Robertson Grant: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading 
Robertson Grant: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:669;Page:15900] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 That was Tony Ryall the Minister of State Services whose life’s passion is State services—that is his passion. Imagine if we heard about something he did not care about—imagine that! That speaking slot should have been given to Chris Finlayson because he knows as the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage how important the National Library and Archives New Zealand are. In fact people around Wellington are saying that Chris Finlayson dropped the ball on this bill because he did not pick up the damage that was being done to Archives New Zealand and the National Library by this merger. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: The luvvies know I’m a better Minister than Helen. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I say to Mr Finlayson that the kumara does not speak of how sweet it is. This bill from Labour’s point of view is very much a bill of two halves. One half of the bill is about the merging of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research Science and Technology. My colleague David Shearer will speak in detail on that. There is not a particular issue we oppose. There are some issues Mr Shearer wants to raise but that part of the bill from our point of view is not something we have a great deal of trouble with. However Parts 2 and 3 of the bill dealing with the merger of Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs we strongly oppose. We oppose the merger because those two institutions are vital to our constitutional and democratic infrastructure. This bill will reduce their independence and it will reduce their influence. But it struck me in the select committee process that we were offered no reason by the Government for why this merger should take place. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Step change? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Step change! This was it; this was the answer to the economy; this was how we were going to do it. But no Mr Hughes that is not what it was because Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand are not failing. If these were failing Government departments or institutions that were struggling to meet their mandate perhaps that could be a justification for doing this merger. But actually in the Government’s own papers it said Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand are well regarded and successful institutions. If it ain’t broke why fix it? But the Government has pushed ahead. Perhaps it is about savings—perhaps it is about saving a huge amount of money for the country. Well no that is not true. It was very difficult to find out in the select committee actually how much money was intended to be saved by this merger but it could be as little as $166000 a year and there are 15 jobs going—$160000 a year for 15 jobs! So it cannot be about savings. 
We also heard raised the prospect that the legislation was about bringing together the technological parts of government—because the Department of Internal Affairs has taken on some of that work from the State Services Commission—and that there was a great deal of digitalisation work— 
David Shearer 
: They’ve got a bigger server. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right. They have a big computer; that is right. There was a great deal of digitalisation work going on in Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand. The problem is that the medium and the message are being confused here. The fact is that the National Library of New Zealand and Archives New Zealand do a great deal more than just the process of digitalisation so that is not enough to justify the merger. In fact the officials themselves said that it is not enough to justify the merger. We were quite unable in the select committee process to actually discover what the rationale was for the Government. It seems that it is simply an ideological rationale about reducing the number of agencies no matter that those two agencies Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand are operating better than they ever have before. Yet they are now being merged into a department the Department of Internal Affairs that the chief executive himself and the review of the department have acknowledged is struggling to deal with the many different tasks and areas it has to cover. Now two more are being added in which are critically important institutions to our constitutional infrastructure. 
But why does this matter? It matters because Archives New Zealand provides the ultimate accountability of Government. It means that departments have to maintain records; it means that departments have to deposit records. At the moment Archives New Zealand’s role is critical in ensuring those records are there but this bill will reduce Archives New Zealand’s influence and it will reduce Archives New Zealand’s independence. That is bad for all of us in the long run because although it might not make the headlines this is the material that means that Governments are held to account. This Government on the opposite side of the House does not seem to care about ensuring that that occurs. 
In terms of the National Library of New Zealand it is similar: a reduction in influence a reduction in independence and a reduction in status and mana particularly for the Alexander Turnbull Library. We had submitters coming to the committee who said they would think again about depositing their families’ records in the Alexander Turnbull Library because it would be downgraded. 
During this process we became aware of the structure the Department of Internal Affairs is putting in place for this merger. That structure will mean that the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian will be third-tier managers within the Department of Internal Affairs. They will not even be part of the executive leadership team. They will not be part of setting the strategy for the Department of Internal Affairs. They will have no guaranteed access to the Minister. They will not be reporting directly to Parliament. This is a reduction in independence and a reduction in influence of key democratic historical constitutional and cultural institutions in this country. The Department of Internal Affairs already weighed down with other tasks will simply not be able to provide the kind of leadership needed and this is no great statement on the chief executive. 
I shall talk about the submissions we heard in the select committee. They were outstanding submissions and I think even the Government members of the Education and Science Committee who sat through the submissions would acknowledge that. They were some of the best that I have heard in my brief time here in Parliament. They came from people who knew their subject who had lived through this and this is not a theoretical exercise. In the 1990s Archives New Zealand went through the process of being part of the Department of Internal Affairs and it ended up in court. That was a failure in the 1990s and in the 10 years since Archives New Zealand was made a separate entity it has grown in leaps and bounds and now the Government is determined to drag it back to the time when it struggled. 
To quote one of the submitters a former Chief Archivist who said in terms of the Department of Internal Affairs’ control of Archives New Zealand: “The story of the care and control of New Zealand’s public records and archives … has been one of ignorance and neglect. Thousands of unique items that have relevance today have been lost by fire water vermin and indifference.” Vermin and indifference—that is what happened when Archives New Zealand was the—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right; there they are—vermin and indifference absolutely! 
That is the problem. That is what happened the last time the Department of Internal Affairs had control of these things. Another submitter said that the Department of Internal Affairs has an unfortunate history characterised by arrested development lack of resourcing poor understanding litigation rancour and distrust. That sounds like the National caucus as well. But that was also the Department of Internal Affairs when it had control of Archives New Zealand. It is simply not good enough for this Government to drag Archives New Zealand back to the 1990s when it was the subject of litigation rancour and distrust. We had two former chief archivists who lived through this and they know from their personal experience that they were not able to achieve their role fully. It was not always because of the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs—sometimes they were helpful. But when they were not that limited the role of those people performing those key historical constitutional and democratic roles. 
This bill is the wrong path to go down. We all want efficient and effective organisations in the State sector. We all want organisations that provide good services to New Zealand. Sometimes that will come from small independent agencies; sometimes it will come from larger bodies. Here we have a situation where Archives New Zealand and the National Library have been delivering good quality services to New Zealanders for the last 10 years. If we go back to the 1990s we simply go back to a period of time where New Zealanders did not know whether they could trust the archival records. They did not know whether the National Library would be able to provide the services that we all expect it to do for New Zealand. This part of the bill is wrong. Labour will continue to oppose it and in the Committee stage we will put forward Supplementary Order Papers to try to ensure that there is independence for the Chief Archivist that there is independence for the National Librarian and that that the status and mana of the National Library the Alexander Turnbull Library and Archives New Zealand are recognised. Those are important institutions. The National Government may not care about that but we on this side do and we will be opposing this bill.