Minister proposes a new national museum

Press, 18 June 1986, Page 9

Minister proposes a new national museum

The concept of a new National Museum of New Zealand, costing $lBO million, is being promoted by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Tapsell. Mr Tapsell is lobbying meetings of local authority and museum boards for support before going to the Cabinet for approval of the project, which would be developed over the next 20 years. The concept was formerly known as a Pacific Cultural Centre, but a project development team has produced a report which suggests that a more appropriate name might be a National Museum of New Zealand/ Te Marae Taonga o Aotearoa.”

Mr Tapsell outlined the concept to an informal meeting of Christchurch City councillors, Canterbury Museum Board members, and other interested people in Christchurch last evening. Mr Tapsell said that the National Art Gallery and the National Museum, both in Wellington, were built in the 1930 s and were now showing their deficiencies. Some of the most valuable artefacts

were stored under the museum floor on the ground. What was proposed was totally new and unique, Mr Tapsell said. It was proposed that *a National Museum of New Zealand be built on a site on the Wellington waterfront owned by the Wellington Harbour Board and the Wellington City Council.

These authorities had agreed in principle to make the land available for a cultural complex. If the proposal were to go ahead about $26 million would be spent from now until 1990 acquiring the land and preparing plans. The complex would be built between 1990 and 2000. Mr Tapsell said that the Cabinet had agreed in principle to building a cultural centre on the waterfront site, had agreed to buy one part of the land for $1 million and had given him the task of canvassing public support. “Even if I can get total public support I will have a fight to get it through Cabinet,” he said, because there were people who believed that the user of

such facilities should pay for them. “I think that is a retrograde view,” said Mr Tapsell.

If the $lBO million was not spent on this project, he had no reason to believe that it would be spent elsewhere on the arts. On the other hand, if the project went ahead, it would help to lift the concept of art and craft in New Zealand and would rub off on the regions, he said. Cr David Close said that he and others had grave doubts about the merit of building an expensive building in a place where it was accessible to only a small section of New Zealanders. He questioned why it had to be Wellington, rather than Auckland, where there was a bigger population, and where far more Maori people would be able to appreciate their heritage.

Cr Close doubted that the "trickle down” theory suggested by Mr Tapsell would work in practice. He suggested that a better way would be to disperse New Zealand’s treasures so that all could enjoy them.

The director of the Robert McDougall Art Gallery, Mr John Coley, said that the concept proposed was visionary and exciting but he thought that regional institutions might “wither in the shade.” The director of the Canterbury Museum, Mr Michael Trotter, said that he applauded the concept of putting money into arts and crafts but he thought the proposal would downgrade the rest of the institutions throughout New Zealand. It would make it that much harder to raise money in Canterbury to make urgently needed repairs to the Canterbury Museum. He agreed with Cr Close that the treasures should be spread throughout New Zealand rather than be concentrated in Wellington.

Information on the project is available from the chief executive officer (special duties), Department of Internal Affairs, Private Bag, Wellington. Submissions from the public will close on August 29.