Public archives: Heritage happiness or horror story?

Public Archives: Heritage Happiness or Horror Story?

Rachel Lilburn*

The fate ofthe the functional Secretary Zealand order

19% proposal model

of Internal group

within

Affairs’

independence

latest

Archives;

role; and the relationship

The political

motives.

as is the connection

evidential

versus cultural/heritage archives

which

ol‘the

management

scheme.

will

scheme

at the

looks

a Heritage

issues

problems

implications to the debate

in the United

using

to establish

the lijllowing

historians

role ol’archives.

of New Zealand. The article

NW

encompass the National Archives.

the institution’s between

Archives

is reviewed.

context,

and fundin g and legal

analyzed,

state of public

article.

restructuring

in an historical

for National

the National

in a previous

the Department

to place the scheme

management

to restructure

discussed

in fulfilling

and archivists

the tension

Some comparisons States

3 records

in New Zealand.

of this restructuring o\er

In

are examined:

are also

between

are made with

the the

and Australia.

In an earlier article, two proposals to restructure the National Archives of New Zealand along the lines of the “functional model” were dubbed “ideological experiments.” ’ They created significant opposition among the archives profession. The author also expressed a negative opinion of the restructuring plans. At the time of writing of the earlier article, the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand (ARANZ) had sought legal advice to stop the second restructuring proposal. and this advice had been referred to New Zealand’s Solicitor-General. Since the article was published, the Solicitor-General has agreed with the legal advice obtained by ARANZ, which was that the Chief Archivist could not be forced to delegate her functions to a General Manager by the Secretary for Internal Affairs. Court action by ARANZ proved to be unnecessary. But the Secretary for Internal Affairs, Dr. Roger Blakeley. continued with his efforts to remodel the National Archives. He then put forward a third

Government Information Quarterly, Volume 15, Number 2, pages 173-196. Copyright 0 1998 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-624X

(A WEKNMENT

1-1

and revised

restructuring

operation

proposal.

for IS months,

less. a fourth proposal.

Heritage

It. too. ih unpalatable be illegal

under

restructuring

With features

proposal.

Archi\

Furthermore,

the latest scheme of public

or latest scheme reference

and stakeholder

issues:

to the U.S. National

ship between

reaction

the pressing

archivist\

operate

it has been in Neverthe-

within a new busi-

by the Secretq.

to those

appear

to

for the second

nea# problems

and difficul-

this article will briefly rc\iew the background It will then focus on an unulysi\ of the fourth d~emt:

to it. The

Archives

1 I’I’IH

records.

need to establish

and historians:

I YNc,

It al\o \vould

reasons

creates

VIII

its success.

has now been mooted

1957, for very similar

In order to understand the latest theme, to it and the results of the third restructuring. the following

ofNew Zealand

Y

model.”

and many other \takeholders.

Act

tie5 for the care and management

of the “functional

es

New Zealand.

to ARANZ

the Archives

(&JAKTtKI

too short a time in which to judge

probably

that the National

ness group to be called

INFC )KMATION

will be placed

an independent

and Records

Adrnini~tration):

and the difficultirh

in the context

National

Archives

the uneasy

that National

01

(\vith

rclation-

Archive\

has had

in fulfilling its record management role. The primary purpose ol‘archi~s in society and the role of public archives will be discus& in relation to the chemc. and comparison M ith the state of public

archives

consider

the funding

possible

political

management

motives

behind

This article will therefore ad\,ocate the need for public one which

is rooted

in Australia

and legal implication\

in their

for the National

Archives being

conducted

of other

countries.

menting

the author scheme.

will

and the

its introduction.

nece\sit\,

debate

the situations

restructuring

update the story that began in 1994. Its purpose archives to create ;I powerful concept of archi\,al for constitutional

which will sustain an argument for an independent ha\,s no doubt by the end of this story of the benefits presently

will be made. Finally.

of the heritage

of New

Zealand.

Secondly,

in the professional Finally.

the author

our past in order that wc may better

and societal

archives authority. that WOLII~ accrue

i\ firstly to documents.

accountability

it will root that argument literature

i\ aware

and

The reader should from independence

and enable

II\ to

of the importance

in the

retlect of

on

&xx-

plan our Ilture.

THE FIRST RESTRUCTURING

PLAN

In 1993. The Treasury engaged consultant\. McDermott Miller Ltd.. to undertake an independent review of National Archive\. Their recommendation was that National Archive\ be established

Crown entity. Under the Crown entity model. National and archi\,es policy advice be a xem-independent pro\,ider of \ervices. monitoring u ould be located within a governand purchasing capacity. and performance ment department. initially the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). This first proposal retlected a principle of public sector reform in Lvhich policy advice and implementation are carried out by separate agencies. It has its roots in Sweden. where it i\ sometimes referred Archives

as an independent

would

to as the “functional”

model.

THE “BLAKELEY PLAN” Not long after the appointment of a new Secretary of Internal the preferred structural option of a Crown Owned Entity National Archives remaining tied to Internal Affairs.

Affair\, Dr. Roger Blakeley. was abandoned in favor of

The second and approved restructuring proposal had three elements. Policy and legislative work would be assigned to a newly created Internal Affairs Policy Unit. Archives policy and purchasing functions would be assigned to the Chief Archivist to accompany existing statutory functions. She would head an independent Office of the Chief Archivist but remain within the Department of Internal Affairs. National Archives would be refocused as a provider of archives services, consistent with existing statutory functions. A General Manager would be appointed to oversee the provision of these services. An Archives Advisory Committee would be appointed to advise the Chief Archivist on technical and purchase matters concerning archives. The Chief Archivist and the General Manager would both report to the Secretary for Internal Affairs. The General Manager would also sign a purchase agreement and accountability document with the Chief Archivist. The Cabinet Committee considering the proposal was advised that, unlike the Crown Entity option, it required no changes to the Archives Act. Reaction by stakeholders to the revised plan. dubbed the “Blakeley plan.” was immediate. Concerns included: possible privatization of National Archives: potential increases in user charges; the inadvisability of adoption of the functional model for a public archives: and, most importantly, the potential illegality of the proposals under the Archives Act 1957. Blakeley had initially sought the advice of the Department’s Chief Legal Advisor, who considered that the new structure was possible provided the General Manager had clear accountability to the Chief Archivist for delegated functions.’ He followed this up with a legal opinion from the Crown Law Office.3 On the basis of this opinion, secured after his proposal was approved, the Secretary believed that the functions of the “care, custody, control. and administration of public archives” could be delegated. with the Chief Archivist retaining the right to control standards for these functions. According to the Secretary under # 6, he may direct the Chief Archivist to delegate her powers. Furthermore, under $ 7, the Chief Archivist is permitted to delegate powers, except that of disposal authorization, although under S 7(5) these are not allowed to be delegated permanently. ARANZ stated, however, that the functions of the Chief Archivist could not be delegated, if the intent of the framers of the Act were considered. These statements were based on an independent legal opinion ARANZ commissioned from an eminent Wellington Queen’s Counsel, Dr. Don Mathieson. Dr. Mathieson said that “the essence of the view which [he] took, and still hold[s], was that it was contrary to the Act to direct the Chief Archivist to delegate archives service provider functions, including the custody of public archives deposited in National Archives, to a new general manager.+t This opinion was eventually referred to the Solicitor-General, John McGrath, by the State Services Commission. to whom Blakeley had sent the opinion. The Solicitor-General considered its content and concurred with the opinion of Dr. Mathieson. Even though ARANZ was prepared to seek an injunction from the High Court against implementation. the matter did not go to court. ARANZ had, it seemed, secured a significant and indeed remarkable victory, considering the size of the association’s membership and its limited financial resources. The victory was aided and abetted by the considerable support of the historical and genealogical community. In the opinion of James Traue, a key figure in the organization of the opposition and Vice-President of ARANZ, however, the victory, in the end, was in the legal and not

the political

arena.

if we had turned

it a “technical

He called

up the political

on points

in the political

numbers

and the support

arena. to force

then dwised

;I third

1996. ” In February provision

of dab -to-day

wah on the selection

the Public

Record

Office.

not the Secretary. Affair\

Policy

Unit.

setting

unit.

Archives.

its manager

Archivist

sot-\’ Board. National

to adviw

Archives.

iswcs.

also reportin

The Chief’ pri\ate

the Swrctq

model“

separated.

but take

thew

I‘unctions

flict

in relation

dations

will

intcgt-ation

is now

because rtstnain place

of policy

achie\.ed

by the General

the General delivery

of’ services

avoided.

The

under

too

detached M hether bring public

eatrty

Il-oni

plan.” to tell

Internal

worh

Affair\.“”

National

Archives. ensures

appointed

archiws

of the performance A \pokrsman

executive

l‘unction

\titI

for when.

situated

i01‘

ARANZ ;I\ prior

archi\

Archivist. stated Croun

from

only

danger\ c+ignot-ant

or inllucnce “it

is clear

Law

Ol’t’ice

of lack 01‘

problem

01‘ lines of reportitr_c of‘ petformance

to

to be

and line control

costly

of I’m

negotiation\

of. perlortnxnce.

her stall’.

are

;I\ W;I\ proposed

Branch

Likewise.

by the benef‘it

that

01‘ con-

Houw.

archives

to him.

arc still

separation

rt’\ iew of rtxotntnrn-

policy

ol‘the

Will over

in entrusting poliq

becotne

Chief

Archivist

unit

archive\ in Head Board.

of

policy Office

which

i\

it have any part in the re\,iew her contract

the Board

atlvicc

will

we do not kno\b

and the promotion

is the role 01‘ the Adviwry

of criticism

t‘rom of the

functioti~

Thih mechani~tn.

tnanayernrnt. iaues.

functions Features

The perceived

major

that potentially

in Archive\

however.

erected.

because The

the standard\

i\ outweighed

foresee.

plan.”

Statutorq’/Re~uIator~

strategic

and answerable

of the Chief

esists

iwlatrd

ol’ the

Act.

and tnonitorin~

agent.

and records

Manager

the sukject

by the Secretary

and

\tafl‘

“Blakelq

specil’y

i\ not physically

to a “freshI>

Also

the

i\t on archive\

of‘ archiws

by the coordination

Archi\.ist.

She remains

One could

plan. An Ad\

xati\.itics

Archi\

and pro\ ider

Branch.

will

principal

whether

the cost of ;I General

tnatta~otnent

and

National

this

Al’l‘air\.

Ha\,in 5 ati ititetxtl

no longer

agrcetwnt

able to “focus on the important

and legishttivc

merit‘?

Archi\,ist

day-twday

archiws.“s

purchaser. Archiw\.

i\ miti @cd

Manager,

betwtxn

Chief

ist. Ilndet-

;rnd

policy

v ithin

I’m Intt’rn;tl

deliwry

than the initial

of appraisut

by the Chief

the “Blaketey

It i\

option

A purchase

Manager

policy.

the National

and deli\t‘ry

Archi\,ist.

An operational

was establi&d

i\t.

01‘

Archi\

undet- the Archiw\

by the St3tittot-)/RefLtlator)i.

the Chief

Chief

(eu-head

of the Internal

business

to put-chase

in this plan: \\ithin

to the function

(The

Hurleq

are the ta\h

to ad\ iw the Chief

Committee.

I. the

to the Chief

x~hcnw.

to the Secretary

on Mxch to manage

appointed.

Chris

directly

Branch.

U.OLII~ he illegal

is also a cheaper

be done

the

not b\, stutute.i

ttot forced

this

I‘inally

Ir~i~lution.

on the continuing

although

Archi\.ist

“functional

report\

the previous

clirectl\~

and an Advisory

providers.

was

Buaines\.

g directly _ to the Chief‘ Archi\

to report

were constituted,

and itnpletwt~tecl

canclidatr.

\LIC~ ;t\ archive\ under

or won

that v,tz did have

PLAN

Archives

The wcce\\ful

the StatLttor~/Regttlatol-\:

continues

[was]

by Cabinet National

Au\tt-aliu).

matter\.

as propwed

standards

Chief

wdorwd

of the organization.

Victoria,

Policy

judynent

on government.“”

Manager.

panel.)

to tell lvhether.

won by a true knockout

RESTRUCTURING

scheme.

t‘unctiort~

haw

considered

a change

1997. a General

Archi\,ist

it (~~a\] difficult

we uould

hut [hi\]

THE THIRD BlakeIcy

hnochout.

pressure,

and reuppoint-

is being

to Btahelq

allocated

an

on Septetnber

21

Public

177

Archive

pointed out, such a board can only exist because it has no such function.” There was a prediction that there were “strong indications the revised proposal camouflages largely unchanged Secretarial intent, and that further serious conflict may be pending.““’ ARANZ’s suspicions proved justified. No sooner had this third scheme been adopted in early 1996 than Blakeley began to hold meetings towards the end of the year “to consider how the several history-related groups in the Department of Internal Affairs might work more closely together.“’ ’ THE

LATEST

SCHEME

The present restructuring scheme is, thus, the fourth in little under three years. The Secretary proposes to bring together four units that currently operate individually. National Archives, Historical Branch, Heritage Property. and the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (DNZB), under a new business group, Heritage New Zealand (HNZ). National Archives will remain a separate and identifiable unit within HNZ, but the other three are to be combined into a History and Heritage Unit. In addition, three new units are to be established: Product Development and Delivery; Customer Servicing; and Business Support Services. Each of these support units will contract their services to the Heritage New Zealand groups. ” STAKEHOLDER

REACTION

ARANZ had become aware of this planned further restructuring in November 1996. but, despite repeated efforts to make representations to the Secretary, it says that its concerns were ignored. Hence, it took the step of placing the issues before the membership and the wider public.” A meeting of representatives of the same stakeholder groups who had objected to the “Blakeley plan” was held. Blakeley declined an invitation to attend. At that meeting, a paper-in the form of a press release-was circulated, outlining the proposed scheme and ARANZ’s objections to it, and asking for the support of the stakeholder groups to condemn the plan.” Support was not given unanimously. Three of the 14 organizations, including the New Zealand Historical Association. sought leave to place the document before their governing bodies.‘” The Professional Historians Association of New Zealand/Aotearoa (PHANZA) and the Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA) both said they were more concerned about the type of services that National Archives offered than its position in any new structure. Some disquiet was expressed at the “tone” of the ARANZ press release, which was considered “as not being conducive to negotiations.“‘6 The press release was sent to newspapers and other media outlets around the country. Articles appeared in several major daily newspapers. ARANZ President Sheryl Morgan said, “we thought we had seen it all in 1995 . but this time the department has excelled itself in its looniness. “” In these articles, Blakeley denied allegations that the changes were inspired by Treasury, that staff numbers would be cut. that there would be a greater commercial orientation resulting in loss of free access. or that the institution would lose its autonomy. “Heritage New Zealand would improve the service for the public and make the records more accessible,” he said. I8

Blakeley then invited stakeholder group representatives and other interested parties to two meetings, on June 3 and June 6. 1997. at which the scheme and its benefits uere outlined and questions and comments on the plan were able to be made. The Secretary was present. as were the Chief Archivist and the heads of the DNZB. Historical Branch. and Heritage Property. The mission of the HNZ group was stated as. “to ensure the preservation of New Zealand’s heritage and [to] encourage knowledge and understanding of the country’s past.” The benefits presented were: increased awareness 01‘the need for preservation of recor-cls of government and other records: unified heritage interests within DIA: impro\-ed servicing of operational units through dedicated support scr\ ices resultin g in increased produccentralized access to tivity. improved customer servicing. and greater efficiencies: institutional and heritage knowledge; optimized use of specialist and support staff to enable greater flexibility and ability to maximize outputs; improved access to high quality information and services tailored to those who want to know about their history and heritage; improved access through new initiatives. systems, and services: and an expanded range of products. services, and information available.‘” The Chief Archivist seemed uncomfortable at being asked to “market” the benefits of the scheme. There were. however. several representatives of historical interests present. including the heads of Historical Branch and the DNZB, who were clearly in favor of the plan. Abo\,e all. their support hinged on the urgent need for improvements in National Archi\ex’ customer services. Few present at the meetin g disagreed with this. although doubt was expressed about the financial commitment of HNZ to this goal. Similarly. most could see the possible synergies between the units. but did not think that this necessitated restructuring National Archives into a heritage unit. Nor did they agree with the Secretary. or Chief Historian, Jock Phillips. that the grouping would better position all affected units to attract resources from inside and outside government. Many representatives felt that the benefits claimed did not justify the establishment of a new business group and that they probably would not result in significant improvements for external clients, as the money for the restructurin, u was to come from the existing budget. They were against the Chief Archivist being asked to report to someone lower in the hierarchy than the Secretary and the confusion which would result from her dual reporting lines. The Secretary had said that the Chief Archivist would be under the general direction of the Secretary. but would report on a day-to-day basis to a direct manager or. in other words, her line of accountability would be to the General Manager. HNZ. and through that person to the Secretary. He then said that the Chief Archivist could continue to report her concerns directly to the Minister as she did now. and stressed that the proposed structure was not a downgrading. ARANZ representatives were adamant in stating their belief that the primary purpose of National Archives was not to service heritage interests. but to ensure that the primary client. the New Zealand government, was accountable for its actions through its records. In the author’s opinion, the mood of the meeting on June 3 was generally negative. The author was told that at the second meetin g. on June 6. invitees were also not supportive of the HNZ concept. These concerns appear to have had no influence on the Secretary. In mid-June he claimed that the “proposal [was] still in broad outline” and that the input of interested peo-

ple was still being sought.“’ Nevertheless. applications for the position of General Manager, Heritage New Zealand, closed on August 4. 1997. Blakeley was intent on proceeding with the scheme, regardless of opposition. Before an appointment could be made, it was announced in the newspaper on October 8. 1997 that the Chief Archivist’s contract would not be renewed by Blakeley when it ran out on November 30, 1997. The Secretary would not give reasons for non-renewal.” Then, on October 22. 1997. a press release was issued which stated that Jock Phillips. head of the Historical Branch was appointed as the Acting General Manager of the Heritage Group and Pam Madgwick, Acting Director Heritage Strategy.?? Undoubtedly, the non-renewal of the Chief Archivist’s contract. followed so closely by these appointments, albeit on an acting basis. further angered opponents of the scheme. Given the time it will take to find a replacement for the position of Chief Archivist, National Archives is very vulnerable to whatever changes may be proposed by the Secretary and these new managers. To understand the reaction of some historians and stakeholders, it would help to place them in the context of ongoing debate in the New Zealand archives literature about the need for an independent archival authority, and the difficult relationship between archivists and historians.

THE STATUS OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES One might ask what is the problem, other than possibly a damaged ego, with the demotion of the status of the Chief Archivist and of the National Archives of New Zealand. You could contend that the Chief Archivist has never had much power in government and that the organization still has the protection of legislation. What, therefore, are opponents of the scheme worried about? Sensitivity over the status of National Archives is not new. The relationship between the Chief Archivist and the Department of Internal Affairs has been fraught over the years. Despite the passing of the Archives Act in 1957, it was not until March 1962 that the Department appointed a Chief Archivist.‘3 In the original draft of the Archives Act, the Chief Archivist was to report directly to his [sic] Minister, but this clause was removed.24 It was not until 198 1, with the first appointment as Director, Ray Grover, that there was a direct reporting line to the Secretary. The poor state of health of National Archives by 198 1 was attributed to the lowly status within Internal Affairs of the Chief Archivist, who was five steps removed from the Minister. According to the new Director, Ray Grover, “for most of the time it was unclear who was running National Archives, the Chief Archivist or the Department of which it was part. As in all cases of divided responsibility, however, the result was weakness and confusion.“25 The Chief Archivist was an “obscure functionary of government without natural authority, and the National Archives as an institution share[d] the office’s obscurity.“26 The deliberate grading of the new position of Director on a level with an Assistant Secretaryship was definitely regarded as “an improvement on the old situation which merely equated the Chief Archivist with an executive officer in line of reporting.” 27 It partially alleviated a concern of Dr. Wilfred 1. Smith, Dominion Archivist, Canada, who, in a 1978 report on the state of archives in New Zealand, recommended that: “the status of the National Archives in the government structure be improved . . . and that the [Chief Archi-

\ ist]

should

important Late

in

becorll~

have direct 19X9.

from July

a Cabinet

“autonomous

an

I. 1900.‘”

provided ington.

agency”

and other interested independence

less than National

Archivzs

the “Secretary

plan \ca\ illegal. intimate

ArchiLes‘

heritage

parties continue

if

Whether

rttmain

Without wheme

provider

Affairs

\,irtually

Archi\,ist The

xc implication\

efl’cctivencss

to “turn

haw

the institution

in her ability

to National

lor the Chief

01‘ any National

it can bring

will

Morale

and retention Rosemary

crship

Ability

issue.”

poition,

to demonstrate

in New Zealand.

Chief

Archi\,ist

in the latest Draft

by the Department bttlirws

goal of achieving

of’ Internal

records.

leadership

(August

integrity

with her htal‘f. To place Sociat)

of Archi\ ixtx

Other\ see it :I> a lead-

is ;I prerequisite

19%)

of the C‘hiel‘ archi\w

Archives

currently

inhti-

and ~OI-the

being circulated

Affair\. public wchiws

in Neu

of National

is that the Chief

ser-

mu\t be ai’fectcd

office ma\; demean it in the eyes

role is mandated for National Bill

21s

and pm t’l

capacity to communi-

;I\ New Zealand

that his changes mill enable National world-leading

latest scheme “casts doubts the long-term Archives

and the influrnce

Archi\,ist’s

colleagues.

actual. as well

as the largest and most significant

Archives

the hierurch~~. and the Depart-

with her official

at the June 1 meeting.

professional

A leadership

representation,

Act to the heads of government

;I statutory

could result.

rolt‘ Chief

moultl he compro-

political

of all gowrnmcnt -34

commented

and of the institution

tution

Blakeley

problems

Collier,

” The

IWXIS.~~

relationship

Departnmlts.”

below the level of a person without

representative. Archi\-ist’h

pwition:

of the \tatutor\

of the institution..

thert’ i\ the matter of the Chief Archi\ ist’s relationship

the position ol‘stal‘f.

integrity

of being in a subordinate

SimilarI).

undermining

can be damaged. Down

of compliance: u ith the Archi\m

1 ice\. in order to assure the ultimate

appeal-~ to those \I ith an

to the Minister.

which derive4 from the status of the ol‘fice. j3 The Chief catc the importance

of National

to be ad\,ised that the

depcnd~ on the authority.

to bear on Government

Millet

the clock back.”

inadequate

Archi\,cs’

that

and

the “Blakclec

control

to compete IOr remurces.

Archivist’\

Archi\.es

Under

complete

latest theme

and in all probability

that the I‘inan-

the statu\ of ;I Crwvn

Affairs.

the indcpendenct:

Archives

Archi\ ist is handicapped

as a result

Well-

But Blakelr\~ was detern~inrd

for Blaktzlq

more deliberate

and

or not the scheme is illegal.

statutory.

All’airs

I5 year-s is

The McDermott

bc given

as~~~mcd

01‘ the institution

st‘t‘nl\ an e\w

ment may assign low priorities “The

AwhiLes

compl-omiwd

will suffice.

of m-vices.

a doubt. the Srcretxy’\

eliminated.

is still

under the aegis ol‘ Internal

of the histwy

01‘ the Chief

not

the Chirl‘ There

to the

of Internal

to believe, however.

Archivist

that the organization

Archi\ i\t‘\ acccs~ to the Secretary. mised.

National

01‘ these changes in the last

I‘ull independence

for Internal

knowledge

and authorit>

that

the Department

Archi\ es.” -“) It uo~~ld. thu\. ha\e been ver\’ annoying

The

correyxmda

to house public ;u-chi\ra in Christchurch.

of‘ the Chief

and become ;I wrni-independent

that National

rwommended

Lvithin

proof of the benefits

had. after all. recommended

entity

which

and Dunedin.

Many archivists nothing

~\ith a salary

Committee

bl the existence of new buildings A~~cl\lund.

report

Rev&

stand-alone

Physical

cial and managerial

plan”

accea to the Minihter ..?X

duties of the position.

Archi\,ist

Zealand Archi\a.

Archives

management

to mwt‘

and in the tlyes of foreign ” ”

The

“towards

in New Zealand.“‘” governments

view of the International

ot‘ the public archiws

Ihis]

But the ax to

Council

01‘the modern state should

of

onl)

Pub/~ Arc-hrve\

be responsible agencies. 38

181

to a senior minister

INDEPENDENCE

and should be independent

of all other government

FOR NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Full independence would not necessarily assure that National Archives would be better resourced. Despite its independence, the National Library seems to have had its budget cut every year, but on the basis of National Archives’ annual vote of over $10 million it is larger than many other departments and agencies and is. thus, large enough to be a standalone department.” There are some obvious managerial benefits. Lack of administrative interference is a major one. In the United States, the separation of National Archives and Records Service (NARS) from the General Services Administration (GSA) in 1984. after 36 years of GSA authority over archival programs. budget, and policies, was primarily to address the issue of subservience and the GSA’s “destructive meddling in [its] affairs.“40 According to Robert Warner, Archivist during the independence struggle, the Archivist expended more energy in the past in fighting off abuses by the GSA than creating forward looking programs.” The transferring of authority for the care of federal records from the GSA Administrator to NARS (now called NARA) has provided it with the authority to address longstanding problems. It has been much freer to pursue a more aggressive program for acquiring historically significant materials.42 The first Archivist to serve after independence was granted, Don Wilson, agrees that it has made a dramatic difference in the U.S. National ArchivesA Warner later wrote a fascinating book, based on diaries he kept while Archivist, about the independence movement. In it he suggests the key factors which resulted in its success.‘” They are worth reiterating because they could be useful in a movement for the independence of the National Archives of New Zealand. Firstly, the departure of Gerald Carmen as Administrator of the GSA greatly enhanced NARS’ freedom of action on the independence issue and reduced negative forces from within the GSA. Unlike Warner, who outlasted Gerald Carmen, the Chief Archivist, Kathryn Patterson. has been unable to outlast the Secretary of Internal Affairs. Blakeley’s contract is not up for renewal until the yeat 2000. but his departure could be predicted to have similar benefits for an independence movement. Secondly. there were champions for independence within the Senate and the House. who managed to turn around hostility to independence to support. ARANZ needs to find such champions in the House of Representatives and cultivate their support. Thirdly. staff of NARS itself were dedicated to the case for independence. One might imagine. with the difficulties of the last three years. that there now would be staff support within the National Archives for an independence cause. The restoring of the independence of NARS can be attributed also to an effective coalition of historians, archivists, genealogists, and other users of archives “who took the time and made the effort to make Congress understand just what was happening to NARA because of its placement within GSA.““’ This coalition had a united strategy. worked in tandem with the internal forces, and avoided internal struggles.36 One can be sure that the activism of U.S. historians was partly motivated by their need to provide themselves with

182

(X WEKNMLNT

the necessary ticular

tools for their livelihood.

historians.

towards

The signs are already degree

of unanimity

would

underpin

But recruiting

there with the latest heritage

concerning

a movement

the extraordinary

Lastly,

Warner

the rationale

independence. ilisenitive

scheme

mwn,

VIII. 1 r)iNo. L.‘l ‘1’115

of independence.

in par-

of several

Archives

(which

in Nev, Zealand.

A

coalesced against the coalition failed. This is

individuals.” visible created

problem

to make a case fol

the \,isible

problem

by theit

into foclls the problem of a GSAdominated NARS, but alienated key elements in their own administration\. “” The Heritage New Zealand proposal may not prove to be such a good deal for historians. If not. this assist in unifying

may

for National

which

of National

groups which informally formal public information

the GSA Administrators

of NARS

that there is not the same high

stakeholders

(7

that there had to be a highly

In his opinion. handling

supporters

for the existence

for independence)

efforts

believes

(~UAKTEKLY

the same end may not be so easy in New Zealand,

recent move to unify the stakeholder McDermott Miller report into a more despite

INFOKMATION

historians

with a coalition

Reaction there

of other groups

to Blakeley’s relationship

are limits

latest

between

to historians’

of Archivists

sist

world-wide

in the

archivists

independence

and Historians

scheme.

in the author’

opinion,

reflects

archivists

and historians

in New

Zealand.

support

and that different

stakeholder group. Perhaps. there is a naive belief that their interests are the same as those of historians. torians

to support

Archives.

Relationship

troubled

“not only bought

will always

perception

as the servants

have a vested

of archives of scholarship

on

interests

It re\,eals

that

exist among

this

the part of New Zealand archivist\ Terry Eastwood reminds us that his-

interest

as cultural

vested

the sometimes

in archives

artifacts.

and

for “scholarly archival

users per-

institutions

and

pure and simple.““”

The historical community has never staunchly supported the development of public archives in New Zealand. Some help came after World War II. but because of the relative weakness Zealand

of the historical topics,

profession

in the 1950s and its limited

it was left to the New Zealand

Library

academic

Association,

interest

librarians,

in New

and those

inside the Department to take the initiative in encouraging support of government archive\. In 1985. an archivist commented that. despite growing support from historians. mutual misunderstandings had nevertheless grown up between them and archivists: “while some clearly

have long had an understanding

trated historians research assistants.

or as filing clerks ..so

of archivists’

work. others

as quasi-librarians

have seen them as frus-

as petty bureaucrats

or as

However. changes also began to occur. From around the mid-1980s. historians ha1.e been employed in significant numbers to research Treaty of Waitangi claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. necessitating spending long periods of time at the National Archi\,es: 5’ An increased number of historians in academic departments were developing a far greater interest in New Zealand historical topics. Historians’ support of ARANZ’s opposition to the McDermott Miller recommendations and the “Blakeley plan” could be attributed to their greater usage of primary sources at National Archives. and a greater \,ested interest in the institution’s health. This is in spite of their low ARANZ membership numbers.s2 This time. contact with the Minister and the Department by PHANZA not focus on the proposals from the perspective of National Archives

and the NZHA did but was primarily

concerned with what the proposals meant for history and historians. PHANZA. which represents professional historians, was keen to know whether projects created by the Product Development Unit would be contracted solely to the History and Heritage section, 01 whether independent scholars could tender for the work.‘j However. ARANZ’s suggestion that the latest umbrella heritage unit scheme was merely an opportunity to save the Historical Branch and the DNZB from Treasury’s axe obviously irritated some historians present at the ARANZ stakeholder meeting.“3 The tension must have prompted the association to state, in a second circular to members, that “any suggestion that the ARANZ campaign is being driven by professional archivists does not stand up to scrutiny. expressions of support have already been received from historians, genealogists. administrators and other individuals concerned that the nation’s documentary past be properly preserved.“‘” The fact is that both the DNZB and Historical Branch employ significant numbers of historians. in a country with a population of only 3.6 million. Historical Branch employs eight full-time historians and 12 on contract, while the DNZB employs 18 people. Employment opportunities may have been uppermost in certain historians’ minds, and this irritated some archivists. The Chief Archivist assured the meeting on June 4 that archivists trained in reference would continue to work for National Archives, and not Customer Services. Meanwhile, the heads of the DNZB and Historical Branch reiterated the scheme’s benefit in giving the department the flexibility to utilize resources. skills, and knowledge across a range of services and products. The DNZB project ends in two to three years’ time, and this leaves 18 people to be assigned to a new project. Some suspect that they could be redeployed as reference archivists. It may be that the qualified support of historians for the latest scheme is conditioned by their perception of the role of National Archives as it has developed over time. Comparison with patterns of archives development in other countries may reveal why this is so and why the institution finds itself being subsumed in a heritage group. THE

STATE

OF ARCHIVES

DEVELOPMENT

IN NEW ZEALGND

Some interesting parallels and differences emerge when one compares the state of archives in New Zealand with that of archives in North America and Australia. New Zealand appears to have followed Eastwood’s three-stage pattern of development.5h The first stage features the rescue of historical documents usually seen to be at risk and valuable as cultural artifacts; the second is characterized by a preoccupation with establishing the legal authority and institutional infrastructure of archives; and, the third, the maintenance and management and perfecting of that infrastructure and authority. The process in New Zealand, similarly to that in Australia, was compressed as a result of its late development, and there was no time for building up national identity. Public archives development in Australia became dominated by the more European administrative outlook, however. T. R. Schellenberg, Director of Archival Management at the U.S. National Archives, remarked on it on his visit to Australia in 1954. The Australian Archives’ efforts to capture a cultural face has “struck many outsiders, notably historians, and even a few archivists, as half-hearted.““7 New Zealand differs from Australia in that it has always had more of the cultural orientation of the National Archives of the United

States. What explains until

recrntly.

this perception

neglect

of benign

NATIONAL That

National

ARCHIVES

Archive\

ueaknesses

finds

in the discharge

ness of the constitutional cmphasizr hearted

the more

01‘ ;I culk~ral orientation. ,)5X

itself

of its records role

a4 the Australinn

Archike\‘

According ment

activity

[ arc]...largel!;

its “policies rgy.”

Furthcrtnore.

policy’s

however.

the “yneral

National

Archiw\’

jocheyin,

Commission

A t’airer

to

;L\ hall‘-

judgment would and ham-

and her tno

immediak

01‘ the impwtance

of rword~

on any

(7 over

ha\ had a major

ethos” policy

for- records

file.

formalized

the years

influence

manage-

Hc concludtt~ rewarch

between

Internal

on the twords

that

ot- atratAffair\

management

lor~uiie\.“”

In 197X, ;I xenior that Dr. Smith. emphaked instead

ol’l‘icial

arguments

of on their

for archives

01‘ Drl’ence

opinion

\tandard~

To gi\ tz Dr. Smith

credit,

role

report.

on National

ita \vriter Smith’4

Ian Wards.

recommend~ition

A report Patricia Archi\c\

on records

Acton.

\v;i\

l‘or the improvement

were

centralkrd

wr\

to public mended The Chief

known

commissioned

by

public sector should

ice which.

reform.

to rccorcls

known

rather- than legitimately

State

Report

Services

needed

to take more

ol‘l‘icial

i’ollow-up

Report.

Branch).

which

after

it5 writer.

Commission

aftet

echoed

Dr.

Canadian

and

National

included

far-reachin

g rccommendatioiis

management.

but many

of the Acton

The recotnmendatio~~s

sector for seeing

central

manage-

in rcsourccx.

by the time the report

Pat Acton

totally

m;iii;ig~mt3~t.

as the Wards

relied

M 214released.

In mid- 1987. the State Set-\;ices Commission.

criticized

that

manqci-

in records

Archive

Historical

This

records

take the lead role in public

Archivist

toric~tl/cuttL~ral

sector

not implemented.

A records I\;IS altnost

the go\ rrnment’s

;I\ the Acton

in 1986.“3

(1I

es’ in\ol\emrnt hl

(otherwise

the

heritage.

nrgati\e.

that National

to an increase

member\ had OL U-

i\ sad. but true,

Report

7 t-efrrencc

Archi\

Historian.

management.

“It

he said.

the Smith

;I\ did

197’9.”

was then Chief

of public

recommendations

National

management,

pursuant

that

ARANZ

of that year.

as part 01‘ our cultural

m~unag~rs.”

;I p;t\sin>

he did recommend

I 983. and completed

in

most

warned

archives

management.

was exttwi~cl~

Archive

Affairs

value

record\

u ith only about

in records

who

on their

ice with

and ad\,icr.

of a leadership “Report

based

also commented

al matkr’\.

gentleman‘s

ment 1raininf.

of‘ Internal

of N~‘M %eulunct

to rl‘ficient

do not cut much

u ith archi\

The amr

Department

in his s~~tvq

contribution

the Mini\tt-y

concerned

ol‘the

;I Canadian.

\LICII ;uytmt‘nt\ from

an ;1wat~n~s~ 5’1

and not based

inter-depltrtmental

and the State Service\

its eft~rt\

been ju\t

r~4ources:

on any

pnqm;ttic

on culture.

Chief Archi\Gt,

by the current

by Alan Smith.

is not documented

have

part. to

the elI’ecti\~e-

he that

but that they have been yoradic

that \he has. ;I\ did they.

to research

underpin4

would

01‘ archivex

to locus

attempts

be due. in large

role. which

aspect5

attempts

and its \~alue in obtaining

ma)

A harsh judgment

and legal

has made \.aliant

reveal

management

in the face of a polic>.

MANAGEMENT

predicament

managetncnt

of archive.

pered by lack of tnot~ey. Statements predecessors.

AND RECORDS

in ita prewnt

~tdministrativ~

bc that the in&tution

even

by historian\:

records

m;lnagt’ment.

National

Archives

to inl’~~rmation/r~~~~rd4

Report

on a single.

no longer whom

Acton

declined

highly

existed

due

recunto do 40.

as intrinsically managemer~t.“4

his-

Internal Affairs was prepared to accept the legitimacy of National Archives’ involvement in records management. A Records Management Branch (RMB) within National Archives was created and formally assigned separate staff from January 1988. and an amendment to the Archives Act in the same year permitted charges to be made for the provision of records center services, records management training. and consultancy work. A review of the Department in 1989 by Cabinet. conducted by a committee consisting of representatives of Internal Affairs, State Services, and Treasury, ruled, however. that records management was a contestable function rather than necessarily a government activity. As a result, RMB was made stand-alone within the Department. net funded by the Crown, and given impossible cost recovery targets.” The Branch has struggled with the targets. and. since the departure of its first Director. with a dearth of leadership. Consultancy and training are no longer carried out. National Archives’ other priorities, in particular dealing with increased external user demand, competed with implementation of Acton’s recommendations. Thus, the added momentum that the Acton report could have given National Archives to develop and expand its functions in the field of records management was, in effect, lost. On November 30, 1997, National Archives’ records centers were closed.6” While the closure is the result of a separate Treasury review and not the HNZ scheme, one has to ask whether it is another reflection of the lip service paid to the importance of records management. Meanwhile, Blakeley says that he is aware of and committed to the vital importance of National Archives for. “supporting Executive Government decision-making; and ensuring Government accountability for past decisions.“” Yet, when asked by the author at the June 4 meeting whether stakeholders from other government departments had been consulted about the scheme, he replied that they had not. Given the length of time that the scheme has been gestating, consulting them now seems an afterthought. If you believe, as the author does. that the primary client of National Archives is the government, not external users, then such a delay seems inexcusable. In the light of recent debate about whether archivists are managin, 0 evidence, information, artifacts, or relics, however, the author recognizes that there are dangers in not recognizing that National Archives has a cultural/historical role. Examination of this debate may or may not .justify National Archives’ inclusion in a heritage group. THE

PRIMARY

ROLE OF PUBLIC

ARCHIVES?

Eastwood says that there are three classic roles for archives: archives as arsenals of history; archives as arsenals of administration; and archives as arsenals of law. Taken as one, archives are the arsenals of democratic accountability and continuity. This is the unifying message that Eastwood wouid wish to see archivists promoting. whether they be in public. corporate, or collecting archives.68 Lately, the unifying focus for public and corporate archivists and information or records managers has become the important role of records as the underpinning of government and corporate accountability. Terry Cook has pointed out problems with this framework: the accountability purpose is a means and not an end for archivists, who should not ignore their role as guardians of cultural and historical assets for society and humanity. Furthermore. he

1 IYio

C,( IVEIINMENT

says that the application of individuals tories

have

of 3 joint

“stretches felt

their

accountability/archi\

the concept

concerns

INR )KMATI(

beyond

IN (&JAKTEKLY

al framework

credulity.““”

to be marginalized

to the private

record5

in collecting

reposi-

Archivist5

by thi\

VCII 1 ‘,.‘No. L:l’)OH

framework,

and by comments

such as:

The accountability tural/heritage and national archive\

framework

identity

retained

tbords.

“our

Hugh

culture.

They

items

;I\ being

identified

The

of’that

substance

dence.

memory

a heritage

evidence

relics

ence process. ”

In an electronic

concentrate

its rffbrts

managing

aspects

more

the record.

value

other

of archi\rs

and more

forms

artifacts

Archive\

of material Nor

should

because

“those

ha\e.

in addition.

integrity.“” and safeguarding

Glenda

Acland

arc but the end product en\:ironment.

of "things"

73

memory.

\ense

under-

or “in\trtt-

of e\,idence for

..72

of its plurality.

as e\,idence.

the protection

on the front-end

disposing

and corporate Cunningham‘s

in tnuseu~ns.

in the museum their

the cuheritage

to our present

as cultural

bits of information.

rccordkeeping

Nor will

in addition

of records

remains

or free-lloating

or heritage

many

to support

thus.

is proud

and act ah triggers

cultural

in context work.

the information

with

dimension

Adrian

as do attil‘acts

the preservation

outstanding

of archives

not isolated

along

which

function

or relationships.

of public

invoke

documents. can

recognized

Our documentary

consisted To

a profession

us that archi\,al

at odds with

for their

all the wright

be to forge

01‘ affairs

can have

this be hen

sufficiently

if it only

needs.”

and administration,

to the collective

not hare

the poorer

accountability

aim should

for the conduct

contribute

be tnuch for

value

therefore

and the two do need reconciling.

also rctninds

of their

merits”

would solely

ultitnate

Taylor

standing

may

ends of archive\.

a public

of e\ i-

belie\,es

that

of the archival

\ci-

archive5

of the records

life

be such a necessity

with

will

need to

cycle.

that

is,

the electronic

record. The author could

ser\‘e

doing

reflect

contexts lecting

doe\

not deny

the plurality

in which

since without archives incurs

ser\ ice to the record

will

the emphasis

of history

being

affect

the role

and government.

however.

the different

a\ arsenals

By contrast.

role. Making

Col-

of history,

for in-house

the latter customer

draining

archives and in so

of roles.

and administrative

by external

In the long term.

A public purposes.

the emphasis

of archives

i\ on the legal

be driven

cultural

In practice.

and should

a secondary

will

archives.

as broader

there would be no such repositories.

repositories.

as an arsenal

role of public

in the profession.

emphasize

the risk that the organization

affects

and

roles.

with

the primary needs.

resources

from

role

rather

than

these areas

the public.

Further

assurances

appointments,

that

of the public

keeper about

exists

are managed

understandably

historians

archives

heritage

01‘ the day as well

which

archives

repoGtories

public

the cultural

the administration

them.

by

Blakclcy

record

interests.

suggested Blakeley

in the pre\h

recognized

in ensuring

said the new President

in the same release heritage

made

the Department

the accountability

of ARANZ.

that the primary placed

release

the vital Therese put-pose

great emphasis.

role

announcing National

of government. Angelo. of National

for example,

the new

Archives

HNZ

play\

had a hollow

76 Other Archives on Phillips’

statements

as ring

made

was to service credentials

as

an historian: “We are putting the care of New Zealand’s history into the hands of those who it best.” Phillips is quoted as saying the Heritage Group was a chance to build on New Zealanders’ growing interest in the history and heritage of their country. The role of Director of HNZ Strategy is described as being to develop strategies for growth and to strengthen links with government and heritage organizations. ” ARANZ suspects that National Archives could become just another “provider of heritage information generating revenue for the Department.“7x know and appreciate

THE

AUSTRALIAN

EXPERIENCE

Three recent cases in Australian state archives illustrate how important it is to be clear about the role that the public archives authority plays in relation to government because 01 the subsequent impact of this on the institution’s direction. Two of the three cases also illustrate an international trend towards strengthening the role that public archives have to play in overseeing the production of complete, reliable and authentic records. The State Archives of Queensland shifted from the Arts Division into the Administrative Services Department in 199 1. Lee McGregor. State Archivist, credits to this move a real shift in focus from cultural and heritage values to a more administrative and commercial environment.“) The change came about as a result of the Fitzgerald Inquiry and the work of the Electoral and Administrative Review Committee. into corruption and archives legislation respectively. The Commission recommended that a strong, independent archival authority was needed to serve the records management needs of government to improve accountability, as well as archival or cultural ends. A weakening of commitment to this aim meant that it did not fully eventuate.“’ Despite this, McGregor has been able to harness the support of stakeholders and politicians to secure better management of public records.*’ Western Australia has also been through a similar Royal Commission on corruption, which found that the establishment of a separate and independent archives authority was needed for the same reasons as in Queensland.x2 It is understood that this did not happen, but the status of the State Archives Office has improved. and new legislation has been passed which mandates greater involvement with and authority over public records management. In contrast, during the late 1980s the Victorian Government attempted to downgrade progressively the status of the state’s Public Record Office’s Keeper in the administrative chain.*j The Cain Government also tried, for a number of reasons, to remove or subvert a section of the Act which requires the Keeper to report independently to Parliament on the exercise of his functions, and to downgrade the Office’s records management function.84 When they failed, the position of Keeper was downgraded to that of Chief Archivist and stripped of its statutory powers, and the incumbent Keeper was replaced by an officer of the Department of Property and Services. As further punishment, the Government “initiated an ill-conceived and incompetently executed Archival Heritage program, which had as a major objective the improvement of access to public records through exhibitions of archival ‘treasures’; and finally attached the PRO to the Library Services area within Art~.“~’ This emphasis on supposedly neglected cultural functions would mean that the troublesome Keeper would no longer be able to draw attention, as he had been doing, to the problems of public records management, in particular illegal disposal by state agencies. Efforts

to cnhrinr

this

of direction

change

w\~tmtnent interfrence cc Keeper at the time. Chris Archi\vs The

threat

merit

to the role and

to hnx

Blakele)‘s

years

Hurlq.

tional

thi\

practical

has been

It i\

new

archives

authority

public

archi\

niqjor

t3

of the

it\

tacit

also

General

hurt ironic

Manager.

and

does

ability

mot

b>

that

the

National

heritage

implications

for

grouping for

National

it differently.

One

Gocernment’s

Coalition

cultural

of the

heritage.

challcngtt

and

Professor

David

our the

dew-dresGng,

i\ fleshed

heritage

LV;IS not

whom

the past

tnent

with

next

out.

was

Brian

al\o reminds

II\ that

that

area.

The

nizes

the role

aswts.

SRA’\

;tre

for

resources

ment

first

commercial Milton

Zealand Treasury I’txt- that

Thi\.

;I strong

collection

strategic and

public

policy of

the

even

be pri\,atised.

Alexander

Turnbull

con-

Right’

agenda.

and

;I similar

nsenda.

for

is ;t shaky Whether

it will

role

Area

“r)‘t In Library

assets or the

heritage 199-I.

recogof heritage

to them

by officials

appear

in the State-

could

of

Neu

be treated

recommended

because

but

heritqe

explicitly

Gmwmmcnt

uswt\ Treasury

be wld

xx

in the

protection

be related

Statement

archi\m.

i\ parmount.

(SRA) and

heritage that

sur\,i\c

of public

Rewlt must

arr-angc-

i\ moot.

in the promotion

Financial

of the heritage

to be resolved

Secondly.

01‘ \vin-

issues

initiati\m

the

rhetorical

aspect

Strntrgic

the pouibility

rhe opinion

the heritage

polic>

of out-

v, ith

Gmwnnwnt

01‘ the constitutional

No

open

little

role represent

ik just

with

I999.

of user\

u\~ailabte.xc’

(SFP)

very

be see

which

has ;I ‘Neu

Reprewntati\~es.

October

gwet-nnwnt

becuuse

areas.

could

it supported

crucial

to agree

to heritage

the Coalition

~ttpporter

implication.

diversity

gwernment\ of

unit

the Srcretq.

it was

as that

;I nowNw

collection.

thinking greater

it\

busitwa

~7 to the

tend

cotnmitmont

for

rnqjor

might

and

would

House

are tuo Zealand

at the

of The

are oh\~ioits.

including

rrlatiti,

differences

ptwious

majority

Position

heritage

for

the va\t

to be madc

and

nature

groupin__ (7 LV;I~ that

HNZ

3 (h)

policy

schalulcd

he ~a) s. “leave\ awzt\.

the

x7 Furthermore.

important

the

Governmwt

in the

New

that

inl’ot-ma-

privilqm.

institution. record\

hrritago

Other\.

the Coalition

maiori[y

there

for

a!-chi\,ist\

Election. lor

;I Gngle

OII to specific

concc’rn

has ;I funding of the

of‘ Financial

Zealand.

goes

Eaton.

notes

into

the Coalition’s

a burden.

ne\ erthelea

of‘ the

and

incur

ittf’cr5

l’undatncntal

public

of funding. principle

But

one

;I mt,jor

the

focus

ol‘electrottic

l~or~var-d and

Swondly.

General

Economist

put

history

that

a one-wat

the

in order

shared

v, hen

the

author the

01‘ right\

II

not

IMPLICATIONS

“qreenient

opportltnit\l.““”

for

mitment

for

i45ite5

in terms

rcawns

Hamrr

treinlorce

the

doe\

owretnph:tsi/r~

the prewxttion

ol‘~c~wrt~nm~t

Archive

the

to

it xxottntahle.

Archi\,e\

then

conttat ol‘gowrn-

it4 funding.

agencie

of‘ some

detrimental

schctme

little

whcmc the

in making

01‘Nutional

Hi\

;I \tarl\

the willingness

departments.

and

to xidreu

ptxwidea

about

to a\\ist role

approval.

of axmttttability

implications and

;tuthot.it)

gowrtmt’nt

or othrt their-

\ olumrs

heritage

FUNDING

the

what

heritage.

Zealand’s

\peahs

the cultural

dirrction

of

state

and

replatol-> archi\,e\

;I\ instrumttnts

direction.

until

Ironically.

atate’\

Nom

of thih

Australia

politician\.

ntx

\,alite

archives

The

failed.

i4 the

is now

put-pox

to empha\ix

from

gi\c

and

Western

;I strong plan

opposition

have

in statute

the

Busintts\.

to Queensland

they

o\cr

i\ don~ittatecl

user-charging

M,ill

by

con~nwrci;tl

be introduced.

considrrution\. Currently.

which warchin,

gives

(7 for and

rie wing

to the public

archives is free, although there are charges for photocopying. Treasury considered the potential for greater cost-recovery for access to the heritage collections held in the Alexander Turnbull Library. It concluded that there was a case for considering full cost-recovery for commercial users, but that “the Government for equity reasons, would want to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to the Heritage Collections, regardless of ability to pay since means-testing is unlikely to be cost effective, the Government is therefore likely to want to subsidise all, or part, of the costs for individuals, and perhaps researchers. “‘)I This is somewhat reassuring, but not their “last word” on the matter. Some have heard recently, for example. of the existence of a draft Treasury paper on the continued role of the government in funding the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. The Trust, which is responsible for the preservation of the country’s architectural and cultural heritage, receives just over $4 million per annum from the government. One of the options put forward by Treasury is that this funding be cut entirely. In the Solicitor-General’s opinion on the legality of this scheme, he notes that there is nothing inherently wrong in commercial use of the National Archives. He could, however. also see scope for tensions arising between the Product Development Group, making business proposals for the commercialization of the assets of Heritage NZ. and the Chief Archivist, in situations in which ‘the Chief Archivist reasonably considers that if particular proposals are implemented they would be contrary to her custodial renponsibilities.o2 Finally, the statement made above, over 20 years ago, that arguments for archives based on their value as part of our cultural heritage cut little ice with administrators would seem even more likely to be true in the current business-like environment of the public sector.y3 It is hard to envisage records managers. in 1998. being motivated to comply with the Archives Act by the heritage role of archives. Similarly. chief executives of government agencies subject to the Act are unlikely to be sympathetic to the needs of historical researchers when they are now having to pay for the storage and appraisal of their semicurrent records. Chief executives are much more likely to be influenced by the dollars and cents arguments by National Archives associated with improving the state of records management within their agencies. They need to be provided with strong political reasons that efficient and effective records management systems are inextricably linked with archives. This is even more vital in an electronic recordkeeping environment. If lack of resources is one ol the reasons why the institution has stru ggled in the past to fulfill its role in relation to records management. then, under this scheme, National Archives will have to fight hard for funds for its contribution to this output area. In essence. Blakeley’s latest heritage scheme has placed a significant obstacle in the way of realizing archive\ as arsenals of democratic accountability and continuity. Inevitably. under this scheme. resources will be directed towards the very visible public access function at the expense of a duty of care to the record and investment in records management, which would provide real cost-benefits in the long term, and a better memory for society.y4 THE

POLITICAL

MOTIVES

Legal action is costly and ARANZ has not ignored the need for advocacy of its position on the heritage proposal. and the non-renewal of the Chief Archivist’s contract. A Joint Action

(;( WEKNMENT

I YO

Committee,

consisting

ers and

Administrators

released

regular

of representatives (ARMA),

statements

of Internal

uments

providing

dossier.

of Citizens Archives

and Taxpayers

(ACT)

What are Blakeley’s

scheme.

her contract

attracted

motives

media attention. the general

and its Minister.

to be driven

of several

that were occurring

a Minister

who isn’t going to question

Does the Secretary considered

1988. the average and pre4gious

after which

that Blakeley

management

is necessary project

‘focused

change’.

Internal which

to support

who devised

address

problems.

irlp to undertake It is ARANZ’s Vocu\ed members get.“”

belief

change”

siie of National

would

that the general

with

the HNZ

program Archives’

another,

manage

the ‘Ilagship’

the project.

sector). Proof

hopefully

engaged

the department

more important it is not unfair

in an ambitious

to

change

over $ I .5 million

and

move from. in his words.

“the

must

make

of Blakeley‘s

staff and stakeholder\.

annual

budget

staff

its baseline

in

credibility

in comparison

will be subsidized

cuts to fund-

proposal.

has made him deter-

some

They also suggest

(over $10 million)

ilijection

New Zealand

“revamp”

to saILage

major

within

is the Heritage

in order

a capital

to the ad\ ice of the Ameri-

also to find money

of the new group

Act agen-

that he is an able and capable

Contrary

among

of HNZ. the creation

government

Therefore,

it did not recei\,e

changes.

failure

is not

the State Sector

by the end of [ I997].““”

because

one of which

initiati\,e

it’? got

The Department

in New Zealand

see the department

the ploposcd

Pete1 \vas one

riot because

Under

for the last year. costing

largely

initiatives.

aspirations”!

He has been

It has been instructed

its change

to proceed

to

aspirations.

Affairs

to become

can consultant budget

on

Min-

Lispirations’.“‘6

is “running

agencies.

to the private

such

has run into trouble.

the 1997/98 budget

mined

they move

for promotion.

within

‘fag end’ of government The project

have ‘empire for most CEOs

(or move

may have

which

government

period

Affairs.

a high-ranking

..‘I7

anything.

Affair\

the opportunity

of Internal

that “the archi1.e restructuring

‘its empire

and

not to

But her job lo\s

utilizing

and previously

He

in her sup-

in 1996. said that thi\ controversy

a department

important

department

administrator dubbed

for Internal

appointment

cies is five years. suggest

within

one of the more

of Parliament

itself.

Minister

proposal’?

opportunity

with his vision.

1984 1989, believed

Affairs

“that National

restructuring

of the Department

Member

by the department

as Internal

has suggested

him a convenient

in sympathy

a long-time from

rethink

a

of the Association

be less than whole-hearted

have ~ oi\,en

and management

Government

who served

would

and led to some Members Prebble.

Leader

of doc-

were sup-

stated the need for

group.

g with the heritage

someone

direction

Richard

inter in the Labour appeared

This could

journalists

basis.““’

Archivist

and to appoint

to ask the

with a dossier

investigative

Prebble.

has

the restruc-

were aware of the latent

together

a heritage

Richard

for persistin

that the Chief

port for the heritage

to criticize

party.

independent

against

with a list of questions

have publicly

within

Manag-

of Genealogists.

of Parliament

Likewise.

politicians

Archives

be run on a completely

must have predicted

Dunne,

Several

National

of Records

Society

The campaign

were supplied

to the scheme.

Vol 1 ‘;.‘Nr, L/l’198

the Association

in the House of Representati\.es.

background

plied with a similar

)h’ ()UAKTtKLY

Zealand

that Members

Key people

Affairs

of the plan to include

renew

of ensuring

and its implications.

Minister

of ARANZ.

and the New

to the press on the scheme.

turing has also consisted scheme

INFOKMATI(

largely

for his

that. gi\,en the with the other from its bud-

Internal Affairs also has a mixture of policy and operational activities. Primarily operational activities, such as those of the Historical Branch, are expected by Treasury to return revenue to the government and, if not, they risk being outsourced, privatized, or axed. But this would result in reduction of baseline funding of Internal Affairs, and a further downgrading of the status of the department. The Secretary must be keen to protect the smaller and more vulnerable heritage business units particularly from this risk. At the same time. these business units and National Archives must be seen to be increasing third party revenue, or money earned from the sale of products and services. For these reasons, ARANZ is convinced that the heritage scheme will lead to increased charges and new charges for users of National Archives. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Archives and Records Association’s last hope for stopping the HNZ scheme going ahead, if use of political channels prove fruitless, rests on the chance that it may be found to be illegal. The Solicitor-General has given an opinion that what is proposed is not offensive to the Archives Act 1957.“” On the basis of legal advice received to date, however, ARANZ contends that, in order to enable the redistribution of functions to Business Services, the Product Development Unit, and Customer Services, the Chief Archivist will be required to delegate some of that officer’s statutory functions of “custody, care, control and administration of all public archives deposited in the National Archives” to other officers not under her direct control.“” The Solicitor-General does not regard this as involving a significant degree of intrusion on the Chief Archivist’s duties of the care, custody. control, and administration of the archives. The mechanism of purchase agreements, with other than those directly responsible to the Chief Archivist, was, however, specifically ruled out by the Solicitor-General. Another matter of dispute is whether the Secretary of Internal Affairs can unilaterally alter the reporting line of the Chief Archivist, by interposing one or more managers between the Chief Archivist and himself. Q 6 of the Act confers the power of “general direction” upon the Secretary, but can he delegate that power to anyone else? The SolicitorGeneral says that he can. Can a statutory entity established under 5 5 of the Archives Act 1957 be submerged within, or amalgamated with, some new body created by the Secretary without new permissive legislation? In essence, does this new proposal offend the intent of the 1957 Archives Act? Therefore, ARANZ, in association with the New Zealand Society of Genealogists, filed a Statement of Claim for a Judicial Review of the Heritage Scheme in the High Court in Wellington on August 29, 1997, citing the Secretary for Internal Affairs as first defendant, and the Attorney-General as second defendant.‘t)’ Anxious that court proceedings be avoided if possible, the plaintiffs then sought a meeting with the Minister of Internal Affairs and State Services. The Ministers declined. On September 12, 1997, as mentioned above, Dr. Mathieson and a member of the legal firm representing the plaintiffs (Gillespie Young Watson) met with Blakeley and Crown Law officials to discuss the scheme’s illegality, but their views were ignored. In response, the association’s lawyers made an application for a restraining order, preventing implementation of the heritage scheme until the legal questions at issue were resolved. This application was then withdrawn but the plain-

tiffs’

lawyers

and thoxc

of the Groan

to reapply.

t’or a Judicial

Re\ iew hax yet to be wt. “t’

Genrral

Manager.

if’deemed

r-cached agrtwncnt

ular. the right

HNZ

on a number

nectzsaat-y. has been wet-wd.

and Director

IJntil

Heritage

such time Strategy

of‘ points:

A hearing

a\ the judy

hear\

I\ ill continue

in partic-

date (or date\) the cats.

to act in thwe

the po\i-

tion4. in the background. m-hi\

there

e\ legislation.

(August

1996)

circulated

at a meeting

Hon. Jach Elder.

and therelorr

unlihelq

t’t-i\ ate Member’\

under

3 20 to stipulate

basic

,Anwndment

Bill

ARAN%

the Mini\tet-

to mnend

smites

wa\.

with wa\

option

year.

A wconcl

Act.

in par~iculx

retired

Al‘ltirs

at the election

may

01‘ Intc‘rnal

be to introduce L‘ the Chicl‘

bq the Hon.

the Hon.

in October

Pctcr

;t

Arch-

;I \itbsection

M ill he no I’ce. (An

to bc introduced

at the time.

Bill

to hr contentiou\

and to inwrt

f’or \%hich there

up and wit\

of’ Internal

public

I’or comment.

Mini\tcr

libel\

to rtmo\

01‘ the .Stxretar~

direction”

to any pet-wn

of‘ nt’\\

Al‘lairh

the

that the Bill

thi\

in I‘act. drawl

Austin

of’ Internal

rcprewntati\~es

rc\ caled

of the p;mitif

the existing

the “~etwtxl

but the Minister

that it be deferrttd.

of

izxite

I981. The latest Dt-af’t Archive

t’orm since

by the IIepartment

to hc introduced

Bill

\ ist f‘t-oni being

Atthtin.

the long-standing

ha\ been in draft

has been

Ilnfot-tunutely. Al‘l‘airs.

rtmain~

which

Dunne.

1996. mcl, with

to

Archi\eh Margaret reqtte~t~d

the change

in

wvernment. ;I nev, Minister \v;I\ appointed.) The legal xtatuk and l‘unctions of‘the Ad\ isot-> .Y Board ob\,iously 4s~ needs urgent claril‘ication. Compctitiott to introduce Pt-i\ ate Mcnher‘s

Bills

into the Hour

i\ high.

howewr.

and this trouw wctm

to ~uccercl.

unlihel)

CONCLUSION Perhaps

archivists

Z:ealand

proposal

placement \iderable seem\

should

of National

Archi\

long-standing

ovtv

of ability

to participate the institution

playing

;t far more

a.

for example. ha\ once

may

txxtsed

rian.

hut more gy\ rrntnent

agenda.

importantly corruption

months.

the sooner

Internal

Aff’airs.

Vrom the GSA.

he irnplernenttxi

archiw\

National

the better. Thus.

it will

Iqul.

There

alw

with

Archives NARS

not happen

over

tranquil regard

This

may

Thi\

when

lot of

independence houevrr.

be

role in go\ernnient. relationship

Affair-\

and the Sec-

period

in the

for the legal

reasons

I9XOs.

when

in thr

next

far--

challenge

for fighting

A cotnmi~sion

happens

haw

it should

u ill need the support

the cause.

30 year\.

overnight.

ot‘lntrrnal

scant

Whatcwr

is accorded

records.

management

D arid visible

to champion

role

;I number

is ;I cause for a1artn. at ;I time

Zealand.

help!

the proposal

g to do. The dil‘ficult

a relatiwly

are cwnpellin, in New

politicians.

It took

slier

contract

the

lo\t cm-

heritage reIlrct\

administrative

are attemptin

by those

authority

might

01‘ public

mtl

Nrv,

from

not the least ol~w hich i\ its lack

to the IIeparttnont

head.

Archi\,ist’s

Frankly.

that it has probably

in the munagrmrnt

its ugly

ha\. however.

effort\.

Archive\.

Heritage

may e\ entuate

of’ a cultural

to the side of heritage

in Xuhtralia

of’ Blakelcv‘\ what

The Secretary

hi\ prtxiotts

the point

colrstitlttional.

reared

I irw about

existence

by National

meaningfully

of the Chief

Cor ;m independent

into

experienced

Ggtiificant

change\

and :I heritage

reached

to be \huntcd

again

Group.

acceptin, ~1 the

and the Chief’ Archi\.ixt

The non-t-enewal reaching

it ha

state archi\tf\

of the institution retary

in ;I Heritage

when

es. That problem\

theory”

and pmiti\,e

the last two years with

men

enabled

be pragmatic

Archiws

credibility ill-advised.

National

not take ;I “conspiracy

and should

hard

of’ hihtoof‘ inquit-> \i\

10 I2

f’rom the Department to achieve

independence

of

1 Y.3

NOTES I.

Rachel Lilburn.

“The

Restructuring

ment?.” Government

2. 3.

Kathryn

Patterson

National

Archives.”

(Chief

of the NatIonal

Quarterly.

Archhist).

13

Archives

of New Zealand:

An Ideological

Experi-

( 19%):2X5-309.

memorandum

to National

Archives

Staff.

“New

Structure

for

August Y. 199.5, p. 3.

M. T. Parker (Crowal Counsel). tion.”

1.

Information

AND REFERENCES

letter tu Secretaq

for Internal

Affurs,

“National

Archl\es~Reorjinnlha-

September 72. IYYS (tile ret’. INTOOX/l IY).

Don Mathiexm.

Q.C. “Legal Frameworks.”

Archifirc~t.\ (October

lYY6): 39. Don Mathiehon

is not a Crown

Counsel. as was stated m the prex ious article. 5.

J.E True.

6.

Roger Blakeley

“Coalitions

ment Changes to National 7. X. 0. IO

Archives.”

Kathryn

Patterson (Chief Archivist). Archives.”

February

Affairs.),

Februq

I?. 1906. p.

memorandum

1YY6): I 17. Morgan

(President

ARANZ).

“Manage-

I.

to National

Archives

Staff. “Management

Changes to

13, 1996.

Inn Wards. ‘Archive\

and Records in Retrospect.”

These views were contained ARANZ

ARAN%) xl\~se

was baed

entitled

to member\

“Restructuring

on the document.

and released h) the Solicitor-General on February

the Secretar)

particular.

on matters relating Archives

“New Zealand Heritasr

I I (July

“Charter

husinea”

GI-oup-A

No. 22, January

Archibeh:

for the ArchIves

to the law firm Gillespie

1096. b)

An Update,”

Advisory

Februaq

Board.”

written

Young Watson (x>licitor\

ior

“The purpose of the Board is to

and performance

in respect of the Secretary’s

of the Chief Archi\i\t....ln statutory

functions

as the)

(p. 2). Notc.5 tulrl Ncv.\ fuuu 7Xr fktiomrrv

Proposal.”

rfNm,

Zrtrlmd

Bio,y-

1997).

Darlopment

and Deli\q

Ser\ icing will facilitate

will

focu\

on the creation

access to heritage information

ness Support Ser\ ices WIII pro\ ide managerial resource\.

of NatIonal

to the management

the Board 15 to advise the Secretary

/UI/>/IK

IYYh): 40.

with Newsletter

16. lYY6. For example. Para. X of the Charter uys

relate to the National

Product

An~hjfircxt (October

in a letter di\trlbuted

Vice-President.

?Y. IYYh. The criticism

See Roger Blakeleq

Heritage Group-A

(Secretary

Proposal,”

13.

ARANZ.

“Threat to National

ARANZ.

“A Nevv Threat to National

Archives:

15.

ARANZ.

“Threat

I h.

IhId.

17.

Tom Cal-dy, “Archl\es

IX.

Ihid. “The Treaaq

to National

Archnes.”

Sell-ofi’

April

letter to Rachel Lllbut-n.

Zealand

tinancinl

procea

and economic

Jonathan Boston. John Martin. (Auchland:

Aflairs),

adviser. It exerciva

and advise!, the government

Oxford

the report on National

l’or Internal

June 30. lYY7.

lYY7.

“Summary

oversight

on economic

poliq

June Pallot. & Pat Walsh. Puh/ic,

Uni\ erslty Press. I YYh), p. 6 I. The Treasur) Archlbeh

with and hns a great deal of power over reductions (Secretary

“New

7%~ El,cvriri,q Po\t (May 79. lYY71.

principal

manage5 the hudgetq

for commissioning

Roger Blakeleq

Customer HNZ. Busi-

June 30, lYY7.

Called Loonines,”

,~~rr,~~,gc,/,fc,,r~’ T/u, Not, Zc,tr/rrrrd Mo&/ \CI) concerned

and \ercices.

of HNZ and promote

support and serbices such 3s IT and human

Affair\).

Backgt-ound and Update,”

Archi\eh.”

and on many other policy areas a!, well.” was responsible

and financial

for Internal

i\ the go\ernment’s

o\er puhl~c expenditure.

of new products

and the \ervices

June 16. I YY7.

l-1.

IY.

letter to Sheryl

Ibid.

b> Blakelq

13.

for Internal

National

J.E. True.

I I.

A~c,/ri~rc,t.\(October

in the Public Interest.”

(Secretary

by McDermott

in government

Report Stakeholders

Miller

in lYY1. It i\

expenditure. Meetings

June 3 and h.

IYY7.” July 21. 1997. 20.

Blaheleq. “New Zealand Heritage Group-A

?I.

Toni Cardy. “Top Archivist Chief Archivist year contract. incentive

and Director

since IYY

wahich was renewed

to perform.

Proposal.”

Lose\ Job.” T/x, E~,cvri,l,q po.st (October

and the ahllity

I.

in 1993. There is the view that such contracts to remo\e

substandard performers.

taint). can cause manager!, to focu\ on immediate can result m lack 22.

Department

of continuityof

of Internal

Affaira.

Ward\. “Archives

Patterson had been

However,

to a three

ensure flexibility.

an

they also create uncer-

issues and problems rnther than long-term

concerns. and

poliq. press release. “Leading

I YY7. 2.3.

8. 1997). Kathryn

Under the State Sector Act 1988. she was appointed

and Records In Retrospect,”

p. 36.

Historians

Head Heritage

Group.”

October

72.

1%

21

7s 26. 77. 2x. 3.

30. 31.

32.

33. 34. 3s. 30.

il. 3x. 39. 40. -II 12. 13. 34. 15. 16. 17. 48. Jr)

SO.

“Archibis

See Cheryl Y. Camphell, Jor~r,~n/ o!fHi\rorv.

and Historiana: How Can We Assist Each Other?,” Nr,bl, Z<>tr/tr~~
19 (October 1985): 152. Nor could political scientists he said to have shown wide-

spread Interest in the plight of National Archives in this period. 5 I.

The Waitangi Tribunal hears claims from the indigenou\ people. the Maori. for compensation for loss of land and other grievances suffered since 1X40. when New Zealand ~3% formally annexed h) the British go\emment

and a treaty signed at Waitangi between its representatives and Maorl chiefs. There are over

350 claims regIstered. with ;I Lalue estimated to he at least one billion dollars. Maori claimants are exten\l\ely 52.

using the hlstorvxl resources of many archival institutions for claim research.

An analysis of the occupations of the 1997 personal and joint membership of ARANZ

re\eals that IO are

historinnh. and 14 are lecturers, some of wjhom may or ma) not he histornms. However. only the occupatlonb of 77% of personal and joint members are known. 53.

“Heritage New Zealand-A

51.

ARANZ.

‘A New Threat to Nattonal Archives.” p. 5.

Good Thmg For Historian\.

55.

ARANZ.

“Threat to National Archixea.”

S6.

Ibid.. pp. 27-39.

);’ P/rtr,r:irrr.3 (Jul)

1997): I-2.

57.

Ibid.. p. 34.

S8.

Thomas Wilsted. “Face to Face across the Counter: Archivists and Historian\ mtl

59.

Mnnu.\cri/~c.

in New Zealand,” Archiw~

7 (August 1977): 13.

Dr. Schellenherg had also come to New Zealand in 1954 and his contact apparently “served to convince New Zealand archi\ istb of the importance of the records management side of archives.” (See Judith Homahrook. “The Development of Archives in New Zealand.” in Archiwv

trnd Mnrruscripts:

Senrincrr.

1977). p. 5. See also Michael Pig-

edited by R.S. Hill & M.D.W.

Hodder (Wellington: ARANZ,

gott. “Schellenherp in New Zealand.” Arch$~~r

A New Zrnland

(October 1990). pp. I-S. For example, records centers

were opened in Wellington and Auckland m 1962. Hornahrook says that more resources for National Archives resulted from the convincing arguments in the reports on records management written by Pam Cock\ and Michael Standish. (See Judith Horn&rook, \Yst. 3 (Autumn/March

“Records Centres Are Thirty.” Nrn, Zwhd

Archi-

1992): 2.) Under the direction of the current Chief Archivist, Kathryn Patterson,

National Archives has published a policy for the management, selection and preservation of electronic public records. National

Archives of New Zealand, Electronic

Recotdc

Policy

(Wellington:

National

Archives, 1996). Message. Wrong Timing‘?.” Archiftrct.\

60.

Alan Smith. “The Acton Report-Right

61.

R. R. Cater. “The Admini\trator‘s

62.

K. Tall. “The Records Manager’s Viewpoint.” Archfizcts

63.

Pat Acton. Infornrrttin~t

Viewpoint.” Archrfncts

Con Be Mmnged

(October 1991): 33.

7 & 8 (September-December 7 & 8 (September-December

1978): 3 I. 1978): 22-25.

(Wellington: State Services Commissmn in cooperation with

National Archives, 1986). 64.

Smith. “The Acton Report.” p. 33.

65.

Ibid.. p. 36.

66.

Kathryn Patterson (Chief Archivist). letter to Rachel Lilhum. August 8. 1997.

67.

Blakeley, “Management Changes to National Archives,” p. 2.

6X.

Eastwood. “Retlections on the Development of Archives in Canada and Australia.” p. 36.

69.

Terry Cook, “Electronic Records, Paper Minds: The Revolution in Information Management and Archives in the Post-Custodial and Post-Modernist Era,” Archives and Manuscripts. 22 (November

1994): 322. A

paper written by Cook and delivered by Sheila Powell, at the Society of American Archivists 1997 Annual Meeting in Chicago, entitled “Who Will Do It If We Don’t: The Cultural Mission of Archives” also reiterated this view. 70.

An extract from a record posting by an Australian archivist on the Archives list, quoted in Adrian Cunningham’s article, “Beyond the Pale? The ‘Flinty’ Relationship between Archivists Who Collect the Private Records of Individuals and the Rest of the Archival Profession.” Archives

and Mmuscripts.

24 (May

1996): 21. 71,

See Shirley Spragge, “The Abdication Crisis: Are Archivists Giving up Their Cultural Responsibility’?.” Archaria,

72. 73.

40 (Fall 1995): 173-81.

Cunningham, “Beyond the Pale’?.” p. 25. Hugh Taylor, “Heritage Revisited: Documents as Artifacts in the Context of Museums and Material Culture,” Archivnria,

74.

Ibid., p. IS.

40 (Fall 1995): 9.

I’)(1

76 77.

7s 70

SO

Sl.

$2.

s ;. S-l.

01.

‘JO

07

IO0 IOI,

(

,( )L’tKK\‘MFNr

INF( )KMAI

I( IN ()I’AKTL

Iii \I

\‘id

I ; No

.! IO’):;