Archifacts June 1986-2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Selected papers presented at the 9th annual conference of the Archives and Records Association of flew Zealand, Auckland, 6-8 September 1985. ARCHIFACTS Bulletin of the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand 1986/2 June 1986 356 Public Archives and Records Bill 14 June 14 June Public Archives and Records Bill 357 does not seem io realise that a new trust is lo be set up and that the Minister of Imema! There might be some need in certain circumstances lot provisions that restrict access, Affairs has been asked to ac! as chairman for Thai oral records tnat. There is a record of but it is equally important that professional researchers have the opportunity to gain their having received S13.250 from lottery profits to support their work. The old dim limited access to those classes of documents for certain types of bona tide research and archive has received lottery funding lor a number of years, and this year received a record purposes. For example, it is legitimate to protect the privacy of persons, even deceased ol $100,000 to assist with the restoration of those old films. The member spoke about the persons, in certain circumstances, but it is totally pointless to withhold that information Burton film piases, but docs not seem to realise (hat the National Museum is undertaking from people who wsii to use it merely to arrive at statistical conclusions, and who are a plan to preserve them. None oí ihose items has anything to do with the National under an embargo not to reveal the identity of individuals. Although Ï accept that the Bill Archives. They are general archives and records, and do not come within the purview oí has been introduced for the best oí purposes, it will receive a degree of criticism from the Bil!. The member for Western Hurt queried Ihc funding and status of the National people involved in bona fide research, who wi)l find that it does not change the rather Archivist. The Bill substantially improves his status, and he becomes an independent unsatisfactory position thai has existed tos many years- regarding access to public archives. statutory officer similar to the Chief Censor of Films or the Registrar of Companies. The The Bill w'dl need substantia! amendment in the select corarsitiee. Bill has been developed in dose consultation with the National Archivist. He is satisfied Mr TERRIS (Western Hutt): I raise again the questions asked of the member tor with its terras and funding, and with the arrangements made for reporting to the Minister Horowhenua in the House last evening, which he has sttU not answered. I regard his and to Parliament each year through the report of the Department of internal Affairs. response In the debate as thoroughly unsatisfactory. He should be making an attempt to The member went through some details of the Bill and snatched and scratched for answer questions that have been legitimately raised. Instead, he did everything but material, but seemed to miss the important issues. The most important aspect is lhat the answer the legitimate questions to which the Opposition still seeks answers. In the light of Bill is the result of more than 26 years' experience with the old Act; it updates the his incapacity or unwillingness to answer, I shall pose them again. standing of archives and takes into iccouat the relationship with the Official Information They relate particularly to clause 4, and whether an annual report will be tabled in Act that was passed last year, It imptoves the classification of material based on Parliament trota the National Archivist. That is a point I raised last evening, and I still experience. It deals particularly with the matter of deposit of an important public archive, await an answer to it. Ï also asked a question about clause 8 and the power of the Minister and improved access to thai deposil. On the introduction of a Bill we should be dealing to appoint committees to advise the National Archivist. Will that power be used? It has with its general philosophy and asking whether it should be introduced. The member for been available for 27 years and has not been used. The impression given in the debate by VJcstem Hutt raised questions that should mart property be addressed at the select the member for Horowhcnua was quite inappropriate, because, in general, the committee. I support the introduction of the Hill in its present form, and its referral to the Opposition is quite in accord with the idea that the National Archivist should be allowed seiect committee, on which the member for Western Hurt is also a participant. The other sufficient power with which to exercise his important public office. The member must dctaih that seem to concern him can be dealt with in the committee, surely be under considerable threat in his electorate for him to come into the House as Dr CULLEN (St. Kilda); The Opposition welcomes the introduction of the Bill. In defensively as he did today. It is important for him to address himself to the legitimate fact, it was promised in 1982 when the Official Information Act was being considered—it questions that have been raised, the most important of which Í have saved till last. Will was not passed in 1983 as the member for Horowhenua said. That shows his lack of the Government make a point of guaranteeing lhat resources wilt be available for the knowledge oí the Official Information Act and of matters relating to public archives—it National Archivist to carry out the responsibilities that are set out in the Bill? was not exactly a brilliant venture by him into the marier. The Bill should have been Hon. D. A. IBGÍSET {Minister of Internal Affairs): ï shaîl reply first to the member considered together vÁth the official information legislation, because it shows an for St. Kilda, about the point he made on the deferral ol the deposit. That is not a new extremely awkward attempt to mesh the consideration of public archives into the Official concept, but is included in section 8 of the present Act. However, the Prune Minister's Information Act, Incidentally, that Act excludes the archives from its ambit of operation. idea of a certificate follows the Official information Act, and the limit of the information There are rather peculiar provisions relating io deposits and access about which I to be withheld is in line with what is in thai Act. The i-yearly review is for the purpose of wish to ask some questions. Severe limitations are placed upon deposit in certain ensuring that the archives are deposited when a reason for their deferral no longer exists. ciiciisn.s-tance'i; in general all have to be deposited after 20 years. As Î understand it, that I think the member should be satisfied with what has been done in that respect. The simply lowers tile Instil in the present statute by 5 years. Certain information does not member tor VJestem Hutt said that he would like a special report from the National have to be deposited—for example, if the Prime Minister issues a certificate saying that Archivist. The matter was discussed with the National Archivist, who is perfectly happy information might prejudice New Zealand's security, defence, or international relations; to have his report included in a special section in the annual report of the Department of or might entrust the giving on the basis of confidence to the Government of New Zealand Internal Affairs. I do not know why the member should be worried, when the National of any further information from that source. That is totally unnecessary. I am sure that Archivist himself is quite happy. Separate provision for the resources for the National many organisations wiü point that out to the Government, because it is important, not to Archivist will be made in the Internal Affairs vote. ! thank those members who have control the deposit recommendations, but—if al all—to control access. There is no need asked questions and my Under-Secretary for replying to most of them for me, I believe to control deposit if there is a corresponding control over access. The BUS will create the Bill will be well received by those who are interested in archives. problems, because items that were withheld wül need to be reviewed every S years to see Dr BASSETT (Te Atafu): 1 take up the point raised by the member for St. Kilda— if they should be withheld further. It creates a bureaucratic nightmare of continually that it is one thing lo defer access to the material, but another altogether to enable it. The revising recotds that may be 55, 60, 70, or 75 years old, in certain matters, and will Minister has said thai it Is intended to continue the approach of the present Act, as certainly be 30 to 15 years old in security defence matters. covered in clause 15 of the Bill and the other clauses. Can the Minister supply a good The Bill is written extremely clumsily in terms of access, because hprovides in clause reason for Ihe point raised by the member for St. Kiída not being the principle that is 2fi that the information contained in any public archive shall be subject to access under adopted? Why could there not be e system undet which all material is deposited, with the the Official Information Act when the Prime Minister gives a certificate relating to critical factor being who can get access to it? Oause 15 states that the Prime fMnater can secunry, defence, or whatever; or when the Attorney-General gives a certificate relating defer deposit [or such period or periods as he from time to time prescribes.