Roy Heather: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4733] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of this bill. When looking through  
Hansard 
 at the first reading speeches on the bill I was very interested to find that the first reading was also taken under urgency. The Rt Hon Wyatt Creech commented at the time that this was an important subject but not one that justified turning the whole parliamentary system on its head. The same comment is relevant today. As a new member I must say that I have been staggered at the legislation that comes forward during urgency. For those of us who are spokespeople for our parties for arts culture and heritage it has been a busy day. We have had the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill this morning and we now have the National Library Bill this afternoon. That says something about where the commitments lie for this Government. 
The role of the National Library is an important one—that of preserving our nation’s culture its heritage and its literature along with other materials that allow us to investigate or research our history. I have on occasion found the library very useful myself when I needed to research topics and information before I came to Parliament. The information was often difficult to source and the National Library certainly is a great resource. That of course was before I was an MP and before I had access to the Parliamentary Library which is an extremely valuable resource. 
The commentary on the bill states that this bill replaces the 1965 Act and provides for four things. The first of those is the clarification of the relationship between the National Library and the Alexander Turnbull Library. The Alexander Turnbull Library is currently run by trustees but they are about to be replaced if this legislation is passed by guardians—not more than five people the legislation states. The guardians will be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
As I read the bill in particular subpart 3 of Part 2 it is clear to me that those new guardians will operate in an advisory capacity only. They will be responsible to the Minister and it is the Minister in fact who has the power to make decisions and act. If we look at clause 16 we see that: “The purpose of the Guardians is to provide assurance to the people of New Zealand …”. Clause 17 states: “The function of the Guardians is to advise the Minister …”. So providing assurance and advice is the role of the guardians—nothing more. 
The second thing the new bill provides for is addressing Maori interests in the National Library hence the repeated references to consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs I presume. I would contend in particular in the light of ACT’s “one law for all” policy that the National Library should address the interests of all New Zealanders who have contributed to the history of our country. That of course includes Maori but also Chinese Europeans and any number of nationalities that combine to make New Zealand the country it is today. 
The third area this bill provides for is the clarification of the status of oral history. That is something other members have spoken about and something not previously collected but important none the less in recording our history. 
The fourth area and one I want to spend a little more time on is that of extending the scope of legal deposit. That is to cover the area of electronic documents. Some publishers have expressed their concerns to me. Clause 30 “Notice of requirement for public documents” worries me in that there appears to be no restriction to reasonable cost to publishers. Clause 30(1) states: “The Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
 require a publisher of a public document … to give to the National Librarian at the publisher’s own expense a specified number of copies … of the printed public document and in the case of an electronic document the specified number of copies of the medium that contains the document.” Another member mentioned compliance costs and that is the area that worries me. 
I have some difficulty in particular with clause 30C(4) which allows the National Librarian to make available content harvested from public websites—for example that of stuff.co.nz or newzealandherald.co.nz—available via the Internet. That could have two implications which I think are worth considering. The viability of some publishers’ commercial news archives would be threatened. What hope do those services have of surviving if the content they aggregate and charge for is available for free from the National Library via a smaller Internet-based archive? 
The second concern is this: if the National Library unintentionally it could be said destroys the important revenue stream provided by those news archives the publishers’ ability to continue to fund free websites will be severely tested. As a result of that all Internet users may well be affected. That may well result in the erosion of the amount and quality of information available to the public via the Internet. 
As I said ACT supports this bill going to the Committee stage but we will be putting forward some amendments. The first of those will be to amend the definition of restriction in the bill to provide for the recognition of legal restrictions that may exist for material on Internet sites. The second amendment will require the National Library to gain agreement from affected publishers prior to the library making material available via the Internet. 
As I said ACT New Zealand does support this bill despite the fact that the provisions covering the Alexander Turnbull Library can best be described as “fluffy”. The Minister has the power and the new guardians fulfil an advisory capacity only. The addressing of Maori interests is in many ways camouflage and certainly this legislation should cover the history of all New Zealanders. I have also covered ACT’s concerns about the legal deposits of electronic matter but we are hopeful that amendments will deal with those concerns.