KEY POINTS:
The Government is usually so fixated on the need of local government to consult, that a cautious mayor must at times feel the need to sound out public reaction before embarking on a trip to the dunny. But then along came the new stadium for the Rugby World Cup, and suddenly all the normal consultative hoops have disappeared.
In fact where the stadium is concerned, it's been so topsy turvy that to even suggest the need to consult ratepayers about basic details like location and who pays has become as inappropriate as farting at a dinner party.
Just over a year ago, it was then Sports Minister Trevor Mallard's billion-dollar waterfront stadium fantasy that Auckland local politicians were expected to agree to in less than a month, with only the sketchiest of details as to cost, funding sources, design and siting. Now, another Sports Minister in place, and the heat is being turned up again. This time it's to try to persuade local councils to hand over $28.5 million to meet the projected shortfall for the latest Eden Park upgrade proposal.
One television report suggested the Government and the Eden Park redevelopment board had rushed this latest version to both television news shows on Monday night to steal the thunder from an alternative Mt Smart scenario that the Auckland Regional Council had been hatching. Not that the ARC project was exactly a secret exercise. Government and Eden Park redevelopment officials have been briefed on the exercise as it took place. As has Auckland City Mayor John Banks.
ARC officials had revisited the Mt Smart option following chairman Mike Lee's comments last month that the existing regionally owned Mt Smart facility could be redeveloped into a better legacy investment for the region than Eden Park, the latter being constrained by its suburban environment, and restricted footprint.
That Wellington is siding with the Eden Park lobbyists to drown out talk of an alternative is hardly surprising. Mr Mallard suffered a humiliating defeat this time last year when, thanks to the ARC, his waterfront steamroller ended upside down in the mud off the end of Bledisloe Wharf. He then reluctantly embraced his second-best option, Eden Park, punishing Auckland by offering a much reduced Government contribution. He and his adviser refused more than a perfunctory look at alternative venues at that stage. A year on, his replacement, Clayton Cosgrove, continues to keep this potential can of worms tightly shut. More's the pity.
I have no idea what stage the Mt Smart study has reached. Or what it concludes. But I do congratulate the ARC politicians for waiting for the study to be concluded before coming to any decision, refusing to be bullied by either Mr Cosgrove or Mr Banks - who is refusing to put a cent of his ratepayers' money into the project, but thinks nothing wrong with bullying the ARC into doing so.
As a ratepayer, perhaps the scariest aspect of the stadium debate is the one least discussed. The Trojan Horse clause, which bequeaths the new edifice, once completed, into public ownership. Auckland City Council already has a $10 million loan outstanding on earlier redevelopment work at Eden Park. The Eden Park Trust Board seems to be fizzing with anticipation at the thought of their baby ending up in public hands, which comes as little surprise. I imagine they've had many sleepness nights over the years trying to balance the books. I fear the one-off $28.5 million payment to cover the construction costs shortfall could be the start of a treadmill that has ratepayers permanently subsidising the annual running costs of the new place.
The new Eden Park would also be competing with Mt Smart stadium. Already, in anticipation of the green light, Eden Park marketers have flown to Australia to try to entice the Warriors league games from Mt Smart to the new Eden Park. The Australian league bosses turned them down, but there seems little doubt the Mt Smart arena will suffer from a rival new stadium across town. Why should the same ratepayers be expected to prop up two competing stadiums?
These are the sort of issues that could have been brought to light if a genuine airing of the issues had been allowed to take place. Until that occurs, I'm sticking with the line, no taxation without consultation.
