Smith Nick: Local Government (Public Libraries) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Smith Nick: Local Government (Public Libraries) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 07 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6415. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill the Local Government (Public Libraries) Amendment Bill is constitutionally confused it is fiscally flawed and it is awfully outdated. It actually says everything about how out of touch the Labour Party is with the modern challenges for New Zealand. It shows that the Labour Party is living in the past. Yes I accept that in the 1930s the local library was the pivotal access point for people to get information. The reality today is that ultra-fast broadband and the internet in which this Government is investing $1.5 billion is actually going to be far more important for access to information this century. 
The second thing is it is so nanny State. You see members opposite fundamentally do not trust locally elected councils. What they want to do is sit in their parliamentary offices and tell elected councillors what they must make free. 
The third thing about this bill is that it is fiscally reckless like so many things that Labour does. You know Labour knows so well how to spend other people’s money. You see everything that Labour members pride themselves on doing is coming to Parliament and making something free. Well I have got news for members of the Labour Party: somebody always pays. Whether it is the ratepayer or the taxpayer they cannot pretend there is not a cost for somebody. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: Oh hang on—the Greens. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well we could take up the Greens. They say: “No there isn’t a cost. We just print money.” but this evening I am not going to go down that road. 
You see the basic point is this: do members on this side of the House think libraries are important? Of course we do. That is why we spent $70 million of public money on the National Library—$70 million. If you look at Vote Education there was over $100 million spent by this Government on providing libraries in our schools for children. 
It is absolutely proper that we in this Parliament have a say about how we spend taxpayers’ money but what this bill says is that we are going to overrule local councils and say that they must spend money on public libraries. They must make them free. I could recite even in this Parliament speech after speech after speech of local members opposite saying that we must trust local democracy. So I simply challenge the members opposite— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What about the regional council in Canterbury Nick? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And I can hear Damien O’Connor poking his head up. Why does he not trust the Grey District Council to make the decision? Why does he not trust the Westland District Council to make the decision? Why does he not trust the Buller District Council to make this decision? You see members opposite cannot lecture this Government about local democracy and then when they come to their particular issue say: “No no no. Those services must be free regardless of what the local council might decide.” 
I also want to say how technologically illiterate this bill is. It again illustrates to this Parliament how much Labour is living in the past and not the future. I would love the next Labour member to explain this for me. Just down the road from the Nelson public library—in fact within 500 metres—I have got three internet cafes. They are little businesses; they employ people. Their businesses have been affected by a directive from the previous Labour Government that said that there could not be any charge for the public internet service even for international visitors and the consequence was a loss of jobs for those businesses. So my challenge to members opposite— 
Andrew Little 
: How many? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: How many? Mr Little challenges how many. I reckon there are about four or five people employed in each of those internet cafes. It is interesting—why is it that those internet cafes were started by private enterprise ahead of the public libraries? I will tell you why. Because private enterprise is innovative. It is able to move with the times more quickly. 
I ask members opposite what they have got against the provision of internet cafes Wi-Fi services and those other things? For instance why is it that this bill would make it illegal for my local library to charge a fee for a DVD? Do we really think it is such an offence that a library service right alongside Video Ezy or the local video store can also charge for a DVD? Do we really think Parliament has to pass a law banning a council from putting any charge on a purely entertainment DVD? Have Labour members become such a socialist society that they wish that DVDs were free under the great Labour Party vision that they have? I say not. I say this bill goes too far. 
I also want to challenge the member’s assertion that Unesco says that libraries have to be free. What a load of hogwash! What a load of hogwash! I challenge the member to tell us all those countries—whether it be the United States whether it be the Europeans—that have this sort of law on their books that have respect for Unesco. The Government’s own advice from officials is that the member is flawed in her assertions in that regard. 
Our local public libraries right through New Zealand have a very important service and role to play. They provide a damned good service which members on this side of the House respect. Even when I was listening to the member proposing this bill she struggled to find examples of a problem that would justify this bill. I noticed she remembered my colleague and the decision in Rangitikei which she then acknowledged a council had been democratically elected to change in 2005. So I say to the member opposite you are going to have to prove a lot better case for the wrong that you are trying fix for Parliament to override the decision of councils. 
This is a nanny State bill. This is a bill that is tied to books of the last century rather than the information age of this century. This is a bill that says that members opposite know better how to spend other people’s money than they do about how to create wealth. This is a bill that speaks volumes about the lack of vision of the Labour Party and how bereft it is of ideas for taking this country forward.