Hutchison Paul: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4736] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to support this National Library of New Zealand legislation. I was interested to hear Mr Benson-Pope say that a sensible approach has been taken by all parties but I note that in the first reading debate the National Party actually opposed this bill. I believe that was for very good reasons because at that stage a lot of technical aspects posed huge problems and for commercial reasons caused great concern particularly for publishers such as newspapers. 
I note that this bill replaces the National Library Act of 1965 and when one thinks of the changes in technology that have occurred since 1965 there was no way that the sorts of things that the National Library would be required to look after could be envisaged for all time. Naturally enough if one thinks of Schumpeter’s curve and the logarithmic way that new discovery is just rattling ahead in this new millennium it is likely that in 10 or 15 years’ time—but hopefully not too soon—a new National Library bill might have to contend with things that we just cannot envisage now. 
The bill deals with four major areas and I might say at this stage that it was a pleasure working with the Education and Science Committee led by Brian Donnelly. One of the things that was a revelation to me was the National Library. I am afraid I had not visited the library so I suggested that that be done and we went over there. It is indeed an absolutely superb facility for the nation not only in terms of its literary content—the wonderful range of books in the National Library itself and the extraordinary collection bequeathed by Alexander Turnbull—but also the other facilities it has such as the oral and photographic archives. 
I was fascinated to learn that it is possible to go there if one wants photographs and the historical evidence that is accrued from just about any part of a large electorate like Port Waikato. I was able to get photographs from 1863 of Tuakau Pokeno and Rangiriri which I now am planning to hang in my electorate office to give a feel of the history of a wide area of the Waikato. But what is just so wonderful is that this facility is accessible to all New Zealanders. One can easily access those archives and the extremely helpful librarians will give one a range of options of how the material can be acquired lent etc. I just cannot underestimate for one moment how important that National Library collection is and the same goes for the Alexander Turnbull Library. 
The bill continues the National Library and the purpose of the Alexander Turnbull Library is confirmed by the Crown’s undertaking “to preserve protect develop and make accessible for all the people of New Zealand the collections of that library in perpetuity and in a manner consistent with their status as documentary heritage and taonga;”. I note that the status of the Alexander Turnbull is assured by the replacement of the present Trustees of the National Library with a new body to be called the Guardians of the Alexander Turnbull Library. When those people submitted I was particularly taken with their sheer intelligence—maybe gentleness but also an aspect of severity—their incredible commitment to the cause of preserving this hugely important collection and their determination that the heritage bequeathed by Alexander Turnbull himself and the others who subsequently bequeath to that collection would be protected and respected in the years to come. 
One of the other major areas this bill addresses is the Maori interest and as Brian Donnelly said so eloquently it is hugely important that in this year’s legislation—as compared with the Act of 1965 which contained no reference at all to the interests of tangata whenua or Maori—there is absolutely meaningful involvement and reference rather than tokenism. 
The area of legal deposit was perhaps one of the most contentious and that is encapsulated in clause 30. Legal deposit is a statutory requirement under which publishers and/or printers must provide copies of works to a national agency. The mechanism is found in the statutes of over 130 countries so it is certainly not uncommon. Clause 30(1) states: “The Minister may by notice in the  
Gazette 
 require a publisher of a public document … to give … at the publisher’s own expense a specified number of copies (not exceeding 3) …”. 
A variety of technical aspects came out of the woodwork. One was a submission by a publisher who had a very limited publication of exquisitely leather-bound books. Those books were literally worth thousands of dollars. It would be a huge requirement were the publisher to be forced to give up three of those copies and the bill allows for flexibility in those cases. So it is down to that detail and appropriate detail that the bill has reached. 
I think the most difficult part was the concern about electronic transfer and certainly the Newspaper Publishers Association was very concerned about that aspect. I note that the  
Dominion Post 
 said on 9 December: “The National Library looks likely to win the right to compel anyone who publishes on the Net to help the library access and store their content. The obligation covers individuals publishing Web pages and professional publishers of subscription-based online information who will have to provide ‘reasonable assistance’ to help the library access and store their material if asked.” In fact the acting chief executive of the library replied on 13 December and the mechanisms to protect commercial rights have been worked through very well. 
The last thing I would like to mention is oral history. I found this area particularly of interest because two people I had something to do with—Hugo Manson and Judith Fyfe—spent many years taking the oral histories of prominent New Zealanders and in particular former Prime Ministers. Unfortunately that process had to be stopped because of access through the Official Information Act but it was done with a huge amount of care for confidentiality and respect for the people whose oral histories were taken. Hopefully a mechanism will be worked out so that that process can be restored. 
I end by saying that this is a very important bill. It has been worked through in a multiparty way and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a second time.