the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology then we are really in trouble when it comes to innovation. It simply will not do that. 
I circled under clause 4 which is the interpretation clause: “ ‘Minister’ means the Minister of the Crown who under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister is for the time being responsible for the administration of this Part”. I would like to remove the word “Minister” and replace it with “Paul Hutchison” because he is a National member who understands the science sector. He would never have stood up and given a contribution like the one given by the Minister of State Services. He claimed that this bill will result in a strategic approach to research and science in New Zealand and commercialisation and all these grandiose things. Paul Hutchison would never have said that because he knows that what the sector needs is more funding. That is why we should remove the word “Minister” and replace it with “Paul Hutchison”. 
I will talk about Subpart 1 “Allocation of funding” which is in Part 1. It outlines the purposes for which this research science and technology funding may be allocated. There a number of very worthy causes here. Clause 7(2)(a) states that the activities should be “likely to increase knowledge or understanding of the physical biological or social environment;”. As we know we are in a brave new world now. The Royal Society of New Zealand is bringing the humanities into its organisation so it is appropriate that under this part of the bill we recognise the research that goes on in the social sector. As we go to clause 7(2)(b) we see that a funded activity “is likely to contribute to New Zealand’s economic growth;”. Absolutely but there should be recognition of the fact that just saying that will not make it happen. I come back to the fact that all the ideas listed in clause 7(2) are worthy ideas but they will not result in anything if the Government keeps slashing funding and support and if scientists in New Zealand keep on being fired. That does not contribute to the economic growth of New Zealand. 
Then we see in clause 7(2)(c) that a funded activity “is likely to develop maintain or increase skills or scientific or technological expertise that is of particular importance to New Zealand;”. We cannot argue with that except to say again that just saying it does not make it so. We would like to see the Minister in the chair take a call to outline how the decisions that his Government has made to cut back on the funding that the previous Government put in place will help bring about the activity described in clause 7(2)(c) into being. From where we sit and from the discussions we are having around the country with people in the sector things are going in the opposite direction. Clause 7(2)(c) states “increase skills or scientific or technological expertise”. Increasing skills in science is a core part of what the sector needs yet science advisers in schools are being fired. How can this measure increase science skills in New Zealand if we have no science advisers which means that science is undervalued at primary school? That will feed all the way through the system and we are very very concerned about that. Those advisers have gone now. They are highly talented highly skilled. They have all been snapped up by other countries which are very happy to have them and those advisers are very happy to be in countries with Governments that support science unlike in New Zealand. 
I think clause 7(2)(d) is very telling. It states that the activities referred to are “unlikely to be funded or adequately funded from non-governmental sources;”. Why do we have to have that? Because New Zealand has one of the lowest private sector spends on research science and technology. Acknowledging here that there is not adequate funding in this area raises the question as to why the National Government got rid of Labour’s research and development tax credit. Why did it get rid of Labour’s research and development tax credit to the point where it now even has to admit in legislation that we cannot get funding from non-governmental sources? The provision refers to activities “unlikely to be funded or adequately funded from non-governmental sources;”. Why does the Minister in chair not explain why he cut one of the single biggest factors that would have resulted in more non-governmental funding of science in New Zealand? Everyone was telling him that. Prior to the last election we found out that groups from all over the country were flying around trying to catch up with Bill English who was then the Opposition spokesman on finance to tell him to please not get rid of the research and development tax credit because more non-governmental funding for science was needed. Yet this Government decided based on who knows what reason it has for doing anything in this area that it would get rid of it. Well Australia did that and do members know what? Australia had to bring it back because its funding had fallen down so far and it had been such a failure yet this Government failed to take that lesson on board. 
We come now to clause 8 which is under the heading “Criteria for assessing RS&T funding”. It lays out criteria that the Minister is to set and that the boards the Government is setting up will need to adhere to when deciding who gets this particular funding. Clause 8(1) states: “The Minister must from time to time by notice given to each board and published in the 
 Gazette 
 set criteria for the assessment of proposals for specified RS&T funding.” That is quite a lot of power for the Minister. We get a bit nervous about a whole lot of power in an area of such technical expertise being placed with a Minister who from time to time may be someone who does not know a lot about research science and technology and does not have a background in it— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Oh! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Simon Power assumes I am talking about the Minister in the chair but I said “from time to time”. That was a very telling Freudian slip I say to Mr Power but I was not actually talking about his colleague. Although I note that when Dr Mapp took over the portfolio he kept telling everyone he went to meet that he did not want the portfolio and was as surprised as anyone to get it. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I never said that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Dr Mapp that he did. I think Dr Mapp was trying to lower expectations but it had a bit of a negative effect in the sector. 
From time to time we may have a Minister who does not have a lot of expertise in this area yet clause 8(1) provides that Minister with an extraordinary amount of power to decide where this funding goes and to set criteria. As someone with a science background one thing I like to point out to colleagues—and I think David Carter has also pointed it out—is that the person who invented the motorcar said that if people had asked what politicians wanted and businesses wanted they would have been told they wanted faster horses. That is very telling. Sometimes Ministers do not know where science funding will go or what the next big thing will be. We could look at a whole lot of other things: penicillin was discovered by mistake; when the electron was discovered everyone said what a useless piece of information it was even though it was kind of interesting and now our entire world is run by electronics. Yet this clause puts the power to direct the direction of funding of science in the hands of one person and I wonder whether that is the most sensible thing to do. It seems to me that it is a move away from the funding of fundamental science which is where we tell people to go out and find new discoveries—the big things that actually create a lot of wealth. They are the kinds of things that are funded in the United States and more and more are being funded in places like Australia where people understand the importance of fundamental science. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is chipping away at me but he could get to his feet and take a call which I would very much appreciate. It seems like a lot of power is being given to one Minister to direct which areas of science will be funded. 
I note that funding cannot be given to particular people. That is a very important safeguard in the law and I absolutely agree with it. But there are areas of science where not many people work so one could direct funding towards a particular area of science and it would go to a particular person who one knows is the key person working in that area. So there is a little bit of undermining of that perhaps. I know that my colleague Chris Hipkins is particularly concerned about this issue so I will not steal his thunder in that regard. 
But I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and can I say how pleased I am that the Minister of Research Science and Technology is in the chair for this particular part. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 As my colleague Moana Mackey alluded—it was a very good call—I wish to talk about the purpose of the bill as stated in Part 1. The Minister of Research Science and Technology is being given the power to establish boards to make independent funding decisions and I stress the word “independent”. I will quiz the Minister in the chair the Minister of Research Science and Technology. I hope that he will give me some responses to the questions I am about to raise about how some of the powers vested in this bill will aid that independence in the decision-making criteria. 
Clause 8(1) states: “The Minister must from time to time by notice given to each board and published in the 
 Gazette 
 set criteria for the assessment of proposals for specified RS&T funding.” But clause 8(3) prevents the Minister from directing funding decisions toward particular people so the Minister could not determine that a particular person or project would be funded. 
However I would like to know how the Government will ensure that the powers given in clause 8(1) and also in clause 10(3) which specifies: “The Minister may specify that a board is to make funding decisions on proposals for specified RS&T funding in relation to 1 or more areas of research science or technology or related activities” will not be used in such a way that funding is directed to specific projects or people. In the research science and technology community in New Zealand there will probably be only one or two people or entities working in a particular area in some cases. It seems that the Minister is being given through the bill the power to direct funding into quite specific projects. I would like some comment from the Minister on that. 
Perhaps as a useful way of doing that he could comment on this: one of the things the bill does is require the Minister to establish one or more boards but I do not think we have heard how the Government envisages implementing this proposal. I would like to know how many boards for example the Government envisages establishing under this bill. The Minister is indicating two boards. I would be interested to hear what areas they will be working in and what the scope of those two boards will be. It could well be that the concern I had about funding being directed into specific areas will be alleviated by the way those boards are to be composed and the remit that they will be given. 
Under the purposes for which research science and technology funding may be allocated I guess I welcomed the order of priority given in the ordering of the activities referred to in the sense that the first priority set out in clause 7(2)(a) is to increase knowledge or understanding of the physical biological and social environment. As my colleague Moana Mackey said we do not always know where scientific discovery will land up. It could well be that some of the major advances in science and technology in the future come from pursuits and endeavours in a research area that at the moment we do not necessarily see much value in. If we were to place the priorities set out in paragraph 7(2)(b) ahead of the priorities set out in subclause 7(2)(a)—subclause 7(2)(b) refers to contributing to New Zealand’s economic growth—we might well miss out on some absolutely fantastic opportunities. 
One of the concerns that we have about all funding for research science and technology—and when I say “we” I mean generally as a country as opposed to specific parties or politicians—is that funding is being too narrowly focused on stuff with an economic impact and not on the wider value of science. If we want to really promote scientific discovery and research new and exciting areas that do not necessarily let us know where the research will lead to it will require a much more holistic approach than simply what is in the bill. The bill is pretty narrowly focused and as Moana Mackey commented it will not really change an awful lot. 
We need to look at where science takes place starting at schools. We are struggling to get kids coming out of schools who are interested in pursuing careers in science. [ 
Interruption 
] There will be even fewer under national standards because science is not given a particularly high priority under the Government’s national standards policy. Actually that is where it starts. It starts with getting more kids who are leaving school wanting to pursue careers in science. If we are not doing that and the Government has taken science advisers out of schools then a lot of the rest of this debate will be immaterial. Also I guess we have to look at the scientific research and endeavours that are undertaken in universities. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Before I get into clauses 7 8 and 9— 
Louise Upston 
: Wishful thinking. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Absolutely! I know Louise Upston will be taking a call because she followed this bill very closely in the Education and Science Committee. I am sure that we will hear from her. Rather than chipping across the Chamber she will get up and take a call because she believes in the importance of science Archives New Zealand and the National Library. 
I will comment briefly on Minister Ryall’s intervention earlier about the importance of having the strategic approach and improved responsiveness that we would see as a result of what is covered in Part 1. It is difficult to take that too seriously because I suspect that the improved responsiveness we will see is that the new Ministry of Science and Innovation will be quicker to say no; that will be the improvement in the responsiveness. If the Government is not prepared to commit resources to science research technology and innovation then all of this shuffling of deckchairs means nothing. I think it is important to say at the outset that members on this side of the Chamber are strongly supportive of science funding. We were very alarmed to see the moves that this Government made in its early days and we would like to see a greater commitment beyond simply structural changes which as my colleague David Shearer said do no harm as such but do not exactly lead us anywhere in a particularly positive direction. 
My colleague Chris Hipkins made some points about clause 7. Some submitters to the select committee expressed concerns about the way in which clause 7 constructs a hierarchy of criteria that will be assessed when making decisions about research science and technology funding. In particular concern was raised about the question of contestability. I know that Minister Ryall Paul Hutchison and other National members who have had a bit of involvement in the sector know that one of the really difficult balances in research science and technology is the balance between stable funding and contestability. It truly is one of the enormous challenges that faces any Government in trying to work out how to ensure that we have that kind of blue-sky thinking that Chris Hipkins talked about or indeed how we avoid the “faster horse” phenomenon that Moana Mackey mentioned. How do we make sure that the new and innovative idea is taken up? 
The concern was raised in the select committee that the way in which clause 7(2) is laid out does not give sufficient emphasis to contestability. The officials made a good argument to the select committee that the merging of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research Science and Technology bring together a number of different types of funding and that the foundation tended to have a fairly rigorously contestable process and the ministry has perhaps a number of other different processes that it is working on and therefore we did not need to take up the idea of the submitter who said that the contestability provisions of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology Act should find their way into this Act. That is an interesting point and it is one that the Minister may choose to comment on. 
When we read through clause 7(2) or the whole of clause 7 for that matter it is true to say that it does not have that clear statement around the question of contestability. I think it is important that we have that balance of stable funding. In particular we know that the Crown research institutes talk a lot about the importance of stable funding and contestable funding—contestable funding that highlights the possibilities of cooperation between different actors in the science sector. I think we can certainly support clause 7 as it stands now but the Minister may choose to comment on how this definition and the purposes will deal with the question of balance between stable funding and contestable funding. I think that lies at the heart of getting our science system right. We have to have the contestability element to generate those new ideas. We have to have the funds to support those new ideas. From time to time when funding for the Marsden Fund is announced and there are some quite different new and unique funding elements—sometimes a research element is undertaken by the spouse of a former Prime Minister for instance or somebody like that—it draws attention from the media. But actually that blue-sky research sometimes is the thing that gives us the spark to generate both economic wealth and social and environmental benefits. I think clause 7(2) is interesting and I would like to hear from the Minister on it even though the select committee itself resolved to accept the officials’ advice in that area. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I thought I should take a call in response to a number of the questions asked. I found it interesting when I listened to the various Labour members from whom we have heard so far. I sometimes think Labour members live in a parallel universe. The sense I am getting from the science sector is that there is a great deal of optimism at the moment and I do not mean just the stuff said directly to me but also what has been said indirectly through the Chief Science Adviser to the Prime Minister Peter Gluckman and many others. The sector sees that the changes the Government has made—which are not just legislative but also broader in the Crown Research Institute Taskforce and the increases in funding to the Marsden Fund and the Health Research Council—have been significant. Although Mr Shearer tended to dismiss these changes as being a minor consequence as indeed did Moana Mackey they are in fact part and parcel of a broader setting that we are changing here. In a sense we could say that this legislation is effectively enabling legislation. Although we may not see the words in here in a strategic setting effectively that is what is then able to be undertaken. That was missed in the previous division of the ministry and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. 
I note that Moana Mackey is inclined to keep repeating the untruth—because she knows it to be untrue—that I did not want to be in charge of the ministry. She knows it is untrue because she knows that I actually said I was not expecting the portfolio. But I am very pleased to have got it. The reason I am pleased to have it is that I had spent a lot of time in Opposition in a working group on the North Shore which included people like Professor Raine and a number of other leading science people. We were thinking about the role of innovation in New Zealand and we wrote a series of papers on it as a part of the work that one does while in Opposition. When Dr Hutchison— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did he ask the Prime Minister if he could be Minister of this portfolio? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He knew I was interested because I had been writing papers on innovation for the party. 
In answer to some specific questions that Mr Hipkins raised on the issue of boards I say there will be two boards: one will be a science board and one will be an innovation board. The name—and I think Mr Shearer correctly recognised why the name was chosen—is intended to show an end-to-end process connecting fundamental science right through to commercialisation. As a consequence we need two boards. A science board will fund more of what one might call blue-sky research and will consist mostly of New Zealand’s leading scientists as we would reasonably expect. The other board is the innovation board which will be mostly focused towards the business end of funding: the Technology New Zealand funding and the $50 million there the vouchers worth $20 million over 4 years—they are hugely oversubscribed; there is a good lesson for the future—and the recently announced technology development grants which are worth about $190 million over 4 years. The grants were also hugely well-received. I might also add that they were oversubscribed and they were superior to Labour’s tax credit scheme which was aimed at lawyers. The tax credit scheme went through the Inland Revenue Department system and was disconnected from the most innovative businesses. 
I know that a number of members have made reference to the  
TIN100  
publication which is produced by the Technology Investment Network. That sets out New Zealand’s leading technological companies. They are the ones by and large that have benefited from the technology development grant. A rigorous process was undertaken to work out which firms had the highest levels of research and development capability and they are getting the grants. 
David Shearer 
: Which bureaucrat did that? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It was an independent selection process I tell the member. So there are two boards there. 
A point was raised by Mr Grant Robertson about the balance between stable funding and contestable funding. That is an important point and the OECD task force made a report in 2007 on this very issue. The previous Government seemingly just ignored that report but we established the Crown Research Institute Taskforce which was intended to take on board the lessons from it. Members may know that the OECD has just come to New Zealand in the last week essentially to review what has occurred since then. The report particularly noted two things. The Crown Research Institute Taskforce will deliver more stable funding. We do not want all of the funding to be stable and I think Mr Robertson was correct in saying that. There is an issue of balance and we have the Science and Innovation Advisory Council to ensure that the balance is there. But there is no doubt that the Crown research institutes are enthusiastic about the results of the task force and are looking forward to implementing it. 
There are three elements. Firstly statements of core purpose are hugely important. The most effective Crown research institutes are the ones that have the best understanding of their mission. The second element is stable funding or core funding as it is called. The third element is a more appropriate form of accountability. Financial measures are still important but they are not the only measures. 
It is my clear understanding that those within the sector have been appreciative of the measures undertaken. They can see the strategic purpose of those measures: the ministry the Crown Research Institute Taskforce and the simplification—hugely—of the appropriations. I inherited a system where the appropriation system was chaotic and caused a huge amount of confusion within the sector. One of the ways that we improve the sector is to reduce compliance costs within the sector. Mr Shearer knows what I am talking about because he has heard it from many many people. Those sorts of things have been done to date. They form something of a foundation for further improvements and the sector has the opportunity to build from it. 
Part 1 is all about getting a more effective system that will be able to achieve the purposes set out in clause 7. I assure Mr Hipkins that the two boards have been established precisely to ensure that the Minister does not fund individual scientists. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Before I was interrupted on the State Sector Management Bill I was about to go on to clause 8. But I think I will return briefly to respond to a couple of Dr Mapp’s comments in particular in relation to the research and development tax credit since I had raised that matter. 
Suggesting that the fund that has been set up—some announcements about which were made in the last few days—somehow replaces that tax credit is a bizarre thing to say. How does Dr Mapp or indeed any of the officials who are making the decision really know they have covered the waterfront in terms of making sure we have the best and the brightest people working on the best ideas in New Zealand? The research and development tax credit had the great advantage of being universal for companies and accessed by everybody. Weta Digital does remarkable work and needs to be supported in that but it might not be the only organisation that is doing that work. We need to support companies across the board if we are going to lift the amount of research and development that is done in New Zealand. It is no coincidence that other countries in the world use a universal-style tax credit because they want to encourage all companies to invest in research and development and the opposite is true: they do not want to see companies going overseas because the support is not there. 
One of the great risks of moving away from the tax credit approach is that the Australians have retained the tax credit and the incentive is now there for people to go overseas. So it is all very well to say that a fund has been established and we are finding the people who will lead us into the future but what about new companies? What about the start-up companies that really need that support but now do not get it because winners have been picked by the Minister of Research Science and Technology or the Minister’s officials? I think that the Minister raising that point now really drives home to us why this bill and why Part 1 of this bill although relatively anodyne does not take us anywhere. Those good initiatives of the fifth Labour Government may have been undone by the Minister. 
I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my comments about the question of contestability and stability and obviously that is an issue of great significance to the Crown research institutes. It is also an issue of significance to universities. University research in this country is vitally important to our economy. It is of growing importance to our economy and there is concern among some university researchers about the way in which they relate to Crown research institutes how they are able to work with them and whether there are systems in place within the purposes and the criteria laid out in Part 1 for universities and Crown research institutes to work together. University researchers are very well aware that their job is to get into those contestable areas and to try to get support. They have the Performance-based Research Fund as an underlying piece of stable funding but it is very important for them to know they are regarded as being part of that research sector. I encourage the Minister in talking about that to ensure that universities are mentioned. 
To return to clause 8 as I was about to say in the Education and Science Committee one submitter came to us and suggested that the way in which the Minister might set criteria needs some consideration as well. The question really was whether the Minister should be setting this criteria on an annual basis or perhaps with a slightly more arm’s-length approach by moving out to some kind of policy statement that might set the criteria with a frequency of no more than every 3 years. Again the committee looked at the approach as listed in clause 8 and felt that it was OK for that to continue. But again there was some concern as my colleague Chris Hipkins said about the closeness of the Minister to some of those procedures. How do we know that a particular Minister will not push a particular barrow and so on? That was one of the issues raised under clause 8. The Minister in the chair could take a call and advise us how he will implement clause 8. When this bill is passed into law—for a brief period anyway—it will be his responsibility to implement it. 
The Education and Science Committee decided to make a change to clause 9 and I am sure that my colleague David Shearer will take this matter up as well. We were concerned about the way in which proposals could be referred to the boards and how they would make decisions on those matters. In order for boards to be independent and to give a proper assessment that was not directed entirely by officials or entirely by the Minister they would need their own sources of information. Clearly that was of great concern to us. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 during this example of the Government’s bold agenda for reform in our country which sees us sitting under urgency on a Saturday. Part 1 deals with the science sector and we will deal with other parts during the morning. Of course we have been told by members opposite that they are not scared of hard work but we have heard only the briefest of calls from them during the morning. Roger Douglas who came to Parliament to try to reform the State sector could not speak for even 1 minute on a bill that reforms the State sector. So we are grateful to the Minister in the chair the Hon Wayne Mapp who is at least engaging on some of the issues. Although we have a lot of criticism of him at least there is some praise in that respect for the fact that he is taking it very very seriously. But that is not what we are seeing from other areas. 
I have about three points on different clauses that I would like to address this morning. The first is clause 7. It deals with the purposes for which specified research science and technology funding may be allocated. Subclause (2) sets out six criteria for which there are purposes that are considered to be germane to the funding of sciences. I think that the areas the Minister has set out are far too narrow. In particular I would like him to comment on the complete absence of any focus on Maori issues for research science and technology. I see that the Maori Party supports this bill and I ask them to reflect on this clause. There is nothing in the purposes listed that specifically indicates there is a role for this new agency to have any focus on Maori issues for research science and technology. I say to the Minister if the New Zealand Government is not going to have a focus on Maori issues for research science and technology then which country is? Which country will look at Maori-specific issues a Maori kaupapa view on research science and technology as he is specifically making sure that in this bill the New Zealand Government is not going to. 
That is a massive omission from and weakness in clause 7(2). New Zealand’s economic growth is specified as the second purpose but there is nothing at all for Maori interests—in particular Maori economic development. If we think of some of the areas where there are significant Maori asset holdings in the country particularly around land holdings I would have thought that the ability of innovation in research science and technology to unlock some of the potential for Maori economic interests would be absolutely suited to enhanced by and lifted up by the purposes in clause 7. I want to know from the Minister whether that was an overt decision by the Government when considering this issue through Cabinet. Did it make an overt decision to exclude a specified clause for Maori issues? 
Moana Mackey 
: They talked to him about it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member Moana Mackey makes the point to me that Maori have specifically talked to him about it. Maori interests have gone to him and said they want to be included in the research science and technology agenda. Clause 7(2) does not facilitate the ability for that to happen. I think that is a mistake; it is an omission. I do not think we should simply vote this bill through because it is Saturday morning and Government members are grumpy at the Leader of the House because they are here. That is not a reason not to speak. 
Hon Member 
: That’s rubbish. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member opposite looks particularly grumpy but that could be for other reasons. We know well and truly of their inability to engage in debate on these issues. We know they have had enough. They say we should just get over it and go. But if “getting over it and going” means that Maori interests are forgotten then the Government will have to make sure it does not omit such important issues as Maori economic interests. I want the Minister to talk about that in a very important way for our country because if the New Zealand Government cannot do it no other Government will. He needs to address that and explain why it has been left out. 
Another purpose that has been left out is to make sure there is a connection with private scientific research. That is a big mistake. This Government talks long about the need to have public-private partnerships yet this bill is at the cutting edge of the Government’s reform agenda. Members of Parliament like Melissa Lee came here to merge Archives New Zealand and the National Library. She came here to make sure that the Foundation for Research Science and Technology can line up with the Ministry of Research Science and Technology. Those are crucial issues of substance amazing things that have happened yet we now know that Government members will not have the gumption to talk about them particularly to bring that private focus through in this clause. So I wanted to talk about why the Maori focus is not included in the purposes in clause 7(2) and also why the private focus is not there. If the Minister has cause to reflect on those exclusions he may be able to inform the Committee. 
We could amend the clause right here and now. We could introduce a new paragraph (g) in subclause (2) to provide a kaupapa focus. If that amendment were put up I am sure Te Ururoa Flavell from the Maori Party would support that. He seems to be getting some notes at the present time on that very matter. I cannot believe that the Maori Party would vote for a clause that specifically excludes the ability of Maori to be recognised overtly. 
We know that National went through a phase where things Maori were unpopular. The 2005 intake campaigned on the “Kiwi not iwi” billboards and some Ministers—particularly one I see on the front-bench—cackled and giggled away about how brave they were in the Brash years. That was an amazing thing she thought. Then that kind of went out of vogue because it was all “tihei mauri ora!” with the Maori Party and getting in with them. So Government members in regard to clause 7 could show us that they genuinely meant that stuff or whether it was just a passing moment in time. Was it just one of those things one does in Opposition but not in Government? That could be the new principle of the Brownlee Government. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: The member is flustered. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No there is so much to say because I know there are only a limited number of calls between now and midnight and I intend to take all of them before I come back here on Monday morning. I want to make sure we are working very hard. The Leader of the House should not be so surly about his inability to run a programme and his inability to put together a programme where people could agree on things. That would not fit with clause 7 I must admit. But clause 7 should include a Maori focus and a private focus. If the Minister ignores everything else I say I can understand that but on that Maori issue I would like to hear from him because at one time he was the Opposition spokesperson on the eradication of political correctness. That is what he was. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wayne Mapp. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Wayne Mapp had a portfolio about eradicating political correctness. I want to know whether his bias and prejudice on that matter is why clause 7 has come through in this way. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Lost it in November 2008. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Huge success! The portfolio did not survive a change of leader. As soon as Brash had gone and Gerry Brownlee was sacked as deputy leader of the National Party the portfolio was gone. That was part of the long decline of Gerry Brownlee’s career which started the moment John Key took the leadership and Wayne Mapp lost his portfolio. Mr Chairman I was responding to an interjection. 
The next thing I want to say is about clause 8(3)(b) and the conflicts with the board being directed to allocate funds for the benefit of a particular person. I trust that the Minister has quite a sensible approach on this and about how the board will operate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t know about that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am a generous person. It is ridiculous. I want the Minister to give us an assurance that he will not have that board modelled on the way the New Zealand Transport Agency board has been modelled in this respect. We see extraordinary political interference from the Minister of Transport in respect of a similar kind of clause in another law. I want the Minister to give an assurance to the Committee that the kind of political interference that Steven Joyce undertakes particularly around ridiculous roading proposals for the people of Kapiti will not be repeated in the science sphere. But that is just by the by. 
The next clause I want to address is clause 10(7) and it is very important because this bill is at the heart of the Government’s reform agenda. This bill shows how it will transform the New Zealand economy—turbocharge New Zealand catch up with Australia and bring step change for working families in New Zealand. This bill is part of the reform agenda to do that. Clause 10(7) refers to all the administrative services being transferred to the new ministry to enable the board to carry out its function. That goes to the heart of the cost of this legislation becoming law. At the time Minister Tony Ryall—let us not say any more about that—said that over 3 years this bill would save $20 million through the savings in administrative costs. I would like to know from the Minister under clause 10(7) how much there will be in savings as a result of the research science and technology changes and what the administrative costs are that are being transferred for the ministry to pick up for these two boards to operate. If it is $20 million over 3 years for the whole package what proportion of that fits in under the research science and technology banner? We have not had anywhere that I can see an explanation of what those costs are. 
The Government is trying to get the deficit down because it has borrowed money for tax cuts and we are running a big deficit in New Zealand. If this reform agenda is about reducing costs then surely the Minister will be able to tell us what burden of costs will be put on the ministry under this clause. It seems to me this could be an area where any of the savings that Minister Tony Ryall has identified could easily be eaten up by the board functions. He has told us that under paragraph (a) of the purpose clause there will be two boards; the purpose of Part 1 is to establish boards. I was going to ask him how many boards; he has told us there are two. We would like to know about the cost. The Maori issues are very important. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is something of a disgrace that the National Government should want to shut down discussion of the State Sector Management Bill which is critical legislation being brought to us under urgency. I will address that matter in a moment. At the outset I say that as somebody who gave up science at the end of the fifth form I am not one to talk about any details of science but I grasp absolutely the importance of research science and technology to the future of this county. It is a no-brainer. It is recognised internationally. In fact President Obama said that the future lies in science science and science. I have been really pleased over the last 2 years—although it has taken the Minister of Research Science and Technology Dr Wayne Mapp 2 years—to see him move to a position where there is a quiver of excitement about him around this portfolio. It is clear that he has now latched on to the fact that this is of critical importance. 
The Labour Party supports this particular move in this bill. But why are we debating it in urgency? I do not understand why it should have been brought under urgency. It seems to me that in Part 1 which we are debating at the moment nothing needed urgency applied to it. I advise the Minister that if in fact this had been a tax bill that had reintroduced the research and development tax credit then yes urgency might have been needed in order for the tax credit to be effective again from 1 April. But no this Government decided when it came into office to kill the research and development tax credit which had been in place for nearly 1 year and was about to bear fruit for all of those businesses that had invested in research and development and were going to see some of the benefits of that investment. If that had been Part 1 of this bill then there might have been some justification for urgency. However as it is under Part 1 we have all the provisions relating to research science and technology particularly the allocation of funding and the establishment of the structures that will deliver it. 
The thing about this legislation and the enabling clauses in this part of the legislation is that the country actually needs more than what this tinkering delivers. In fact if the Government had not been so obsessed with utu and revenge and it had just taken a deep breath when it first came into office it may have seen the sense and the purpose of the research and development tax credit and not taken the axe to it as it did to our Fast Forward Fund of some $700 million which was beginning to bear substantial fruit. In scrapping the tax credit and not reintroducing it through a tax bill but simply reshuffling the structures this Government is really indicating that first of all it has been misfiring on the elements that are needed to promote a really dynamic science and innovation environment in New Zealand and secondly it has taken 2 years to get to anything that would be remotely useful in this space in New Zealand. 
We do not oppose the reshuffling that is happening but we are concerned that this is all there is at the moment. Although there is some reference to funding in this part of the bill the fact remains that it is nowhere near sufficient. This is a moment when as with so many other parts of the Government’s activity there is insufficient investment. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am just checking before I call the next speaker. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Which one paid the most? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: They are all in arrears. I call David Shearer. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will spend a couple of minutes commenting on the response of the Minister of State Services to questions that arose as a result of some of the probing from this side of the Committee on this part of the State Sector Management Bill. I thought two things he said were really important. First of all he said that the vouchers and the grant scheme that this Government has brought in as its new way of stimulating the economic side of our science and innovation moving forward are oversubscribed. That is the word: “oversubscribed”. It means that a bunch of different companies out there did not get a look in. They did not actually get any of the grants or the vouchers. Why would they not get a look in? One of the reasons might be that with many of these companies that applied for a grant the entrepreneurs behind them have mortgaged their own house have borrowed from friends and have gone to the bank because they have a really good idea. They have an idea like for example Facebook or Google. Those people went to the Government department went to the bureaucrats who decide on the vouchers and grants that are to be allocated and were turned down. 
Members should contrast that with the tax credit. The tax credit would actually universally enable companies to get research and development relief as a result of their own efforts. It would have brought about a cultural change in companies in New Zealand that would lift our appalling private sector research and development which is less than one-third of the OECD average. It would have actually brought about the transformation that this Government says it wants. It would have brought about the step change that it wants. 
I come back to what the Minister said in response to questions. He said that this scheme is superior to Labour’s tax credits. I point out one piece of information that came up in the last few weeks when I was talking to various people. First of all companies want the tax credit more than they want the grants. That is overwhelming. If members sit down and talk to the chief executive officer of any company they will find that that is exactly what they will say: they would prefer the tax credit of course. But the grant is there so they apply for it. They apply for it because it means they will get more money for research and development and they can use the money they were going to spend on research and development to fund other parts of the company. It is not stimulating more research and development; it is keeping it more or less the same. 
But I come back to the point that the tax credit system is superior. When the Labour Government was putting the tax credit in place it went to Australia and looked at its tax credit system to see what was available and what was being offered. The Australian system was effectively a 7 percent tax credit at that point. It was very hard to administer and was not seen as particularly cutting edge. Our officials came back here and put together the tax credit and it came in during the last year of the Labour Government. It was supported by Treasury. It was a 15 percent tax credit that would cost about $37 million in its first year and rise to about $350 million after 5 years. Foolishly it was voted out by this Government when it came into office. 
What did the Rudd Labor Government in Australia do when it came into office? The first thing it did was raise its research and development budget by 25 percent. If we are looking to try to catch Australia we should consider what Australia did. That was the first thing it did. I think there was a 6 percent increase in the total package of reforms that this Government brought in in the Budget versus Australia’s 25 percent. But the really interesting thing that happened was that the Australian officials came to New Zealand looked at our tax credit system and took it back to Australia. Australia right now has an almost carbon copy of the credit system that the Labour Government put in place here. Why is that? It is because Australia recognised that that was the best thing it could do to encourage innovation in companies throughout Australia. There has been an appalling loss of potential in this country as a result of this Government cutting the Labour tax credit. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 1 of the State Sector Management Bill in relation to the merger of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the creation of a Ministry of Science and Innovation. As other colleagues have said we support this provision and believe it to be in line with our support for innovation. We are concerned though that this by itself will not make the huge difference that we need in this country. A merger is not a plan and this Government has failed to show real commitment in the area of innovation. 
I want to talk specifically about clauses 17 18 and 19. These are the clauses that relate to the employees of these organisations. Whenever we look at structural change like this it is very important that we consider the implications for the people who work in those organisations. These are people with families who work very hard at their jobs. I understand that the people who work at the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology are well-regarded people who are committed to the work they do. I know that the organisation that speaks on behalf of those employees the Public Service Association has acknowledged in its submission to the select committee that its members at the Ministry of Research Science and Technology are generally supportive of the objectives of the merger and welcome the opportunity to work in a new organisation mandated to lead Government and sector work on science and innovation. So it is a good start that the employees can see that it is valuable. They are also not resistant to change and their union makes that point but they urged the Education and Science Committee to take account of the fact that change is difficult and stressful that it can be demoralising and that those issues must be mitigated by good process and good leadership. I hope that that has been taken on board by the Minister. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister if he was listening as to whether he considers that it is important to provide and encourage that good leadership in a process of staff change. 
As I say clauses 17 18 and 19 outline the rights of employees in these organisations. It appears that they are reasonably comprehensive and will allow for a smooth transfer of employees from both the foundation and the ministry into the new organisation the Ministry of Science and Innovation. I am very pleased to see that but there is a need for some certainty in these organisations. Certainly the people who work at the Ministry of Research Science and Technology have already been going through a period of significant uncertainty. I understand that last year 50 percent of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology’s first second and third-tier managers left and that none were replaced on a permanent basis. That takes me to my next point which is that this new organisation which we support is expecting a lot more. There are a whole lot of new things to be done and that is positive but the expectation of this Government is that this will be done with less staff. So there is a significant reduction in staffing— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Fewer staff. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Sorry fewer staff. I thank my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard very much. He is on the ball even at this time on a Saturday morning. Fewer staff will be expected to deliver more and that is an important point. We need to make sure that we are not putting levels of pressure on people that would undermine the very good intentions of this new ministry. 
One of the very interesting points in clause 19 I want to talk about is subclause (3) which is about the avoidance of doubt. It states that: “the employment of a transferred employee … does not—(a) constitute new employment for the purposes of the KiwiSaver Act” and that is good but most important paragraph (b) states that it does not “treat that employee as a new employee for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act”. Many people in this Chamber may not understand the significance of that although I hope that at least the people on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee do. It is of course that these employees unlike many other New Zealand employees will not be prone to dismissal in the first 90 days of their new employment. They will retain their rights as employees. They will retain the right to take an unjustified dismissal case should that unfortunate situation ever arise for them. I thought that it was worth noting that at least this group of employees will not suffer from the consequences of the very poor employment relations changes that have been made. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 37; Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the following paragraph: 
(g)promotes or facilitates a Maori world view of research science and technology. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of Hon Tony Ryall to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga  o Aotearoa) Act 2003 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The debate includes schedule 3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: 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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: 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 $160000 a year—$160000 a year—with about 15 jobs lost? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It costs more than that to run Parliament. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: 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? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: 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 PunaMatauranga 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. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 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. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: 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 $165000 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. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. We have heard a couple of excellent calls— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: But I haven’t spoken yet. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: —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. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: 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 3000 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. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: 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. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: 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. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 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. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: 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 $165000 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. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: 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 PunaMatauranga 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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave to table— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You don’t need to seek leave; you just table it. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I table it. 
Document laid on the Table of the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 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. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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.” 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: 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. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 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 Maori 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 komitiMaori was established by the National Librarian in 1996. It advises the National Librarian on specific aspects of the Maori language collection. Also there are protocols for donors of collections to the National Library. It is unclear whether the role of te komitiMaori will be affected by this bill. The concerns I raise are in relation to specifically the Maori 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 komitiMaori operates and clarification on that point would be useful. 
I also understand from the submission that was provided by te komitiMaori 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 mataurangaMaori. Specifically it could lead to an overall diminishing of current levels of effective library services to Maori and partnerships with Maori 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 Maori collection which te komitiMaori believes should be maintained. People cannot go anywhere else in the world to find a good Maori language collection except the National Library. Te komitiMaori 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 Maori 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 Maori Party would be concerned about any diminishing of emphasis on the Maori 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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Ministerial Services fits within the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Absolute conflict. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: 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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: 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! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: 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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: 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. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: 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. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 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. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 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. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: —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. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(4)Section 9 is amended by adding the following subsection: 
“(3A)Without limiting section 8 the National Librarian may from time to time on the National Librarian’s own initiative or at the request of the Minister— 
“(a)advise the Minister on any matter relating to the functions and powers of the National Librarian: 
“(b)report to the Minister on any matter relating to the functions and powers of the National Librarian.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 44 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(4)Section 9 is amended by inserting the following subsections: 
“(5)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. 
“(6)Nothing in subsection (5) of this section limits the responsibility of the National Librarian to the chief executive for the efficient effective and economical management of the activities of the National Librarian.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 29: 
29AAnnual reports 
(1)The National Librarian has obligation to prepare publish and present an annual report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament on the National Library and the general administration of this Act in conformity with section 43 and 44 of the Public Finance Act 1989. 
(2)The Chief Librarian of Alexander Turnbull Library has obligation to prepare publish and present an annual report to the Minister for tabling in Parliament on Alexander Turnbull Library and the general administration of this Act in conformity with sections 43 and 44 of the Public Finance Act 1989. 
(3)All costs associated with the preparation and publishing of annual reports by the National Librarian and the Chief Librarian of Alexander Turnbull Library must be provided for from Department of Internal Affairs funding outside of the National Library’s and Alexander Turnbull Library’s budgets. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6. 
Noes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 6. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments to Public Records Act 2005 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chair. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt; I was waiting for the end of the voting. I seek leave to amend a vote from last night on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill vote. We cast two votes in favour— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member will have to do that in the House and not in the Committee because that was a decision of the House and not of the Committee. You will have to do that in the House. I have called Grant Robertson. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I am quite interested to know how the vote is going to change actually because it was an interesting vote by the ACT Party. 
We now move on to Part 3 of this State Sector Management Bill which deals with Archives New Zealand’s merger into the Department of Internal Affairs. This is a very significant change. I am not belittling the change in relation to the National Library; as speakers on this side of the Chamber have argued we regard the reduction in the independence and the amount of information and knowledge we will have about the National Library to be a significant matter. But the role of Archives New Zealand constitutionally in New Zealand is a very important matter. I will take a little bit of time in this first call— 
Chris Hipkins 
: The first of many! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —the first of many that is correct—to talk about the overall significance of Archives New Zealand. 
Archives in any country provide the ultimate accountability for Government because we know that records will be retained and records will be maintained and protected. Not only that but under our system Archives New Zealand has the role of ensuring that departments deposit documents and do not destroy them. In fact that is the key reason the Chief Archivist needs independence because the Chief Archivist is the person who can go to another Government department and demand its records be deposited. He or she has that ability; he or she has that statutory role. The question can very quickly be raised once one makes the Chief Archivist a third-tier manager at the Department of Internal Affairs as to what happens when he or she has to go to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs—his or her boss—to say: “You have to deposit that document. That document must be deposited.”? Immediately we run into the problem of this part of the bill because the role of Archives New Zealand is core in ensuring that our democracy is open and transparent. 
In the Education and Science Committee the Human Rights Commission came to us and its officials wrote a submission for us in which they talked about the important constitutional role of preserving Crown records. That is not done just for historians; as they said it is done actually for the accountability of our Government over the full term of those Governments. If people want practical examples of why that is important or significant I give the examples of every single Treaty claim and every time we dig in a street in Aro Valley in Wellington and need to know where the power cables might be. Actually that example was an interesting case when some privatisation took place; it was interesting to learn just how much information there was. If we have that information we have it because we have good records and we have good archives. 
We have had a bit of discussion during this debate about what happened in the 1990s when Archives New Zealand was part of the Department of Internal Affairs. I will read out to members a letter sent to somebody on 13 June 2001 by the Hon Matt Robson. He was writing to somebody who was looking for some information with regard to a ministerial inquiry. I will read the second paragraph in which Mr Robson states: “I have caused inquiries to be made of the tribunal’s division of the Department for Courts. Unfortunately I have discovered that apart from the committee’s report all documents relating to the inquiry including the submissions were destroyed in 1999. It appears that the destruction of these documents was inadvertent.” That is the kind of thing people are concerned about. That is the kind of thing that drove former Chief Archivists to come to us at the select committee and say: “This is not some theoretical exercise. This happened in the 1990s in New Zealand and it was an unmitigated disaster.” 
As my colleague Jacinda Ardern said before one submitter noted that important historical records were lost to “vermin and indifference”. There is the apocryphal story about what happened to the copy of the Treaty of Waitangi when that was involved in Archives New Zealand becoming part of the Department of Internal Affairs’ “important historical records”. These things are simply not right in a good-quality democracy. In 1997 Sir Geoffrey Palmer said: “it is a core responsibility of the State to maintain a proper and impartial record of the decisions and activities of the New Zealand Government. Not only are such records essential nourishment to the intellectual life of New Zealand they are an important instrument in the accountability of governments.” He went on to say that “the existence of a public record on every government exerts a salutary and beneficial effect on Ministers and that effect could be undermined if the strength and integrity of the archive system in New Zealand is diminished”. My colleague Trevor Mallard from his experience certainly knows about that. The Minister in the chair Nathan Guy—with his twink bottle—might deserve to bear that in mind as well. 
The Human Rights Commission commented on this bill: “By integrating Archives New Zealand into the DIA and subjugating the agency to officials superior to a downgraded CA the Bill risks undermining the independence of the CA and severely impinges on New Zealand’s constitutional and democratic protections.” That is it. That is what we are debating today: the undermining of our constitutional and democratic protections through this merger. It has been so glibly done I might add. We have heard so little from the Government about what really justifies these changes. 
Labour again has a number of amendments that we have put up on Part 3 to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of this bill. We make it absolutely clear that when Labour is returned to Government we will be seeking to give Archives New Zealand and the Chief Archivist the independence that they need for reasons of democratic and constitutional infrastructure as we have said before. It may be that consideration could be given to a model beyond a department such as a Crown entity model or an Officer of Parliament model. We are open to those suggestions but we underline our view that the critical role of an independent Chief Archivist must be protected. 
Quite simply this bill does not do that. The Chief Archivist will become an employee of the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. The Chief Archivist will have no right of access to the Minister and no independent reporting right to the Parliament. This bill diminishes the rights independence and influence of the Chief Archivist. The Crown Law opinion which Mr Guy had to have torn from his hands emphasises that point in many ways. It has looked at the legal aspects of the merger and did that completely without the context of the Department of Internal’s Affairs structure which is actually the practical way that the merger will work. 
No doubt if Mr Guy chooses to take a call he will tell us that the provisions in Part 3 do enough to ensure the independence of the Chief Archivist. However as David Shearer said earlier every submitter who came to the Education and Science Committee told us that they did not believe that that was possible. The two former Chief Archivists who came before the committee gave incredibly persuasive submissions about their experiences under a regime where they were part of the Department of Internal Affairs. They said their influence was limited their time was taken up with other matters and their ability to have archives given some kind of importance was severely diminished alongside the other priorities of the Department of Internal Affairs. Some people do not think these issues are important but having archives having good-quality material and systems that hold Governments accountable is what holds our democracy together. Part 3 undermines that because the reasoning behind this merger has nothing to do with good-quality archives; it has to do with the Minister’s belief—influenced by officials no doubt—that digitalisation is all that matters. He believes that that project is all that matters and that there will be fewer departments. 
When the merger was announced on 18 March I began a process to request information under the Official Information Act to see the justification for it. It is quite ironic that I had to go to the Ombudsman on appeal—twice—to get the information. Until today I had not seen the Crown Law opinion that was referred to earlier because the Minister of State Services—more than the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand who is also the Minister responsible for National Library and did provide some information—made sure that that information was withheld. The information was withheld because officials in the National Library Archives New Zealand and elsewhere knew that this merger was not the right thing to do. They knew that this was wrong because in the 1990s they seen the experience. They had been there and done that. Two former Chief Archivists also told the select committee that in the 1990s some Chief Executives of the Department of Internal Affairs were very helpful and had tried their best; others had had not. There were others—and one in particular—who had a different agenda which was actually about whether the Archives could in fact be run privately. I am sure that that agenda could come back one day. When Chief Archivists and Archives New Zealand staff get in a situation where the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs has a completely different agenda then that is a very unfortunate thing. Part 3 is a very very bad part of the bill. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 In my second reading speech I talked about my adventure to the national archives around the corner from Parliament and about some of the documents I had seen. I tell the Committee that I got to see some wonderful documents of our history. I saw police records from the Wairau Affair. I saw a wanted poster of Hone Heke which had been found literally between the pages of another book only weeks before. I saw transcripts from the Parker-Hulme murder case which was immortalised in the movie  
Heavenly Creatures 
. 
I also saw something that I think is instructive for us today. I found some wonderful photographs of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in Egypt taken during World War II. A no doubt good-intentioned army soldier had decided to paste all those wonderful pictures into a book thereby wrecking them. I think that is the metaphor for today. I do not doubt the good intentions of what the Government is trying to do. I do not think it dislikes Archives New Zealand or dislikes the National Library. I think it is going into this merger with good intentions but I say that we will see bad consequences. 
I am a historian by academic training and those old adages ring true: “Know your history”; “Know where you’ve come from to know where you’re going.” The risk is that we will be repeating the mistakes that were made in the 1990s before those departments were separated. We will have to go through a whole process once again of disaggregating them. 
Part 3 of the bill amends the Public Records Act 2005. We are not talking about a dusty old collection of papers; we are talking about important taonga—treasures—of our New Zealand culture and our history. We are also talking about important constitutional features of our democracy. I want to re-pose the questions and answers that I heard at the Education and Science Committee from the New Zealand Historical Association. It asked whether the system was broke; the answer was no. It asked whether we were adopting best practice today; the answer was no. It asked whether the bill would take us backwards; the answer was yes. It asked whether there were risks with this bill; the answer was yes. Those risks we are talking about are to the independence of Archives New Zealand to the great work it is doing to the safe custody of our national taonga and to our international image. We are also talking about Te Tiriti o Waitangi impacts. 
When we look at the risks to the independence of Archives New Zealand we see that this bill firstly downgrades the Chief Archivist from the position of a chief executive to simply an employee of the Department of Internal Affairs. He or she will be legislatively accountable yet will have financial organisational and authoritative means counting against them because basically the chief executive—a third-tier employee—will have to comply with the culture the strategic direction and the financial direction of the Department of Internal Affairs. That is not just an academic debate; the independence of that position will be eroded. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy talked about the Crown Law opinion but he did not mention how rushed it was. He did not talk about the fact that Archives New Zealand is not like the Passports Office which he used as an example. We are talking about important constitutional roles in our democracy. The risk is that the chief executive of Archives New Zealand downgraded to a third-tier official will have all the burdens of administrative work within the hierarchical structure of the Department of Internal Affairs but will not be able to sit on the executive team in order to actually make a difference. We are really talking about the worst of both worlds. 
Secondly the select committee made a good change in deleting most of the provisions in clauses 47 to 58 which means public records will be retained in the possession of Archives New Zealand and not by the Department of Internal Affairs. There were legitimate concerns expressed by people who have items in the Archives or who would like to donate items to the Archives in the future. We are talking about differentiated roles between the two different departments being taken over and the Department of Internal Affairs. On the one hand we have the Department of Internal Affairs which looks after items like censorship; on the other hand we have the important constitutional role to manage our archives well. As the Lange papers in Archives New Zealand show or WikiLeaks shows— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for the luncheon break. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I return to Part 3 of the State Sector Management Bill. When I was speaking earlier on I was speaking more generally about the concern Labour had on a philosophical level about what is happening in Part 3 which undermines the independence and ability of the Chief Archivist to perform his or her core constitutional role. 
I will now refer to specific elements of Part 3. Firstly I refer to a change that has been made by the Education and Science Committee on the question of Archives New Zealand’s continuing existence in some form or name. Essentially the bill removed all references to Archives New Zealand because Archives New Zealand as we know it as a Government entity will not exist. Archives New Zealand is still the repository for documents—this would continue. A number of submitters raised questions around the ownership and control of documents and people had concerns that as the bill was drafted the Department of Internal Affairs rather than Archives New Zealand would have ownership and control of those public documents. Clearly that concerned a lot of submitters; it was raised by a large number of people. I am pleased to say that the committee was able to make a change and a large number of clauses have been changed so the phrase “Archives New Zealand” is included. 
That is important because again it goes to the heart of the matter of ensuring that there is an independent archive. The absence of that and the handing over effectively of control or ownership of documents to the Department of Internal Affairs raises all those concerns again that it will not be Archives New Zealand that controls these important records but a Government department into which the archive has been subsumed. In that small matter we were able to achieve a change in the Education and Science Committee but it does not take away from the other matters that we have traversed. 
A number of submitters raised important concerns about the way in which the Chief Archivist is appointed and how his or her independence is maintained. The critical change made was that under this bill the Chief Archivist can act independently “in exercising his or her professional judgment;”. Under the previous legislation the Public Records Act 2005 the Chief Archivist was independent in the discharge of his or her duties and functions. We now have a difference. There is a downgrading so that rather than the Chief Archivist being responsible for and having independence in all of his or her activities he or she merely has independence in the exercise of his or her professional judgment. The select committee sought clarification from the officials that this really was about ensuring that the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs’ authority remained totally unchallenged. That is the nub of the problem. In this situation we need a Chief Archivist who can challenge the authority of the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs where that is necessary. That alteration in terms of the description of the Chief Archivist’s independence is a critical change and one raised by a large number of submitters but one that we were not able to resolve satisfactorily in the select committee. In one of my typescript amendments we are attempting to rectify that situation and I encourage the Government to ensure that that amendment is passed. 
The relationship between the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Chief Archivist is obviously at the heart of that matter and again it has not been dealt with adequately in the bill. The chief executive will be the employer and the Chief Archivist’s role will be subsumed because of the structure of the State Sector Act. The release of the structural document for the Department of Internal Affairs reconfirmed this and showed that the Chief Archivist will be a third-tier manager outside the executive leadership team. That is a very important point. The Chief Executive and managers of the Department of Internal Affairs who will set the strategic direction for the Department of Internal Affairs will not include the Chief Archivist. We on this side of the Chamber find that simply unacceptable for such a significant constitutional organisation. We would like to see that changed and there are Supplementary Order Papers dealing with that. 
The National Library’s situation is similar. The whole question of reporting has completely changed. Reporting will be via the Department of Internal Affairs. The National Library will report to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and that is not acceptable. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I will carry on from my colleague Grant Robertson who started the debate after lunch. The Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs made Part 3 which contains the delegations and functions of the Chief Archivist and administrative matters sound very prosaic boring and bureaucratic. But what the Government obviously fails to get is the cultural impact made by Archives New Zealand and the professionalism of the role of the Chief Archivist on both central government and local government. 
The Chief Archivist is tasked with creating and monitoring standards for both paper and digital records management in central government and local government. That includes deciding what may be disposed of and how records are made open to the public. It is a big power. We have already seen—with the Minister in the chair changing a Crown Law opinion with his twink pen before he was prepared for the Opposition to pick it up—how records can be dealt with by stealth. It is funny that we are now up to the public records part of the debate when we have just witnessed that activity by the Minister in the chair. We can see how important independence is for the role of the Chief Archivist. Public records should not be altered and the public has the right to access those records. 
I chaired the Health Committee inquiry into agent orange. The select committee asked for the Ministry of Defence papers on where agent orange was used in Viet Nam. We found with great alarm that huge chunks of that public record were simply missing. It was annotated and then there were big gaps. That is of huge concern especially if when future Governments scrutinise the activities of either the Crown or Crown entities they find that there has been obvious tampering or loss. That is not good professional record-keeping. That is a critical role of the Chief Archivist. 
That function was one of the reasons why in May 2000 the previous Labour Government lauded a new dawn for the National Archives. Marian Hobbs said: “Most people know that the Archives preserve historic documents fundamental to our existence as a nation such as the Treaty of Waitangi and the 1893 Women’s Suffrage Petition. … the work of the Archives is directed at ensuring that a full and accurate record is kept throughout Government.” That is a critical function of the Archives. 
In Part 3 we see that even though clause 41 states the Chief Archivist is to act independently the Chief Archivist will report to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs for goodness’ sake! The chief executive is under great financial pressure. I ask how easy it will be for the chief executive to exert pressure on the Chief Archivist to cut corners and to not properly store and maintain the public record. That is the danger of having a lack of independence for the Chief Archivist through the restructuring that happened after the Minister received the Crown Law opinion. It is a real worry. 
It is also a real worry for members in the Chamber to see the Minister in the chair twinking away. I found that deeply disturbing. He now has the name “Twinkie” Guy and that will stick for ever. “I’ve been twinking” “Twink Big”—there will be talk about the Minister of Internal Affairs “twinking big”. You know it will not go away; we are determined that it will not go away. It becomes part of the legacy of this House’s storytelling now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s a big twinker. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: He is a big twinker—he is. Members may think the Minister is very prosaic and a solid performer but the stealth with which he reached for that twink will go down in history as we engage in the debate on Part 3 of the State Sector Management Bill which is anything other than boring. That is why we are going to keep on with our pressure here right up to Christmas. Our colleague Grant Robertson has some very good amendments which I do hope the Minister listens to. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I join my colleagues in speaking on Part 3 of the State Sector Management Bill and I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by Grant Robertson and Steve Chadwick in relation to the importance of Archives New Zealand and our concern about what this legislation will do to the independence and robustness of our information-keeping service. Many of the same concerns applied to the discussion on the National Library. The independence of records and the ability to maintain them so that people can analyse and consider our history to reflect critically on what was or was not done and to be able to look at for example how we are governed is a fundamental right and a fundamental necessity in a democracy. So we are very concerned about this. Although as others have said new section 12 in clause 41 states that the Chief Archivist is to act independently we do not believe that that goes far enough. The provision is constrained in that it states the Chief Archivist “must act independently in exercising his or her professional judgment;” but we are not confident that that independence of the Chief Archivist will be maintained when the role is that of an employee and a third-tier manager. 
The people who work in places like Archives New Zealand and the National Library are professional people who are absolutely committed to what they do. We know here from dealing with the Parliamentary Library just how committed the people who work in this kind of role are to doing the job properly to ensure that they act in a way that is open and transparent and that applies equally to those working in Archives New Zealand. Those people do that work because they are passionate about maintaining records and having those records accessible to New Zealanders. The reality is that reducing the independence of the Chief Archivist will have flow-on effects on everybody who works in Archives New Zealand. I would like the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs to respond to some of the concerns that members on this side of the Chamber are raising. 
My colleague Moana Mackey talked in the debate on the previous part about the provisions for the transfer of employees of the National Library and compared them with the transfer provisions in Part 1 for those working in the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology. I want to make similar comments in relation to the transfer of employees of Archives New Zealand. Effectively this bill is very limited and we want some confidence that the provisions outlined in clause 59 “Transfer of Archives New Zealand employees to department” actually do cover all the areas covered in the provisions relating to the transfer of Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology staff which seem to be comprehensive. Those provisions refer to people being covered by their collective employment agreement and ensure continuity of service and importantly make the clear distinction that these people are not new employees for the purposes of either KiwiSaver or more important the Employment Relations Act. If that was the case as Moana Mackey and I have said previously they could be fired at will without reason and without recourse to any justice. We want to know precisely what the provisions in clause 59 do guarantee to people who work in Archives New Zealand. 
I had a quick look at sections 30E 30F and 30G in the State Sector Act which essentially relate to issues such as technical redundancy. In other words if people are transferred they will not have access to any sort of redundancy payment. I would like the Minister in the chair to come to the party to give us some reassurance on that matter to perhaps get some advice from officials and to tell us precisely what that means and give us some confidence that employment rights for these workers are protected. As I say the people who work at somewhere like Archives New Zealand are professional people who want to do a good job and concentrate on the issue of managing our information. 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand) 
: 
 Part 3 amends the Public Records Act 2005. In essence it removes the reference to “chief executive” and replaces it with “Chief Archivist”. Therefore the Chief Archivist can focus purely on his or her pure role of getting on with the functions of the job which is vitally important. 
We have heard a lot this afternoon about what occurred in the 1990s. I point out that moving forward Parliament addressed that with the Public Records Act 2005 which was supported by the then National Opposition. The 2005 Act focused on the auditing of practice and the independent external parties that the Chief Archivist has to have come in to look at his or her performance. Also the results of the audit are tabled in Parliament which is another important point of scrutiny. These provisions further strengthen the independence of the Chief Archivist as confirmed by the Crown Law opinion. As a result of that three reports are available to the public. First the Chief Archivist is responsible for the State record-keeping of public offices; secondly there is the audit report; and thirdly there is the report of the Archives Council. Those three reports will all be available to the public. 
The crux of Part 3 is covered in new section 12 in clause 41. It states for those who are listening and even for the Opposition that the Chief Archivist “(a) must act independently in exercising his or her professional judgment; and (b) is not subject to direction from either the Minister or the chief executive.” The Committee should be reassured by that very important point. The provisions have been further strengthened by those who have been involved as part of the select committee process and I need to acknowledge those people who have been involved in that process. 
The other important point to make about this is to look at where Chief Archivists operate around the world and I think it is important to give members some examples. They all have statutory independence. In Australia the Chief Archivist sits within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In Sweden the Chief Archivist operates under the Ministry of Culture. In the UK the Chief Archivist operates out of the Ministry of Justice. In Ireland the Chief Archivist operates out of the Department of Tourism Culture and Sport. And in Canada it sits within the Canadian heritage portfolio. All operate with statutory independence. 
I also wish to mention in relation to the focus on digitisation and getting more information online the $12.6 million that over 4 years will help to store preserve and give access to important public records for all New Zealanders. The other significant point is that a recent survey concluded that half of the information that local governments up and down the country have in their records is not now in a form that they can reuse. That is an important point. We have to move forward on these matters while allowing the Chief Archivist to have statutory independence and that very important provision is covered in new section 12. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 The Minister in the chair did not put in his statement that many of the functions of the Chief Archivist have been removed. That clause has been taken out which weakens the role of the Chief Archivist rather than strengthening it. 
Coming to the point of the international research that he referred to if we look a little closer at some of that international research we will find that the safeguards for the archivists in those countries that he mentioned are much more robust than what he is proposing to put forward in the State Sector Management Bill. If he looks at the examples of the UK and the US he will see that they are in fact completely separate. They provide the sorts of safeguards that he believes are in the bill but in fact are not there at all. 
I raise one more procedural matter. Before when the Minister tabled the Crown Law opinion he said that it was publicly available. None of us had been able to get hold of it. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: It’s on the website—it’s on the Department of Internal Affairs website. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: That is not our understanding I say to the Minister. I think the fact that he brought out the white-out bottle before he started to table the document probably speaks to the fact that this Government has been less than forward with its information. Let us look at people who have tried to put in an Official Information Act request—and I include journalists and even Radio New Zealand who is here today. Radio New Zealand has been trying to get Official Information Act releases done and has appealed to the Ombudsmen over and over. It has been unsuccessful in most cases. I think the fact that this bill is being discussed today in light of all that is testament to where I believe this Government wants us to go in terms of information and its availability to the public: backwards rather than forwards. It will be more guarded more protected and more compromised than it was before. 
I will mention a couple of issues around the independence of Archives New Zealand. I refer to the very good submission that was made by the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission cautioned against downgrading—that was the term it used—record management which would call into question New Zealand’s standing as the most transparent and the least corrupt country in the world. In its submission it referred to the Transparency International ranking which puts New Zealand as the least corrupt country in the world. It believes that this bill would in fact compromise that position and goes on to make a very important point: “The Bill splits possession and control awarding possession of Archives to the DIA while the CA retains control.” 
That creates a real conflict of interest I believe. It creates a conflict of interest between the powers that flow from possession—that is holding it—and the Chief Archivist acting on the basis of control rights. If we have an archivist at the third tier of any bureaucracy there is absolutely no way that that person can stand up and independently argue the case to keep that information independent as it should be. I just cannot believe that the Minister can honestly stand up and say that this legislation will move Archives New Zealand forward in New Zealand; indeed it is moving it backwards. 
When we come to the rationale of why we are here debating this bill under urgency on a Saturday afternoon at 2.25 again the Minister comes up with no real or good reason for why we are here except for technology and technological changes. I have been told that the servers and the computing capacity that are under the control of the Department of Internal Affairs are actually at maximum now. We will be bolting on to that the library and the archives in totally different formats. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to the comments made by the Minister in the chair the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand. I appreciate his taking a call on Part 3 of the bill. I think we found out what he did in his lunch break: he logged on to Wikipedia and did a search on “archives” around the world. But he did not actually address any of the questions that we have been raising about Archives New Zealand. Regardless of how they operate in other places in the world—with very different political systems very different public service set-ups and very different cultures—he still needs to discuss the concerns we have been raising about Archives New Zealand. It reminded me of a comment that the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English made earlier this year. He said he thought we could get rid of a whole lot of Government departments because they did not need policy advice; they could just Google it. Government by Google! I wonder whether this is an extension of that: Government by Google and Wikipedia from the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand who is overseeing— 
Grant Robertson 
: We could let Google do the Archives. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: We could let Google do the archiving. It would perhaps be helpful. This is very very telling legislation. In Part 2 the Minister was forced by Standing Orders to table a document that he had been quoting from. Members of the Opposition noticed a bottle of twink appearing after the document had been tabled. We were concerned and we raised concerns about that. My colleague Steve Chadwick very helpfully suggested that perhaps if the Hon Nathan Guy was to write his autobiography—in light of Richard Prebble’s autobiography  
I’ve Been Thinking 
—he could call it  
I’ve Been Twinking 
. That is just a little helpful suggestion to the Minister from the Opposition on a Saturday afternoon. 
I want to talk about the impact of this part on the Chief Archivist. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You don’t even agree with this. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Tau is awake. I welcome Mr Henare back; it is always a pleasure. We notice when we go through the departmental report that the officials are at pains to constantly point out that the Chief Archivist is subordinate to the chief executive—subordinate. This is not just about the Archives simply moving to a new place where they will still be able to operate in the way they always have. It really stands out in the bill and in the departmental report the extent the Government has gone to to point out that the Chief Archivist is subordinate. 
It is ridiculous to suggest that when the Chief Archivist is relegated to the third-tier level of management in the Department of Internal Affairs he or she will be able to operate the same way he or she already has. Archives will now be subject to budgetary pressures. The Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs gets his budget. He has a lot of different parts in his department that have to be covered including very worthy areas like the New Zealand Fire Service Passports and Births Deaths and Marriages. The Minister in the chair has given us absolutely no guarantee that money that is currently dedicated for Archives New Zealand— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Who cares? Who cares what that member says? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Tau Henare says that he does not care. We know that National members do not care about the preservation of documents for the future. They constantly try to rewrite history every day in this House. It would probably help them if the documents that prove that they are wrong were no longer in the public arena. I understand why Mr Henare would be pleased to see Archives New Zealand destroyed because he has had a very colourful political history jumping from political party to political party. He would probably quite like it if all those documents disappeared. He would probably also like it if all the documents showing that he was the worst union organiser in the history of the universe disappeared from the public arena. 
The new Chief Archivist will be subordinate to the Chief Executive. He or she will very very definitely face budgetary pressures and cuts now that he or she is in a department where he or she has to share resources and that will be damaging for Archives New Zealand. The other point of course is that now Archives will no longer present an annual report to Parliament. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh wow! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Henare has never liked having to do any work at a select committee so he is probably hoping that this means a little bit less work for the Government. But the fact is that the financial review process is very important. It has been one of the ways in which we have been able to follow the progress of Archives and the National Library which we discussed in the debate on Part 2. What did we learn from that financial review process? These are incredibly well-run organisations. They are efficient they get top marks across the board and there is no mischief that needs to be solved in Part 3 by destroying the Archives which again begs the question of why we are here in urgency on a Saturday passing legislation that fixes nothing. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate very much the opportunity to take my first call on the State Sector Management Bill on Saturday afternoon at 2.30. We will be on this bill for some time I think; there is a lot to talk about too. I am sure that Mr Henare will make a contribution. He will get on his feet and make a 5-minute contribution because he obviously feels so passionately about this legislation although I suspect that those opposite will continue to sit in silence. 
In addressing Part 3 I say that I have been listening to the debate on this bill and I have been becoming increasingly concerned about what is happening to the independence of our National Library and our Archives New Zealand. They really are important; in many ways they define us as a people. They protect our democracy our history and of course the accountability of the Government—a very very important matter. But we are seeing that this Government’s preparedness to be accountable is being washed away by every session we have in urgency. No one is allowed to come along and say what they think. No the Government does not want to hear from people. It does not want to go through the process and actually I am really worried about that because I do not ever want to see a situation exist where those in power write our history or influence it. We have seen that happen in history and we do not want to have that happen in New Zealand. But this could be a key step towards it and I am very worried about that. 
Archives New Zealand and our National Library are part of our collective memory as a nation. I was looking at what is in the Archives; for the purposes of listeners I tell them that I think the Archives are worth going through. What are we talking about there? We are not talking about a few dusty old books locked away in a couple of rooms; we are talking about over 96 kilometres of archives 21500 motion picture reels and over 5 million records. They are described on Archway which is the main online website finding aid. 
Archives New Zealand also holds our founding document—the Treaty of Waitangi. It holds our founding document— 
Grant Robertson 
: Damaged when the DIA had it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is right. It was damaged when it was last under the auspices of the Department of Internal Affairs. Archives New Zealand also holds the Declaration of Independence of the northern chiefs. I would have thought that the Maori Party would be really concerned about the possible damage that could be done to that document and the interference that could go on if for example the Government pretended that we had never had it. 
Hon Member 
: They might twink it out. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes they could twink it out. The “Minister for Twinking” could just twink it out. That is right. The Archives hold the women’s suffrage petition from 1893. That is really really important but of course that could be twinked out as well could it not? We could pretend and just go back to saying that we did not want women to have the vote. 
I noticed that one of the really interesting collections on display at the moment at Archives New Zealand is called “Walter’s World”. Mr Nash that wonderful Labour member would be interested in this because it is about his great-grandfather. The collection is called “Walter’s World: the Nash Collection”. The Archives website says about the exhibition: “From food to fascism from world travel to World Wars Walter Nash kept everything. His papers provide an insight into all aspects of the world in which he lived. The extent of the collection is vast—several thousand “bundles” of papers photos and other items. They are currently being listed for placement on Archway.” The collection is based on loose themes it is the Nash collection and it is about one of the great Labour Prime Ministers of New Zealand. It is an important part of our history a really important part of our history on display at Archives New Zealand along with many many other really important collections. As I said they are part of our collective memory as a nation. 
Recently a Booker Prize winner said of politicians: “Tell me what you read and I will understand what you know.” I would love to know what the Minister reads—I would love to know. He has clearly taken no notice of the very good advice he has had from Archives New Zealand or the lessons of the 1990s merger. There was a lot of history there but National took no notice and Labour of course had to fix it up. The Minister had to twink out a document that was tabled in the Chamber today because he had not read it properly so I think we understand what he knows because we know what he has not read. 
I am friends with a number of senior people in this field and they are really alarmed at this bill. They are very very alarmed at the potential of this bill to undermine their independence and their passion and— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Professionalism. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —their professionalism; that is right—also their jobs. We know that this move is driven by ideology. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the State Sector Management Bill and express some concerns that I have about the amalgamation of Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs and in particular the impact that that will have on the independence of the Chief Archivist. We cannot underestimate and understate the importance of the independence of the Chief Archivist given the importance of the material— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Leave it to Beaver. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —that is right—that Archives New Zealand looks after. I can recall for example only 3 or 4 years ago following the passing of the late Rt Hon David Lange that there was a bit of a furore about material held by Archives New Zealand in his name being made public and whether there was adequate process to make sure that we were not releasing some stuff that should not be released. I think some SIS stuff and some Government Communications Security Bureau stuff ended up being released when David Lange’s papers were all released. There was a review I understand of some of the practices and processes— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: He forgot to hand it back. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Yes he forgot to hand it back; that is right. There was a review of the practices and processes that Archives New Zealand undertakes in releasing papers following somebody’s demise. One of the things that that underscored however was the importance of the independence of Archives New Zealand as the guardians of our nation’s history. After a period of time people have a right to know what is going on and to have access to whatever is contained within such papers however inconvenient the content may be. Archives New Zealand records significant volumes of information regarding ministerial decisions Government decisions members of Parliament and public records. That information may become inconvenient over time and Ministers and members of Parliament may not want it to see the light of day. It would be very concerning if we created an environment in which any political pressure could be brought to bear very subtly behind the scenes on the Chief Archivist. 
The concern I have is that if the role is downgraded to a third-tier manager within the Department of Internal Affairs then in fact the diminished significance of that role leaves the Chief Archivist more open to pressure. It leaves the Chief Archivist more open to pressure in a number of respects. First of all the reporting function to Parliament will be significantly weakened. At the moment the Chief Archivist has a direct reporting line to the Minister where he or she can advise and meet with the Minister independently. The Chief Archivist has a direct reporting line to this Parliament. The Chief Archivist presents us with an annual report and all of the other documents that an independent agency would present to this Parliament. Much in the same way that I have concerns about the role of the National Librarian being merged within the Department of Internal Affairs I have concerns about that regarding the Chief Archivist. 
The potential for the Department of Internal Affairs to starve Archives New Zealand of the necessary resources to fulfil its statutory functions is increased by the changes being proposed in this legislation. Also weakened is the ability of the Chief Archivist to express concerns about that and to whistle-blow or alert Parliament or the Minister to the fact that it does not have the resources it needs to carry out its statutory functions. 
We have seen in recent years a welcome move quite frankly to reduce the volume of information provided in annual reports and statements of intent that come to this House. I am concerned that if we try to shrink down the information that we get from a department like the Department of Internal Affairs which has such a broad range of totally incompatible functions we will lose all meaning in what is reported to the House and Parliament will not receive the information it needs. If we put that in the context of having entities like the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian merged into the Department of Internal Affairs that concern only becomes more apparent because the more contradictory and incompatible the functions incorporated within the Department of Internal Affairs the more likely it is that they will feel the squeeze and the significance of the functions that they undertake will be undermined. There have been significant concerns raised about this particular proposal by people who work in this area. The New Zealand Historical Association and the New Zealand Society of Authors were particularly concerned about having access potentially restricted to archived material if political constraints and political considerations become part of this mix. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Boy this is riveting stuff! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: He is on the edge of his seat. Tau Henare is quite literally on the edge of his seat and I think that that is really good. 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s the only way he can sit down. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It is the only way he can sit down nowadays but I am glad that he has found this particular contribution entertaining and I would be happy to continue to entertain him for another 5 minutes. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 38 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) “repository” and substitute “government agency”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 39 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause as subclause (2): 
There shall be within the department an institution known as Archives New Zealand under the control and management of the Chief Archivist for the purposes of that office’s exercise of all functions specified in section 11 of the principal Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 10(2) “in consultation with the Archives Council and national stakeholder organisations” after “chief executive”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 40 be agreed to: 
to add the following clause as subclause (2): 
(2)Section 10 is amended by adding the following subsections: 
“(3)The Chief Archivist must not at the same time hold any other position in the department. 
“(4)There shall be regular consultations between chief executive his or her representatives and the Chief Archivist. 
“(5)The chief executive shall monitor and report on the performance of the Chief Archivist.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 40: 
40AFunctions and duties of Chief Archivist 
Section 11(1)(c) is amended by adding the following subparagraphs: 
“(iv)to select and control the staff of Archives New Zealand; and 
“(v)to take reasonable steps to provide suitable accommodation for public archives under his or her possession and control; and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following clause after clause 40: 
40AFunctions and duties of Chief Archivist 
Section 11(1)(c) is amended by adding the following subparagraph: 
“(iv)to advise and assist the Minister in matters relating to archives”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Grant Robertson to clause 41 be agreed to: 
to add to section 12 the following subsections as subsections (2) and (3): 
“(2)In relation to the performance of his or her functions and duties and to the exercise of his or her powers under Part 2 the Chief Archivist— 
“(a)must act independently in exercising his or her functions duties and powers; and 
“(b)is not subject to direction from either the Minister or the chief executive. 
“(3)At the Minister’s discretion the Chief Archivist shall have the right of independent access to the Minister on any matter in connection with the Chief Archivist’s statutory responsibilities.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Noes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 189 in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 5. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 3 agreed to.  
Schedule 4 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Research Science and Technology Bill the National Library of New Zealand (Te PunaMatauranga o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill and the Public Records Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper188. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted.