Hughes Gareth: Research Science and Technology Bill National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill Public Records Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hughes Gareth: Research Science and Technology Bill National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill Public Records Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16317. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Here we are on Saturday afternoon. I hope no National Party voters are watching the broadcast today because I think if they are they would be a bit more distracted from the “smile and wave” of the Prime Minister and they would look at the substance of what is happening today. If we look at the substance of what is happening today we see that bad legislation is being passed under bad process and I think those voters would look twice at National. I guess it is not surprising that we have this bad legislation being passed under bad process but I have been shocked. I ask where the National members are today. Where are they? Why have they not stood up and presented their argument— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot refer to the absence of members. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] They certainly have been absent. We have seen— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I know the member is new but once I have made a statement and I have ruled the member must not try to relitigate it. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: We have seen some serious argument with serious counterargument missing. We have seen some serious amendments presented and also voted down. I am not talking about just political amendments; I am talking about serious credible amendments which were also voted down. 
Before the lunch break we were discussing the urgency and I think this is why this is bad process. Why are we passing this legislation at 3.20 nearly 3.30 on a Saturday afternoon under urgency? When I think of urgency I think of tackling the climate crisis. I think of tackling the great economic problems. I think of tackling that growing gap between the rich and poor and tackling inequality in New Zealand. Over the lunchtime I went and welcomed Sea Shepherd to Wellington. When I think about urgency I think about those hundreds of whales about to be slaughtered in the Southern Ocean not about one Government department taking over a couple of other departments in the name of ideology. 
Before lunch I talked about my photo analogy. I went to the archives and found this great collection of World War II photographs that had ignorantly and in an uninformed manner been stuck together with glue. That had wrecked those precious photographs for ever—those tremendous one-offs. I think that is an apt analogy for this legislation. We are seeing an uninformed and ad hoc approach with this legislation. It is being rushed through under urgency without due consideration and due argument and thinking. We are not talking about dusty old documents or about hypothetical things; we are talking about treasures—the treasures of our country. 
In the rushed debate today we have not heard answers to the questions about why we need to be doing this and whether the institutions and the departments are broke. We have not heard whether we are talking about best practice to support the users of the National Library and Archives New Zealand. We have not talked about the best practice internationally or about whether this is taking us forwards or backwards and we have not heard answers that legitimately address those concerns. A telling omission in the debate in the officials’ recommendations and in the Cabinet document is what this bill will actually do for users of the National Library what it will mean for historians researchers and genealogists and what it will mean for people who donate goods to the Alexander Turnbull Library. It is a telling omission because it shows that this legislation is more about ideology to do with getting rid of a few workers in the State sector—about State sector ideology—than it is about supporting best practice and these much-loved and treasured institutions. 
I believe that there is an absence of a robust argument or actual tabled figures when we talk about things like future-proofing efficiency and digitisation. If we do not have the facts then we are simply spouting slogans. That is what we have heard from the get-go at the start of this process in the Cabinet document through to the debate today. We have seen the bad process when the Minister in the chair—the “Minister of Twink”—quickly twinked out our documents and the document that he tabled. If only another Minister could twink out those houses in the Mana electorate where his motorway is going through! 
I am still baffled as to why we are debating this legislation today and why the National members on the Education and Science Committee did not go back to their caucus and Cabinet and say: “Well look fellows all the evidence from all the experts said that we should not be doing this. There is no real reason—we are talking about only $165000 a year. Come on guys let’s have a bit of common sense.” Unfortunately those members did not go back and say that and they have not presented today a coherent argument as to why we are doing this. We heard from the Minister of Internal Affairs about the National Library’s leaky roof under the previous Government. Come on let us be serious—we are talking about our national treasures today. 
However I thank the members of the select committee for the questions. I thank Grant Robertson and David Shearer for their excellent work on Parts 1 2 and 3. I thank the submitters—people who are passionately inspired by and who care about our national treasures. For them this legislation is not just about dusty old documents; it is about their lifeblood something they are absolutely passionate about. We heard about whether this legislation will be debated over summer barbecues this year. I am sure that it will be and I hope it will be. What we are talking about is not lemon institutions—bad Government departments—but about institutions that are well regarded internationally and that perform well according to the Cabinet paper that started off this process. 
I guess the main reason why I am opposed to this legislation is that it is a contradiction in terms. The legislation says that we will be preserving these institutions’ statutory independence which is a contradiction because at the moment we have the reality of independence for the National Librarian and the Chief Archivist and we are relegating them to a third tier. It is as if we are dropping them from the All Blacks and putting them down to a provincial rugby team—we are putting them on the bench. It is a contradiction to say that they will still have the same level of independence. The fact is that they were chief executive officers but now they will simply be employees. They are accountable to the Department of Internal Affairs and they will have to comply with the culture the financial decisions that are made and the personality of the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. They will have to compete with the other third-tier chief employees from agencies such as the Passports Office which Minister Guy talked about earlier. They will have to compete within the Department of Internal Affairs for focus and that is not good enough. The National Library and Archives New Zealand are not just any old departments like the Passports Office; these are important constitutional departments. 
We have the risk of conflict occurring between the different departments within the Department of Internal Affairs. We have the risk of their voices which are so important being silenced. We also have the risk that we will see the worst of both worlds—we will see the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian spending a great deal of their time on the day-to-day administration of being part of the Department of Internal Affairs without having any ability to influence the executive team of that department. I point out that there have been some good changes to the legislation such as the ability to have a separate and independent vote and the good change from the select committee which was to delete most of the clauses between clause 47 and clause 58 thereby retaining the public records within Archives New Zealand and not with the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Lastly I want to touch on the risk to our image and this is true. National members may scoff but the risk is true. We are worsening the standard when countries all around the world are investing in their institutions such as these. They are adopting best international practice. Now the US the UK Australia and Canada all have more power more profile and more independence of their statutory offices like the National Library than we do in New Zealand. This legislation takes us backwards. It is contrary to the Unesco guidelines it is contrary to the International Council on Archives document on principles and it is a step backwards. 
In summary I am glad the State Sector Management Bill has been divided because I wholeheartedly endorse the Green Party’s vote against Parts 2 and 3. It is bad practice to be passing this legislation under urgency. It is bad legislation. It is bad not to listen to the select committee submitters who were overwhelming. It is bad not to listen to the experts in the field who produce coherent arguments which were not backed up. It is legitimate to ask: is it broke? No. Is it adopting best international practice for the sector? No. Does it take us backwards? Yes. Will it really impact on the independence and the actual great work of these institutions? Yes. Should this legislation proceed? No.