Heritage in museum remains out of reach

The announcement of our museum’s closure was reported in The Southland Times on April 10, 2018. One year and four months later our heritage remains out of reach and most of our tuatara will be lost to us.

The promised so-called temporary museum remains in darkness in an unsuitable Kelvin St building, which – if ever developed – will be a sink hole of expense which should be directed toward the process of strengthening the existing museum.

In my role as archivist/curator of the Southland Boys’ High School museum I regularly witness the real distress of people keenly aware that they are being denied what is theirs by right, namely a municipal museum guarding and curating their heritage.

There are so many cards stacked against us here in the south, especially recently, that the continued closure of our museum feels like self harm.

In Arrowtown the Lakes District Museum, which describes itself as being ‘‘Built around three historic buildings’’, has reacted sanely to the earthquake problem.

At the entrance to each space is the following sign; ‘‘This room has been assessed as being potentially at risk in the event of a strong earthquake. The Lakes District Museum is moving down the process of having it strengthened. In the meantime you enter this part of the museum at your own risk’’. Legal information is also available.

In the approaching local body elections those presenting themselves should reveal their research and stance on the museum problem and not consign it to ‘‘the elephant in the room’’ status. You will be judged on the way forward you can now offer. Otherwise you can expect the ‘‘massive public reproach’’ signalled in a Times editorial on April 1, 2018.

Some 220,000 visitors (many local) were expected to our museum in 20018. Where will they go now and in the future?

Lynley Dear

National and ACT MP’s who rushed it through never even tried to pretend it would deliver any social benefit whatsoever.

The act means a person sentenced to prison cannot vote; one sentenced to home detention for the exact same crime can.

Someone sentenced to one week for a minor offence the day before an election is disenfranchised; a murderer remanded in custody awaiting sentence can still vote.

National’s Attorney-General in 2010 advised Parliament that the bill was inconsistent with NZ Bill of Rights Act, and could not be demonstrably justified.

The NZ High Court, Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal have all condemned it.

The highest Courts of Canada, Australia, South Africa, Ireland, Hong Kong, and the European Court of Human Rights have all rejected similar legislation.

Principles do matter. A fundamental right is a fundamental right.

Overlook one – what’s next?

We ignore any serious breach of rights at our peril.

Lesley Soper