Prebble Richard: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5119] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 One observation I made during the Committee stage of this bill and indeed during its second reading was that MPs wondered why the National Library legislation was getting priority. I notice that it has been dealt with under urgency during most stages and in looking at the  
Hansard 
 I note that a comment was made that a bill going through Parliament can cost up to $800000. When one looks at this bill one sees that there is really nothing in it that requires legislation. There is no reason that the National Library could not proceed. There is only one requirement in this bill and only one reason the bill is going through Parliament and I call it the “Helen Clark protection clause”. 
 In fact it is quite clear that our Prime Minister has been giving an oral history. She gives it every month. In that oral history she has set out frankly all the coups and other things that go on within the Labour Party believing that it would never be discovered. She found out 2 years ago that actually all of those documents were discoverable under the Official Information Act. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Ha ha! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I ask the Hon Judith Tizard whether that is correct. The Prime Minister discovered that it was all discoverable under the Official Information Act. If we go to schedule 3 we find that it states under “Official Information Act 1982 (1982 No 156)” the following: “Omit from paragraph (e)(ii) of the definition of official information the word ‘; and’ and substitute the word ‘; or’. Add to paragraph (e) of the definition of official information: ‘(iii) any oral history provided to the National Library of New Zealand …”. This is the “Helen Clark Protection Bill”. It costs $800000. I would like to know what is in that official information which today could still be discovered but will not be able to be once it is gazetted that Helen Clark thinks the House should be put into urgency in order to— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Eh? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No I realise that the House is not in urgency today but this bill is getting priority. Here we are back from the Easter break and the most important matter facing the House is to pass a bill in which if one looks at it the only real change we are making to the statute law of New Zealand is that no longer is an oral history given by a person discoverable under the Official Information Act. The only oral histories that have been given that any of them would be worried about are the oral histories given by our Prime Minister. I understand she has done it thinking that conditions can be put on it that that oral history cannot be looked at until well after she has gone that she is intending to write her history based on it and that she was devastated to discover that other historians would be able to get it. 
I hate to break it to Helen Clark at this late stage after she has spent $800000 but it is my view that her oral histories are discoverable through High Court actions. I expect—Governments regularly get involved in High Court actions—that sooner or later some barrister is going to realise that in the oral histories of the National Library are the accounts by the Prime Minister of what really went on. I suspect that we will discover all sorts of things. For example we might find some very very interesting things about how this Government has been handling State-owned enterprises and how it has been taking all the money rather than building new electrical generation. If we were to go into the oral history we could well find that information there. We might discover for example the answer to one of the great mysteries—why is Judith Tizard in Cabinet? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I’m not. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is right. Why is she a Minister? Why does she carry the Prime Minister’s handbag? It may all be in the oral history. I have no doubt that the real reason is thoroughly embarrassing. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Why did I win Auckland Central and why did you get the sack? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It is very interesting that the Minister thinks that is the reason. She says it is because she got Auckland Central and I got sacked. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Auckland Central and Wellington Central. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is an interesting reason as well. The Minister is now telling us that it had something to do with Wellington Central. I thought that she was the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues. Every time I get jammed on the motorways in Auckland I think: “Thanks to Judith Tizard nothing is moving.” No doubt if we were to have a look at the oral histories we might see the frustration that our Prime Minister no doubt feels with the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues because the longer that Judith Tizard has been in charge of the traffic the slower it has gone. 
It is very interesting that we are spending $800000 of taxpayers’ money in order to declare that an oral history is no longer official information. We have not had from any Minister an admission that that is what we are doing nor have we had at any stage in this bill a justification for it. We either believe in Official Information Acts or we do not. The Official Information Act actually states that all information that Ministers have including information they have in their heads is official information and ought to be able to be discoverable by the public. 
I have listened to members talk about how important information is but we have discovered in a National Library bill that we are passing legislation stating that those interesting documents are not available. I have to say in fairness to Helen Clark that Jim Bolger was also devastated to discover that all of his documents were discoverable under the Official Information Act and he apparently was very loquacious in giving his oral histories. It is probably fortunate for both Mr Bolger and Helen Clark that no historian or member of the media tumbled to the fact that if they had put in Official Information Act requests for their oral histories we could have discovered what Helen Clark really thinks of George Bush and why she really is going to Europe. We might have found out all sorts of things about what the Labour Party’s real policies are but now thanks to this bill Helen Clark’s oral histories are a State secret that cannot be revealed. 
Further into the bill there is a very interesting statement. Clause 10 states: “(2) If an oral history has been provided to the National Library by a person on conditions (for example conditions relating to access to the information)”—I bet she has got them—“that have been agreed to in writing by or on behalf of the National Librarian the Crown and its agents (including the National Librarian) must comply with those conditions. (3) This section—(a) applies whether or not the oral history was created or acquired by or on behalf of the Crown; and (b) does not limit the Archives Act 1957.” 
That is what this bill is all about. I say to the Minister promoting the bill that if there is a good argument as to why Helen Clark’s reminiscences should be kept secret for as long as she says why were we not told openly and frankly that this is why the bill has been given urgency—that that is why the Government regards this bill as the most urgent matter in front of the nation? What is in Helen Clark’s oral history that requires us to pass a special law to make sure that it remains secret? Why were Ministers not open and frank with the committee and the House as to the real reason for this bill that members have described as a feel-good bill? The rest of it is a feel-good bill but with two clauses in it to make Helen Clark feel good that New Zealanders are not to know the real history of this Labour Government. 
This is a Government that says it is in favour of history and that it is in favour of telling all yet here it is passing a bill to keep Helen Clark’s real history secret. I suspect that when it is finally opened probably in 80 years’ time we will discover a whole lot of reasons for Helen Clark thinking that Parliament should spend $800000 keeping her oral history secret.