Probably pretty early to make a judgment about this document.
Lots of times, states have statutes with a sub-number like this; repeal it; later adopt something else with the earlier number. In order to determine what the merits of this argument are, you need to look carefully at the state legislative history documents for the statute.
See what the statute said in 1961.
Note also that the statute reference is not part of the printed form. It isn't typed on the same line as the remainder of the filing note.
Note also that the first number 1 typed on line 33 has a broken right foot; the number 1 on line 33 in the statute citation is not broken which suggests that the statutory reference was typed later.
Another possible explanation for this situation is that the file was pulled at some later date; Hawaii Department of Public Health was looking for some legal authority on which to issue a COLB so they took this and added the statutory citation so they could announce that they had a legal basis for issue of a COLB.
The other issues that have been raised about this document appear to have been resolved.
"Ping" to InspectorSmith and Seizethecarp
Ha! Those nutty birthers are going to crack this case yet! The truth will prevail. He thinks people stopped digging because he put out that fraudulent piece of paper and happened to be sitting in the WH when the SEALS took out OBL. He thinks it’s all going to go away. He put out the long form BC himself. If it’s proven to be fake, there’s no way out.