Donnelly Brian: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Donnelly Brian: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5116] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 First I want to make it clear that my point of order earlier was for clarification not because I wanted to have priority over the previous speaker. New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this bill. We have in fact been supporting it in a practical way through its processes. A couple of members have mentioned the trip that the select committee made to the National Library. The library really is an icon. It is an incredible facility that New Zealand has. It is an invaluable national treasure. It preserves our cultural heritage. It preserves it by keeping material that tells us not only about what people did at certain times but also about what they thought what really drives us as a nation and what defines us as a nation. 
 It is really important that this bill is enacted because the existing organisational structure created some serious tensions within the organisation of the National Library itself around the governance of the Alexander Turnbull Library and around how they related to each other. New Zealand First believes that this does clarify those relationships and also the National Library’s operations and functions in terms of preserving our heritage ensuring that there is access to it—and there are still issues about access for people in rural areas—and protecting and developing our heritage which is so important. We congratulate the Friends of the Turnbull Library and the members of the National Library who went through some very hard times in coming to some conclusions and arrangements by which we will be able to move into the future. 
The second area of considerable debate and consideration was around the legal deposit of electronic publications. With the degree of electronic publications today to ignore the issue of legal deposits would really be to miss out on a huge portion of our current knowledge and heritage etc. There are some issues around copyright. The Newspaper Publishers Association of New Zealand was very concerned about the possibility that it would have stuff that different organisations had contracted in from overseas agencies etc. which the library would be able to access and which would then be accessed by other organisations. 
Firstly the National Library does not want a minute-by-minute update on every piece of information—it could not handle that; there would be an information overload—and secondly it would be inconsistent with the very purpose of the National Library to enable that access. It is now working on protocols in a constructive and cooperative fashion to ensure that the needs of all parties are met regarding that matter. 
I also raise the issue of oral history. Certainly within Maori heritage oral history is of extreme importance and it is extremely important that it is taken down and recorded in an appropriate fashion. The other issue relates very much to members of this House where the practice has always been to get an oral tape of an outgoing Prime Minister with the understanding that the tape would be kept for 50 years and that that would be accessible under the Official Information Act. As a result of that understanding there would obviously be reluctance by members leaving the House to be as open and honest as they possibly could be. 
Personally I am still aggrieved by the fact that the full history behind the negotiations in 1996 has never been made available to the public. As a result the public are in error in terms of their understanding of the mechanisms and rationale behind some of the decisions that were made at that particular time. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Correct the record right now. Tell us all. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: I am running out of time. I just want to mention that within the bill itself there is a protection for people who are giving oral histories. A person giving an oral history can lay down conditions and the National Library has to stick by those conditions that are set down at the time the person provides the information. It is very important that we ensure that protection—not only for politicians but also in regard to Maori history. 
New Zealand First has some misgivings about the writing of the bill and with the way that some of the language used in the bill expresses some issues around what people are thinking. For example the Maori Television Service Bill which has just been debated has a clear title. When it refers to particular organisations that have a Maori name—such as Te Putahi Paoho—it uses that name. But in this bill there is confusion: people are trying to be so politically correct that they are corrupting the English language. For instance the Maori name for the National Library is put in the title of the bill which is in keeping with Maori interests but a lot more has to be done with it than that. 
Of even more concern is the fact that with some of the bodies that have been set up there is a blending together of Maori and English. For example the bill refers to the “Library and Information Advisory Commission Nga Kaiwhakamarama i nga Kohikohinga Korero”; what does that actually mean? It is not as if the second part is in brackets as if it is a translation of the original; it is all blended in together. What is even worse is that there used to be the Friends of the Turnbull Library but now we have come up with this other thing which is called the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library—Maori and English are all blended into one. 
The Maori Language Commission raised various concerns about what we are doing with the English language here. English is very rich because it has the facility to import terms and expressions from other languages and to make them part of the English language. We have done that in New Zealand English with words like “whare” and “Maori” itself which have been imported into the language and which have become part of the English language. Yet what we have here is a word like “taonga” which is not referring to Maori treasures but which is now being asked to refer to everything that is in the library. If that is the case when we get to “Matauranga” and it comes across into English why not just use the word “Matauranga”? We know what that is referring to in English—but no that is not what is done here. The bill says “Matauranga Maori”. 
There is a lack of rigour in the thinking behind the language that is being used in this bill and that concerns us because it then raises questions about what is behind the bill. For example if the Minister of Maori Affairs and Te Puni Kokiri can come up with a bill for this House that does not make use of strange little language mechanisms and which does not corrupt either the Maori or English language then why do we have a National Library bill that does? 
As I say we have some very real concerns. We asked what is meant by “Matauranga Maori” and we asked whether a translation of Shakespeare into Maori would be matauranga Maori or whether Witi Ihimaera’s work—which is matauranga to me—would be considered matauranga Maori even though it is written in English. I asked what is being referred to here and the advisers could not give me an answer. That raises some questions about some fuzziness and a lack of rigour in the thinking behind this bill. 
New Zealand First is saying there needs to be some more rigorous thinking around all those language issues and around all the treaty issues. We should not just subscribe to those issues as though they are a new religion but establish what the realities are and what the outcomes of some severe rigorous thought would be. Nevertheless we will be fully supporting this bill.