Alexander Marc: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Public Records Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19994] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. People have kept records since the days of the woolly mammoth when pictures were etched into cave walls with a dab of paint administered by the finger of a successful hunter. If Dail Jones could cast his mind back to his early childhood he would no doubt attest to that fact. The Public Records Bill will repeal the Archives Act of 1957 and the document and archival provisions of the Local Government Act 1974. The changes flowing from the bill are a reflection of the changes in technology legislation and record-keeping that have occurred in the last 47 years. The bill aims to improve the accountability of Government organisations enhance democratic participation in government and contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. Improved record-keeping practices will underpin those outcomes and are seen to be an essential part of efficient government as they support the legal and administrative requirements of day-to-day operations. The policy implications arising from the bill are threefold: firstly to create a framework to ensure that public records are appropriately managed secondly to achieve broad coverage of the activities of the Government within that framework and thirdly to provide for the preservation of the accessibility of public archives. 
The key recommendations by the Government Administration Committee were also threefold. The first was to strengthen the bill and require all public officers to create and maintain full and accurate records by linking the requirement to create and maintain full and accurate records to prudent and normal business practice. In order to remove any possibility of misinterpretation the second recommendation was to minimise the confusion amongst academics and students about the scope of the definition of “public record”. Submissions from some tertiary education institutions questioned whether universities could properly be regarded as part of the public sector and their records as public records. The third recommendation was to provide for a fine of not exceeding $5000 in the case of an individual or $10000 in every other case. That will strengthen the current $2000 ceiling and satisfy the concern expressed by submitters that the penalties currently provided for in the bill are not adequate as a deterrent and do not reflect the seriousness of any wilful or negligent act. 
The increasing costs some members have talked about will certainly arise but in the interests of our archival heritage they ought to be borne nevertheless. However I will say this: there is a very good argument for asserting that if the Government imposes costs on individuals or institutions perhaps it should also pay those costs. Unfortunately that is something this bill does not properly address. I am also comfortable with the fact that material of commercial sensitivity will be withheld for at least 25 years. In most circumstances that is more than adequate and it is a reasonable provision. 
The bill is a very great step forward in implementing a much-needed update to the maintenance of our public records and United Future wholeheartedly supports it.