September 2001
SUBMISSION TO ARCHIVES NEW ZEALAND ON ACCESS STANDARD EXPOSURE DRAFT
Please note that the following bullet point references refer to the relevant sections in the exposure draft.
1.2 Scope:
ARANZ strongly recommends that the standard should encompass all public records. Those held in approved repositories, government agencies and local authorities should be subject to the same controls as those deposited with Archives New Zealand (ANZ). Application of such measures should be mandatory – not adopted voluntarily. In this respect ANZ must be given the responsibility for compliance monitoring. One of the prime principles of access to archives is knowledge of their existence. ANZ must become more pro-active in the identification, documentation and control of that material previously viewed as ‘outside’ of its control.
4.1 Basic right of access.
While ARANZ agrees with this principle, it believes it should be expanded to include "in a timely manner". Delayed responses can be considered an unofficial means of denying or obstructing access – until it is too late.
Finding aids must be provided, free of charge, and of a structure that is simple, logical, easy to use and efficient. The provision of complex finding aids, with the attendant need to employ ‘knowledgeable’ assistance is likely to result in charging for a ‘basic right’.
4.2 Partnership with Users:
ARANZ concurs with the statement of principle, but believes the phrase "with special consideration given to government’s relationship with Maori" used in this context is possibly ambiguous. How ‘special’ is the consideration being proposed? Is this restricted to Maori, or does it include all ethnic groups, with their diverse requirement’s.
If it is implied that this refers to preferential treatment for Treaty Claims, is it necessary to specify one aspect of access over another? The partnership must cover all facets of archiving processes – appraisal, development of finding aids and reference services to ensure access is available. Efficient and effective access results from sound ‘overarching’ archival principles.
It is suggested that the words following tikanga ‘of the mana whenua’ promote confusion, and are likely to create all kinds of problems. Does it mean that only Te Ati Awa tikanga would apply to ‘Archives – Wellington"?
4.3 Access Channels:
Provision of a variety of access channels is supported as an expected service, but not as a means of recovering costs. Free basic access is the inalienable right of all. Resources to support internet/online/distance services cannot be at the expense of ‘on site’ services. There is doubt that, in the foreseeable future anything more than lists and descriptive documentation can be provided in this format.
4.4 Documentation and Awareness:
To ensure ready access, it is vital that records are processed and made available with the minimum of delay Documentation should therefore be as simple as possible, compatible with utility, delays in processing, with diminishing levels of organisation and contextual knowledge, result in confusion in the interpretation of content. Delays of transfer to archives can result in the degrading of the collections – through interim re-use.
As previously stated finding aids must be logical, easy to use and efficient. In addition this information should be publicised as widely as possible.
4.5 Access Facilities:
ARANZ agree. However, it is strongly recommended that standards of equipment maintenance and compatibility be also taken into consideration. There is little to be gained by making available technology that is broken, unreliable or outmoded. ANZ must have a mandate to update related technology to meet changing needs. The provision of inefficient technology support can be another ‘unofficial’ means of denying or delaying access.
4.6 Service Quality:
We strongly support the adoption, and monitoring, of Quality of Service Standards. Their adoption without monitoring is tantamount to paying ‘lip service’ to this essential aspect of information management. Such standards will only prove efficient if experienced staff are made available and ‘customer feed back’ is recognised and action taken. That ANZ, should be responsible for mediation in the case of disputes would also be seen as vital.
4.7 Copying and Use:
A balance between ‘protection of intellectual copyright’ generally – and reasonable research use will be required. The ‘Minimum Requirements’ are commended, however there is a need to clarify the current policy of copying only 10% of an item – regardless of whether the item comprises one letter or a diverse collection of letters.
5. Control on access:
ARANZ strongly supports requirements that records should be ‘tamper proof’. Again, this relates to ‘processing and transfer from depositing agency to ANZ’ with minimal delay. Past experience indicates that ‘delayed or deferred deposit’ results in records frequently being subject to illegal amendment.
Comments made in relations to Government Loans indicate that this service is being/can be used as the vehicle for denial of access. It also heightens the likelihood of deliberate or accidental loss, damage or alteration of content. Further, it is our contention that material relating to ‘current litigation’ should be available to all at ANZ, and access not denied by ‘borrowing’ by one interested party.
We do not support the holding of government records by third party, commercial organisations, as has occurred. The preservation and maintenance, of public records and archives is an ANZ responsibility. It must not be abrogated because of funding considerations, or through inappropriate decisions by the depositing agency.
5.1 Restricted Access:
ARANZ believes that ANZ should assume a major advisory role in the setting and monitoring of access restrictions. It alone among government agencies has the experience of administrative practices, balanced by the knowledge of research needs, to ensure consistency of approach.
As a general rule, records should be open for inspection unless restriction can be genuinely justified, the grounds being legislatively laid down. Restrictions should be subject to appeal. If restrictions are imposed there should be provision for regular review.
While harmonization of the Archives Act with the Official Information and Privacy Acts is superficially attractive, it must be recognised that the three enactments are for different purposes. Already the Privacy Act is being wrongly read to justify the obstruction or withholding of material outside its scope, while the Official Information Act can be, and is being, employed to impede legitimate access.
5.2 Protection from destruction, alteration, removal:
ARANZ agree with the stated principle, but it needs to expand to encompass all ‘government records’ held outside of ANZ. Once the ANZ ambit covers all, protection should be more easily guaranteed. In these circumstances the monitoring and compliance regime referred to earlier becomes a vital component of the ANZ mandate.
ANS will need to pay close attention to recent practices such as abuse of the Government Loan by on loan to accredited agents and the transfer of records to private businesses undertaking out sourced work.
Conclusion:
Though it is acknowledged that the Public Records bill is currently under review, when it is enacted there will be a need to promote and publicise its provisions. This should be viewed as being of the highest priority.
ARANZ is supportive of any initiative that seeks to provide more equitable access to records held in ANZ but also believes that there is a need for some form of standardisation in practices relating to document retention. ANZ should be an interested party in any discussions the Government and related agencies undertake. The adoption and monitoring of the standards is a positive step but benefits will only be derived if the infrastructure exists to ensure that compliance is a mandatory requirement not just an option.
Alison M. Fraser
President.
