This article was published as the Editorial in the April 2000 edition of Archifacts, the bi-annual journal of the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand[1], and is reproduced with the kind permission of the Editor and writer, Dr Brad Patterson.

New Dawn for the National Archives of New Zealand

Brad Patterson

by Brad Patterson,

Editor, Archifacts

Just occasionally a delay can prove to be a boon.  In this case, the late appearance of the journal has made it possible to celebrate the new millennium by bringing to members the very latest development in respect of the National Archives.  In mid-May, the Hon. Marian Hobbs, Minister responsible for National Archives, issued a media release headed “New Dawn for National Archives”.

If what is promised comes to pass, just maybe the year 2000 will usher in for National Archives what the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines as a figurative meaning of the word millennium: “a period of good government, general happiness and prosperity”.

Marian Hobbs

In her statement, Ms Hobbs announced that from 1 October, 2000, the National Archives would become an autonomous state department, the specialist agency responsible for all recordkeeping within government.

“This is a new beginning for National Archives”, she said.  “The Government recognises that the important constitutional function …[exercised by]…National Archives requires independent status.”

Observing that National Archives was probably best known for its custody of the nation’s founding documents, in particular the Treaty of Waitangi[2], the Minister expressed her personal conviction that the institution’s responsibility for ensuring preservation of seemingly more mundane records was just as important.  The availability of such papers underpinned good government.  “An effective Archives is essential if our democracy is to function”, Ms Hobbs concluded.  “One of the keys to our freedom as a people is the accountability of governments to those who elect them.  For this to happen, the record of government must be accurate and reliable.”

She also indicated that clear separation from other state agencies was but the first step in turning National Archives into “a strong responsive institution”.  The June 2000 Budget would include a substantial increase in baseline funding for the institution; sufficient to enable adequate maintenance of its buildings, to boost staffing and to facilitate standards-setting and regulatory capabilities.  The Budget would also provide for a one-off cash injection to cover establishment costs and to develop computerised client access services.  In a subsequent speech, Ms Hobbs conveyed that revision of the existing archives legislation would be expedited.

It is said that the darkest hours frequently come immediately before the dawn, and without doubt National Archives has experienced some dark hours since early 1995. The skies, however, were already appreciably lightening even before 1999 was out.  Notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s mid-December dismissal of the ARANZ/NZSG[3] appeal against Justice Ellis’ July 1998 decision[4] that it was still “too early” to rule whether the forced incorporation of the National Archives into an Internal Affairs Heritage Group unlawfully eroded the statutory functions of the Chief Archivist, and the Court’s parallel upholding of an appeal by the Secretary for Internal Affairs against the same judge’s June 1999 finding that monies had been illegally removed from the National Archives vote, there were already clear signs that the judgments might largely be academic. 

By the time the judgments were issued the incoming Labour-Alliance coalition Government had already unequivocally disavowed incorporation of the National Archives into a Heritage Group, as well as expressing strong doubts about the transfer of supervision of the institution to the newly-minted Ministry of Culture and Heritage.

P.M "appalled" at restructuring

Helen Clark

In pre-election statements, most strongly in Labour’s Arts Policy, Prime Minister-to-be Helen Clark had expressed herself “appalled” at what she termed an “extraordinary restructuring”.  She had pledged that, with a change of government, new legislation would reinforce the statutory independence of the National Archives, and that Internal Affairs would be forced “to get its sticky hands off the Archives and its budget”.  The erstwhile plaintiff groups therefore took great heart from the early appointment of Wellington Central MP Marian Hobbs as Minister responsible for the National Archives, the first such appointment in New Zealand’s history.

Despite ongoing isolated mutterings that the protracted litigation was unnecessary (perhaps most bewildering instanced in the New Zealand Archivist’s recent editorial query: “Was the whole exercise a waste of time, energy and ARANZ members’ money?”)[5], informed opinion is virtually unanimous that the proceedings were vital in fostering the present Government’s determination to bring about significant change.  The litigation served a number of purposes.  For a start, recourse to the High Court in 1997 slowed, indeed effectively halted, the Internal Affairs’ restructuring juggernaut.  In return for agreement by the plaintiffs to withdraw an injunction application, the Secretary for Internal Affairs[6] undertook to make no permanent appointments to key positions within the new structure, nor to effect structural changes which could not be readily undone, until the legality of his proposals was established beyond doubt.

The transfer of proceedings to the Appeal Court preserved this stalemate, fortunately until the political climate changed.  The proceedings also afforded unprecedented publicity, for National Archives in particular but also for archives generally.  On no previous occasion have archives stories featured regularly in the national press or been the subject of television programmes.  There can be little doubt that the preparedness of community groups to take up the cudgels, regardless of the odds stacked against them, helped change perceptions in many quarters, some of them very influential.

And in this respect, the hearings themselves were far from total failures.  If the plaintiffs were unsuccessful in securing the decisions sought, they nevertheless very publicly raised questions about the appropriateness of the Internal Affairs proposals.  Before the Appeal Court, the Solicitor-General tellingly conceded that there could be a very great difference between what was strictly legal and what was administratively wise.  The Appeal Court bench itself expressed appreciation of the concerns of “the plaintiffs, their supporters, their witnesses and those they represent”.  Eighteen months earlier, Justice Ellis had deemed the evidence presented by the plaintiffs in the High Court to be “cogent and compelling”, but had counselled that political rather than legal solutions might be required.

That those messages were being heard, even by the outgoing National administration, is demonstrated by its July 1999 decision to moot separation of National Archives from Internal Affairs jurisdiction, transferring supervision to a new Ministry of Culture and Heritage.  There was also commitment to a review that would “establish the best possible institutional arrangements” for National Archives.

The doubtful wisdom of making National Archives a satellite of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, whether as a separate Crown entity or, as frequently mooted by officials, in some form of partnership with the National Library, has been discussed elsewhere.  The latter proposal would always have been unacceptable.  While the former may have held some appeal in the past, by 1999 it could be regarded as too little and far too late.  By this point there could be little doubt of a Labour-Alliance coalition’s commitment to doing very much better.

Minister backs constitutional “rock”

Dr Michael Cullen

In a sense, an agenda had already been presented by incoming Finance Minister Michael Cullen in a much-discussed paper delivered to ARANZ’s 1998 Dunedin conference.  Dr Cullen then made it clear that, in his view, separate department status for National Archives was logical and inevitable, as was recognition that the institution, rather than a heritage body, was the “firm historical, legal, institutional and constitutional rock to which the record of government…(must)…be tethered”.

Dr Cullen’s remarks should have come as no surprise, he having supported positive reform at National Archives for more than a decade, but in the succeeding 18 months it became increasingly evident that his views were shared by a number of influential parliamentary colleagues.  In early 1999, Wellington Central candidate Marian Hobbs adopted “the Archives issue” as one plank in her campaign for the seat.  During 1999, she organised meetings between the stakeholders and Labour leader Helen Clark, who also expressed support.  And there were champions amongst the Alliance MPs, most publicly Deputy Leader Sandra Lee.  Indeed, it was Ms Lee who had led the criticism of Internal Affairs” aborted 1995 restructuring proposals.  It might be safely assumed then, that once first Archives Minister Hobbs was appointed she could anticipate considerable support for a reform programme from senior Cabinet colleagues.

Whether the incoming politicians reforming zeal was mirrored in the stance of its officials, however, must be extremely doubtful.  Within weeks of the November election Minister Hobbs was strongly hinting that National Archives would become an independent department by 1 July, 2000.  However, there are strong indications that, notwithstanding this clear expression of the new political will, senior officials from several departments were already combining to oppose, or at least water down, the proposal.  While further resistance from Internal Affairs was probably to be expected, widely circulating rumours suggest that considerable hostility emanated from senior levels of the State Services Commission, strongly supported by officials from the Ministry of Culture and Heritage.  The opposition of the last group is understandable.  There must have been intense disappointment within the Ministry that not only National Archives but also other parts of the cultural constellation created in July 1999 were now likely to be wrenched from its oversight.

The Commission’s motives are harder to fathom.  Perhaps it was simply that the politicians’ preferred model ill-fitted the established, arguably ideologically determined, administrative template favoured by many officials.  It may also have been an expression of a long suspected Commission conviction that it should lead, not be led by, politicians.  Certainly there are suggestions that, despite instructions to prepare an implementation plan for the proposals subsequently announced by Ms Hobbs, officials stubbornly continued to campaign for yet another “independent review” of National Archives.  While deferral of the new department’s launch until 1 October might be considered a minor victory for opposed officials, the tenor of the Minister’s May announcements surely confirms that Cabinet will has prevailed – for the moment.

No room for complacency

Even when National Archives becomes an independent department on 1 October, there can be no room for stakeholder complacency.  While a number of major battles appear now to have been won, that the campaign is well and truly over is still far from assured.  And, as more significant conflicts of the twentieth century have strikingly demonstrated, the apparent winners are all too frequently losers of the peace.  Until the new department is well and truly bedded in, and even after, aspiring bureaucratic empire builders will continue to eye National Archives covetously.  In itself, the conferral of departmental status is no guarantee of safety.  Recall the National Library, an independent department through the 1990s, was, prior to the election, scheduled for reduction to Crown entity status and transfer to the purview of the Ministry of Culture and Heritage.  It is all too possible that, should there be an early change of government, further rearrangements will be considered.

Given this possibility, several related matters merit close and ongoing stakeholder attention.  The first is vigilance that independent department status means exactly that.  Already there are signs that stated ministerial intentions may be diluted through a requirement that National Archives “purchase” corporate services from an existing agency, possibly its former administering department or even the Commission itself.  This, it is argued, will promote economies; but it could also easily ensure long-term dependency, and possibly facilitate amalgamations at a later date.  While “contracting in” may indeed be the choice of the yet-to-be-appointed Chief Executive of the new department, it would be reprehensible if such a critical management decision was to be mandated prior to his/her appointment.  It would scarcely be in the spirit of the State Sector Act. 

Appointment of the Chief Executive is another matter meriting continuing close public attention.  How senior positions in the new department are filled, and by whom, are decisions likely to be critical determinants of the organisation’s immediate prospects for success.  Filling the top job is, of course, ultimately the prerogative of the State Services Commissioner, albeit in consultation with Cabinet, but there must be proper recognition within the Commission of the uniqueness of the position, any attempt to insert a generic manager being resisted.

The new dawn will also demand a heightened awareness of obligations and responsibilities, as well as enthusiasm and a readiness to accept those obligations and responsibilities, in short greater institutional maturity, on the part of National Archives.  Having been pushed up the public sector league tables, the new department will have to strive to establish credibility early, not only (but probably most critically) with its primary stakeholder, the government of the day, but also with other state agencies and the wider raft of community stakeholders.  Assuming a new mantle of public recordkeeping leadership, for this is what will be required, will not be easy.

Growth pains to be expected

Under the most propitious circumstances, any relatively small state organ allotted new and more important roles might expect to experience growth pains, crises of confidence.  The pains are likely to be greater, the crises more frequent, in the case of an institution which historically has been chronically under-funded, and one, moreover, which has tended to be dominated by its previous administering department and largely ignored by many of the organisations whose recordkeeping it is statutorily charged to regulate.  Moreover, it would be strange if the batterings of the past five years had not fostered elements of a laager mentality within the institution.

But these natural institutional anxieties and self-doubts must be speedily pushed aside.  National Archives has been presented with a rare, and very possibly a narrow, window of opportunity.  There has almost certainly never been a more sympathetic, certainly not a more informed, government.  Public support for National Archives has never been stronger.  The challenge for National Archives will be to reinforce the Government’s confidence in its ability to exercise its allotted functions, while at the same time retaining, and building up, popular support.  Achieving these objectives is likely to call for exhibitions of strong leadership and determination, as well as demonstrations of creative thinking.  While borrowing, where appropriate, from overseas experience is only sensible, there must be recognition within National Archives that New Zealand situations frequently demand New Zealand solutions.

There is still obviously a way to go, with a number of tricky hurdles to be cleared, before the announced Hobbs blueprint for National Archives becomes reality.  The ability of vested interests, public no less than private, to obstruct can never be underestimated.  But natural caution, a caution perhaps born of past frustrations, should not detract from the very strong likelihood that May 2000 will come to be regarded as a major breakpoint when the history of archives in New Zealand is eventually written.  For the first time a New Zealand administration has publicly acknowledged the importance of National Archives to the democratic process, as well as the fact that its unique constitutional responsibilities require it be accorded administrative independence.  It might be claimed that stakeholders have played some part, perhaps even a substantial part, in bringing about this change in governmental thinking. 

But representations have to be listened to.  They then have to be acted upon by those with the power to effect change.  It will be Ms Hobbs and Dr Cullen, the former insisting that the latter’s powerful behind-the-scenes support be noted, who will rightly go down as the architects (engineers?) who arrested National Archives’ slide towards Third World status and brought administration of the institution into conformity with what may be regarded as true international best practice.  They, and their Cabinet colleagues, are due the heartfelt thanks of archives supporters throughout this country.