National Library to dispose of 500,000 books from overseas collection
The initial decision - made over six years ago - was met with public backlash. While a fraction of the books were saved, the rest will be pulped from today.
'There are compelling reasons to remove them,' National Library's Mark Crookston told Breakfast.
'It's a decision not taking lightly, they come from a lending collection, which is no longer being lent.
'Only 1% of the items were being lent in the years leading up to the decision in 2018. Over 80% have not been lent for 20 years.'
ADVERTISEMENT
But author Harry Ricketts, who's been fighting against the cull, says he's 'miffed' at the decision.
'It's partly a generational thing, someone like me comes from a generation in which [believes] - like the character in Ian Forster's Howards End – 'books', said Margaret, 'move by the holy word'.
'The physical object of a book is particularly important.
'The idea that somehow only 'our' books – what are 'our' books? – should be preserved – seems a rather dodgy criteria.'
Crookston said it was just 'good collection management' to not retain lending collection items much longer than they are required to be lent.
'This is just basic library practice that we learn in library school collection management 101.'
'They're just taking up space and taking up resources that can be better utilised for collections that are wanted.'
ADVERTISEMENT
The books are currently being stored in number of locations in Wellington and Whanganui.
Crookston estimated the volume of items would take up 'the square metreage of approximately a third of a rugby field.'
Internet Archive agreement scrapped
In December 2018, the then Minister of Internal Affairs approved the National Library's request to remove the items under the National Library of New Zealand Act.
An agreement was then made with the Internet Archive to export the remaining items to their offshore digitisation base, to provide online access as well as retain physical copies.
However, Crookston said the library has now withdrawn from this agreement.
"Responding to subsequent concerns about copyright issues, the National Library paused this project and now have withdrawn from this agreement."
ADVERTISEMENT
The remaining disposal options included transfer, sale, donation and destruction.
'While 15,000 collection titles have been transferred to other libraries, the experience with donating approximately 50,000 titles to book fairs in 2020 resulted in a modest pick-up from the public which reinforced the purpose of disposal in the first place.'
The National Library said from 2017 to 2020, less than 1% of the items involved were borrowed.
"Most of the titles have not been issued for the last 20 to 30 years," it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
2 days ago
- Newsroom
‘This helps make the struggle for pay equity real'
Opinion: There was a sense of being present at a historic moment when we gathered on Monday at the National Library in Wellington to form the first people's select committee. We were there to start hearing submissions from individuals and groups who had been denied the opportunity to do so when the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 was introduced and passed under urgency this year without a select committee process.
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
John Campbell: Please, National and Labour, do something. Anything!
Analysis: National on 34, Labour on 33, a total of 67. Two-thirds of us. And that's two-thirds of the people prepared to express a preference. Twelve per cent of us don't know or wouldn't say. Yes, one of the striking features of the latest 1News Verian Poll is that the combined total of support for National and Labour remains near (or not far above) historically low levels. Sure, it was 63% in the previous poll, and 67% is a slight improvement on that, but it was 68% the poll before, and then, heading backwards through successive polls, 67%, 66%, 66%, and a year ago, 68%. And on election night, 2023? Sixty-five per cent. In other words, the support calcification continues in what we call the centre, by which we really mean the old dogs. National and Labour, arthritic, teeth desperately in need of repair, long past chasing seagulls on the beach, surrounded by barking pup parties that increasingly do not defer to them, do not respect their threadbare 'wisdom', and do not know their place. ADVERTISEMENT There is such a strikingly visible irony here. Speaking to Breakfast, Victoria University associate professor Lara Greaves and former National Party press secretary Ben Thomas gave their takes on the latest 1News Verian Poll. (Source: Breakfast) As National is dragged down into the populist politics of its coalition partners, as Labour considers what to do about tax policy and how best to work with Te Pāti Māori, should Chris Hipkins (and co) need to court TPM to get into Government in roughly fourteen months time, an answer, surely, is: Do something, anything, to define and assert brands that have genuine meaning. I'm not talking about resolute supporters. Tribal voters can spend days telling you what their party stands for. But diehards don't decide elections. Floating voters do. And the big two don't seem to be engaging them anywhere near enough. Which means they're both dependent, utterly dependent, on their coalition partners. (Source: 1News) Or on finding leaders and policy (perish the thought) that the country might actually want to vote for. ADVERTISEMENT Of course, with the exception of Labour's unprecedented 50% in 2020, it's always been versions of this under MMP. But context matters here. Sixty-seven per cent now. Sixty-five per cent on election night. As I wrote in July 2023, election night 2020 had Labour on 50% and National on 25.6%. That's a total of 75.6%. Election night 2017 had National on 44.4% and Labour on 36.9%. That's a total of 81.3%. Indeed, prior to 2023, the last time there was an election in which the two major parties, aka the 'centre', received less than 70% of the vote, was in 2002. A generation ago. It now feels habitual. Set. ADVERTISEMENT And it's hard to find any material signs that National and Labour are responding to that. Nats not delivering Back in 2021, only just over a year after he was first elected to Parliament, National's answer was Christopher Luxon. He became leader so quickly, it almost felt breathless. And National won. But there has never been a one term National government or National-led Government. Ever. And the fact that it's even a possibility now tells us the Nats aren't delivering what voters want. Luxon's pedigree, as he told us so often his tongue was in danger of repetitive strain injury, was as CEO of Air New Zealand. What he lacked in any perceptible political viewpoint, any kind of tangible aspirations beyond doing, you know, stuff for 'ordinary Kiwis', he made up for in management prowess. ADVERTISEMENT And then David Seymour and Winston Peters smoked him like kahawai. This matters because it's so far from what the country was promised, and not just by Christopher Luxon himself. We were told, repeatedly, for example, that the Treaty Principles Bill, finally voted down by 112 votes to 11, in the most brutal, embarrassing and unequivocal defeat of a government bill I can recall in three decades of covering politics, was the coalition-agreement price the country had to pay for getting a government of managerial prowess. That's clearly not how it feels to many of us. (Source: 1News) Christopher Luxon is now at 20% in the preferred prime minister polling. Twenty. That's down from 28% a year ago, which wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement at the time. The 'preferred' begins to become a misnomer at that level, doesn't it? 'Don't Know' is at 31%. The Nats should see if she or he is free. ADVERTISEMENT Matthew Hooton, whose Patreon is worth subscribing to, in part for his sometimes gleefully vicious dismantling of his own broad tribe, wrote yesterday, before last night's 1News Verian Poll was released but off the back of a Taxpayers' Union Curia Poll that was even worse for National, that, as Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon 'has failed utterly to provide the basic leadership of the country the job demands'. The problem is, Luxon's leadership was his selling point. He was CEO of Air New Zealand, you know? Sigh. (In hindsight, he should possibly have mentioned that less often.) Meanwhile, Labour are up four to 33%. The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including poll numbers paint grim picture for leaders, Trump sending the National Guard into Washington, and where have all the coaches gone? (Source: 1News) Labour hasn't earned it Labour will be chuffed with that. Particularly given how little they've done to earn it. And it's significantly up on the 27% they achieved (and again, the word feels like a misnomer) on election night. But it's important to note that Labour were at the same level in February, six months ago. And so were National. And it's been a pretty tough winter since. In other words, Labour are simply returning to where they were, not reaching new highs. ADVERTISEMENT Second, Labour were at 50% less than five years ago. Third, and I love this joke so please forgive me for hauling it out again, there have been more sightings of Elvis than of significant new Labour Party policy. You could say that Labour feel like they're phoning it in. But it sometimes doesn't even feel like they're doing that. Maybe Willow-Jean Prime has lost the party's phone? Here's a fun game. Go to Labour's website and look at their 'News & Updates' section. It's pretty pro-forma opposition stuff. Multiple variations of 'the Government sux'. But David Lange once told me the best way to remain in opposition was to look like one. So, prior to the 1984 election, he did everything he could to look like a government in waiting. Former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange pictured in March 1985. (Source: Getty) Now, click on Labour's 'Announcement' section. Go on. You'll see it on the right, just beneath the photo of Chippie. 'No news items to display.' ADVERTISEMENT There's nothing there. Lol. So, off we go, one in three of us, not including the 12% of us that can't bring ourselves to make a choice, or to admit to the choice we've made, in search of answers elsewhere. Minor parties drift Act thought it was them. Nope. The party that got 8.64% of the vote on election night and is sitting at 8% in this 1News Verian Poll. And, remember, that's after all the attention, publicity, TV time, etc, that David Seymour received for the Treaty Principles Bill, in particular, and also the Regulatory Standards Bill. Empirically, measurably, it hasn't worked for Act. Writing about the Taxpayers' Union Curia Poll, and a poll question about voter priorities, Hooton points out that 'for all the Coalition's focus on three particular issues, almost no one cares about them as their top issue'. ADVERTISEMENT Just 2.8% of those surveyed in that poll identified 'Māori/Treaty' as their number one priority. Less than 1 in 33 of us. David Seymour keeps telling us we're divided by it. But he hasn't even effectively engaged a potential support base with it. John Campbell with the Waitangi dawn service. (Source: 1News) As I wrote from Waitangi in February of this year and last year and from Turangawaewae in January 2024, the Treaty Principles Bill occasioned a response from Māori that contained and affirmed a sense of identity and unity (kotahitanga) that general politics seems unable to emulate. The message of both this week's polls appears to be that National and Labour need to find a way to bring themselves to step into this space. To stand for something. The Greens have had, by any reasonable assessment, a dreadful year or two with personnel issues. And while they're down two points, they're still third. ADVERTISEMENT New Zealand First are fourth. The party that polled 6% on election night, is at 9% now. Again, like the Greens, you know what they stand for, agree with it or not. When it was a two-horse race When I was young, well and truly pre-MMP, when I really did live in a home of National Party dad and Labour Party mum, and my parents would set out on election day to cast their vote, electorate only under First Past the Post, duly and seriously cancelling each other out, before heading home for a nice cup of tea, or something considerably stronger in the Campbell family tension of 1981, National and Labour were it. Oh, yes, there were cameos. Social Credit seems particularly extraordinary now, viewed in the rear vision mirror of life. But the choice was essentially a dichotomy. National, Labour. Labour, National. Mum and Dad. Off they went. The polls out this week tell us the the big two are in a kind of stasis. Led by men who between them don't reach the preferred prime minister levels Helen Clark, John Key and Jacinda Ardern all reached on their own. Former National PM John Key's polling, like the Labour PMs either side of him, was on a different level. (Source: Getty) ADVERTISEMENT 'The centre cannot hold,' to quote that brilliance of WB Yeats. Is it really even the centre any longer? Or is National hostage to its coalition partners, and Labour hostage to such a wilful caution that the party's in danger of rendering their policy platform invisible. A solution may be in an economic outlook question in the Verian poll. Asked if they thought the economy would get better, stay the same, or get worse over the next 12 months, 64% of the just over 1,000 people polled said the 'same' or 'worse'. That's a tough reality to live in. Very tough for some. Who's leading people out of that? ADVERTISEMENT And who persuasively looks like they're trying to?
Newsroom
3 days ago
- Newsroom
‘Turning women's wages into a political piggy bank'
It's a short walk from Parliament to the National Library – barely two minutes – but the journey comes with several reminders of the history of women's rights in New Zealand. Navigate a pedestrian crossing with a signal in the shape of famous suffragist Kate Sheppard, and you're greeted with a sign for the library's exhibition on the 1893 petition (spearheaded by Sheppard) that helped secure Kiwi women the right to vote. Little wonder then that the venue was chosen for the opening day of the People's Select Committee on Pay Equity. Made up of 10 female ex-MPs from four different parties, the group has come together to scrutinise the pay-equity changes rushed through under urgency by the coalition without any public input. As former Labour minister Nanaia Mahuta put it as she opened proceedings: 'We are here to do what the Government did not.' Perhaps wary of the wrath generated by the controversial changes, Mahuta asked submitters to refrain from making comments that 'may be defamatory of any individual'. She and the committee didn't need to worry, at least for the first day, with a surprisingly good-humoured mood among those gathered. Hugs, kisses and selfies were in plentiful supply as the (overwhelmingly female) crowd filtered into the room, while there were light moments throughout: 'These days, I pretend I'm retired,' former National MP and feminist scholar Marilyn Waring quipped as she introduced herself. Yet the subject at hand was undeniably heavy, with submitters expressing frustration at both the secretive and hasty nature of the Government's reforms and the real-world consequences for women being paid unfairly low wages. 'What was once a relatively straightforward, albeit occasionally lengthy road is now one filled with various potholes and roadblocks. The Government continues to insist it's a road, but it's not one that anyone can travel along anymore,' NZ Council of Trade Unions national secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges said. Ansell-Bridges said moving the threshold for claims from arguability to merit meant some would never get started – not because they lacked merit, but because the requirements could not be met unless the process was already underway, creating a Catch-22 situation. A workable and sustainable alternative to the existing pay-equity regime would have been celebrated by the Government, she said, the subject of public consultation and a full parliamentary process rather than rammed through overnight with no advance warning. 'It speaks to the shame felt by this Government, whose job it is to look after the interests of all New Zealanders, as they strip away half our population's access to the fundamental rights.' The financial cost of the changes goes beyond hypothetical foregone income in the future, too. Aged Care Association chief executive and former New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin said the sector had spent close to $500,000 in the last year gathering information for a care and support workers' pay equity claim, with much of the work done at the Government's request – even as it was working in secret to overhaul the regime. 'We invested significant time and resources only to find those efforts wasted – this breach of good faith will take some time and genuine effort on behalf of governments to repair,' Martin said. She painstakingly laid out the complex range of duties carried out by aged-care workers: clinical support and medical assistance, the administration of medication, nutritional care, using de-escalation techniques to manage agitation, providing companionship, and maintaining 'warmth and patience' even in challenging moments, to name just a few. 'It is complex, skilled, and physically and emotionally demanding work that requires ongoing training, professional resilience and unwavering commitment to quality of life for some of New Zealand's most vulnerable citizens … 'If you listen to the jobs that they do, the skills that they have, you could immediately go out yourself and find a male-dominated sector that is required to have the same skills and that could not be employed at the price that we are currently paying our carers – but we cannot do it if the Government washes its hands of its responsibilities.' Former Governor-General and High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright provided a legal view of the Government's changes, noting the retrospective nature of shutting down claims already underway went against principles of good law-making and could damage New Zealand's international reputation. Cartwright predicted 'significant amounts of litigation' related to the new law, while noting a number of appeal rights had been narrowed by the changes. 'I think that the courts, if they can get a case before them after getting through all the very many barriers, will do their best to make things fairer, but it's going to be very difficult.' Tony McCombs, the great-grandson of New Zealand's first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs. Photo: Sam Sachdeva Somewhat ironically, the loudest applause of the day went to one of the few men in the audience. Tony McCombs, the great-grandson of New Zealand's first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs, offered a scathing criticism of the Government as he reflected on his ancestor's legacy. 'In her maiden speech way back in 1933 she said, 'I wish to work for the women and children of this country, and I hope to see the day when women will receive equal pay for equal work' … 'If Elizabeth McCombs were here, she would rise with righteous rage and ask, 'How dare you? How dare you erase progress with the stroke of a pen? How dare you undo a century of struggle in a single vote? How dare you silence the voices of working women and call it reform?'' McCombs said he wanted his own daughter (also named Elizabeth, and working as an early childhood teacher) and granddaughters to live in a country where they were treated fairly and equally, 'not fighting the same battles over and over again'. 'These changes are not about fairness. They are not about sustainability. They are about saving money at the expense of those already underpaid, turning women's wages into a political piggy bank.' With the committee's hearings continuing until October, and over 1500 submissions received, such expressions of anger will hardly be unique – but will they change anything? Asked about the hearings on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon indicated he had no regrets about the Government's decision, and no intention of reversing the changes. 'Look, I mean, I think we have canvassed this area at the time when we first talked about it, which is that we fundamentally feel the system got too broad, too loose, and, frankly, unworkable.' Asked by Newsroom what she hoped would come of the committee's work, Mahuta was non-committal. 'I think the Government's already reflecting on a process that has fallen short of keeping faith with women in the workforce – women who are doing very, very valuable work as teachers, as carers under some of the hardest conditions. 'So if they're not already reflecting on the process and what they might do, we're certainly listening to the people.' Barring a change of government at next year's election – and a change in law following it – providing the public with a sense of comfort in being heard may be all the group can hope for.
