Mackey Moana: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mackey Moana: State Sector Management Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 09 December 2010. Volume:669;Page:16283. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy for taking a call. He went to great lengths to read out a Crown Law opinion stating that the State Sector Management Bill will not affect the independence of the National Library and will not prevent the independent voice of the National Library and the National Librarian from being heard. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. The document that Minister Guy quoted from earlier has been tabled—I am observing the proceedings—but it has not been stamped. My colleague has approached the Table to try to get a copy of it and I now see a twink pen or a whitener being handed to the Minister to remove things from the document which has already been tabled. That document is now the property of the Committee and of the House not of the Minister. The idea that it would be tampered with after it has been tabled and not yet stamped is very concerning. It is now the Committee’s property. A member of the Committee wants to look at it immediately and it should be available to the Committee member. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s why we need an independent archivist! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I assure the member that Parliament does have an independent archivist; it is the Clerk’s Office. The document has been tabled. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I trust this is a new point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is. I think it is appropriate given what has just been said that we get an assurance from the Minister that the document he has tabled in the interim between it going to the Clerk and being stamped has not been altered or tampered with in any way. I would like an assurance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member could have taken that from my statement before that the document has been tabled. If the member is saying that I am telling him that a different document has been tabled then that is a reflection on the Chair. I have confirmed to the Committee that the document has been tabled and the member should accept that at its word. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I give you an absolute assurance that I was not doing what you were suggesting. I was not questioning your word. I was simply asking given that twink bottles were floating around— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Does the member wish to withdraw and apologise? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Absolutely. I never question your integrity; I just wanted that assurance from the Minister. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Thank you. You have that assurance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think the problem is that some members could not see the document as it went across to the Clerk whereas I did and I can— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The matter has been dealt with. I have now given the Committee three assurances that it is the same document. I do not need to know whether members are confused disorientated or cannot figure out whether it is Thursday or Saturday. None of that is relevant. The document has been tabled. Everybody is satisfied honour is restored and that is the end of the matter. If I hear another point or order of this matter I will—[ 
Interruption 
] No. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That was an example if there ever was one of why we need an independent archivist. We want to avoid this kind of situation. The Minister in the chair is the Minister responsible for the National Library and Archives New Zealand. 
Hon Members 
: “Mr Twink.” 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Yes “Mr Twink.” We are only in the Committee stage of the bill that seeks to bring together Archives New Zealand and the National Library and put them into the Department of Internal Affairs and already serious questions are being raised about the independence of the process and whether important Government documents have been tampered with. If we cannot get through the Committee of the whole House feeling assured that there will not be any political interference what will it be like when we merge the two entities? 
I want to comment on the Minister’s contribution. He read out the Crown Law opinion that the provisions in Part 2 will not have any impact on the functioning of the National Library. Of course that was the case back when these two entities used to be together in the 1990s. If the Minister would get out of his ivory tower and talk to the people who work in the National Library they would tell him that despite the legal situation—and a Crown Law opinion would have said exactly the same thing back then—the reality was that they did struggle in terms of independence. 
The reality was that they struggled to have their voice heard when they were under the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Education. So instead of reading from some piece of paper to make himself feel better—because legally Crown Law has said that he should not worry about anything—why does he not talk to the people who worked in that entity the last time it was combined under the Department of Internal Affairs? They will tell him that what he has said in the Chamber today is absolutely not correct. That is why every single submission to the Education and Science Committee opposed this measure. In reality they could not carry out those important constitutional functions of being independent and protecting important public documents when they were subsumed by a big Government department like the Department of Internal Affairs. I think it is very disappointing that the Minister chose to not address those facts. 
I come now to clause 30 which talks about documents being made available for public exhibition. Now that the National Library will be part of the Department of Internal Affairs I am a little bit concerned because another group that is covered by the Department of Internal Affairs is the New Zealand Fire Service and this is a Minister who will not let Opposition MPs visit fire departments without his permission. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: That’s not true. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is true. The New Zealand Fire Service is actually quite independent from the Government except that the Department of Internal Affairs covers the New Zealand Fire Service Commission which regulates some of the areas of the Fire Service. If this Minister has been stopping Opposition MPs from visiting the Fire Service what does that mean— 
Sandra Goudie 
: That’s what the previous Minster did. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Sandra Goudie should take a call instead of screaming across the Chamber. 
What kind of confidence can we have that clause 30 will be adhered to and that the public will have access to all the information in the National Library without ministerial interference when the very Minister who will be in charge of the Department of Internal Affairs and the National Library is a Minister we have to question about whether documents are being tampered with or properly filed with the Clerk? He has also stopped Opposition MPs from visiting fire departments in their own areas. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He says that’s not true. We need that on the record. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Does the Minister say that that is not true and that Opposition MPs are allowed to visit fire stations without his approval? He is very quiet now. Can we visit fire stations without the Minister’s approval? Yes? No? Maybe? 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: I have a policy. Mr Hipkins knows it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh he has a policy. Yes we know; it is that we are not allowed to visit without the Minister’s permission. What does clause 30 mean in terms of ensuring that documents are made available for public exhibition and to members when the Minister himself has blocked people from visiting other parts of the Department of Internal Affairs even though he should not have the power to do that? 
I come now to Subpart 2 which is about the transfer of employees of the National Library. The reason I raise this is that in Part 1 there is a lot of information about the transfer of employees to the new Ministry of Science and Innovation. Some very important points were mentioned such as the fact that they would all go over on existing terms and conditions. It very clearly stated that provisions under the KiwiSaver Act and the Employment Relations Act did not apply to these employees. I am talking about the 90-day right-to-fire period for new employees. 
Part 1 which deals with the merging of the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and the Foundation of Research Science and Technology into a new ministry made it very clear that those employees would not be required to be on a 90-day trial period. They would be deemed to be carrying on their employment. But in Part 2 we do not have those clauses. 
Part 2 has one clause on the transfer of employees whereas Part 1 has pages and pages. I would like to know from the Minister what that means for employees of the National Library when they are transferred over to the Department of Internal Affairs. The Minister has not ruled out those employees suddenly finding themselves on a 90-day right-to-fire probationary period even though they may have been working with the National Library for more than a decade. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to tell us whether the employment of employees transferred from the National Library to the Department of Internal Affairs will be deemed to have been continuous or whether those employees will suddenly find that they are categorised as new employees and that they are on the 90-day right-to-fire probationary period. So will the Minister—hello? No the Minister is not paying any attention to what members are saying which is very distressing. Clause 35 in Part 2 is very short when it comes to the transferring of employees. If there is anything urgent about this bill being debated today on a Saturday it is that we let the employees of the National Library know whether their employment will be secure under Part 2. 
In Part 1 it is very clear that employment will be deemed to have been continuous. Employees will continue to have a job and leading up to Christmas I think it would be particularly nice of the Minister to take a call and clarify that clause 35 covers this and gives those employees certainty that they will still have a job. We are here under urgency because apparently the merging of these entities is so important that we need to be here on a Saturday. Well nothing could be more important than clarifying what clause 35 means for the employees of that National Library. 
I hope that the Minister will take a call so that those employees can know that they will still have a job leading up to Christmas and that they will not have 3 months of uncertainty during which time they could be fired for absolutely no reason whatsoever—with no reason having to be given—while at the same we know that the Government is sending a razor gang out there to slash funding in the public sector. So I think the Minister should take a call on that particular part. 
I come now to clause 24 “National Librarian”. I know that this is an area that some of my colleagues will pick up on in more detail. Clause 24 has some quite odd wording. As we know 
the National Librarian will now be a level 3 manager in the Department of Internal Affairs. So he or she will go from the being the person who runs it to being not even a second-tier manger but a third-tier manager in the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Clause 24(2) states: “The National Librarian is the person for the time being appointed to that office…”. That definition jumped out at me. I do not think “for the time being” needs to be said unless it is suggesting that there will be a time when a National Librarian is not employed in that office. I wonder whether this is a little indication about where the role of National Librarian is going. I know that my colleague Jacinda Ardern has more to say about that. The words “The National Librarian is the person for the time being appointed to that office by the chief executive …” are— 
Grant Robertson 
: Kind of like while they feel like it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. It is like saying: “At the moment you’re allowed to have this job—for the time being—but don’t get too comfortable because in the future this role may not be there.” That is not the kind of wording I remember seeing for other positions within the public sector. It stands to reason that the National Librarian is the person who is doing the job and that the chief executive appoints him or her. It does not need to be clarified that it is just in the here and now and that he or she should not make any long-term plans. So I would like the Minister in the chair to get up and allay concerns on this side of the Chamber.