Brian Rudman: Government bullies pushing city a wharf too far

The Government-appointed gauleiter of Auckland, Mark Ford, will be earning every bit of his $540,000 (plus 10 per cent performance bonus) salary when he sits in judgment on the $124 million Queens Wharf development hatched by politicians this week.

On Monday, the Auckland Regional Council decided to join the Government and spend $20 million apiece to buy Queens Wharf. Yesterday, not to be outdone, the Auckland City Council followed up by voting in favour of an $84 million plan to convert the existing two wharf sheds into a world-class passenger terminal.

Councillors decided that of the four options presented to them, ranging from a $52.1 million bargain basement plan to a $144 million "iconic" conversion, their choice "best balances cost and amenity".

But the ARC and Auckland City will be going out of business in October next year, and neither can commit the incoming Super City to any debts exceeding $20,000 without the chairman of the Auckland Transitional Agency's blessing.

Adding to Chairman Ford's challenge is that Prime Minister John Key, who appointed him to, among other things, curb reckless spending by the outgoing councils, is now trying to bully the ARC and ACC into fast-tracking the wharf makeover.

I have no idea whether $84.3 million is the going price for an el cheapo cruise ship terminal or if $144 million is a good deal for an eye-popping iconic model. I'm yet to be convinced ratepayers should be footing the bill for either.

What does seem unconscionable is that this Government, like the last one, can breeze into town and try to bully Aucklanders into making overnight decisions on how best to turn this jewel of a site into a world-class waterfront attraction.

I'm no fan of procrastination. Indeed I support the streamlining of decision-making that the super city promises to deliver.

But just as the two-week ultimatum the last Government gave us to decide on a waterfront stadium was farcical, so is the even shorter time Auckland politicians have been given this time round.

The Government and the ARC have been involved in studies concluding that Auckland needs a new passenger terminal to cash in on what an ARC report calls the "spectacular renaissance of passenger cruise shipping".

Government researchers last year reckoned a Queens Wharf cruise terminal would generate an additional $713 million in direct spending for the New Zealand economy over the next decade. Of this, 65 per cent would stick in the Auckland region.

Last week, Mr Key declared he wants the wharf operating as "party central" for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Local politicians seem to have converted this wish - as wish it can only be - into some sort of command that the terminal has to be up and running by then.

To me, that's too many steps too far and too fast. Aucklanders have waited so long to liberate Queens Wharf that neither past nor future generations are going to thank us if, now it's in our grasp, all we do is stumble into some quick-fix, one-event-oriented compromise.

Above all else, we have to unlink the decision-making from the Rugby World Cup.

If the Prime Minister's wish for a cup "party central" can be incorporated into whatever grand plans Aucklanders decide on for this jewel of a site, then so much the better.

But surely we're not so stupid and lacking in vision as to do the reverse and limiting our plans to needs and desires of a rugby tournament or the private cruise ship industry.

You have only to look across the Tasman to Sydney to see what wonderful uses such a site can be put to. Already the Auckland Theatre Company has produced an imaginative proposal that combines a passenger terminal with a much-needed drama theatre.

ATC chairman, Kit Toogood, QC, quotes advisers as saying "a bloody good terminal and theatre complex could be built for $60 million". That's a new building from ground up. Compare that with the $84.3 million plan which involves tarting up the existing sheds for a terminal.

The theatre complex might not be the answer, though it certainly has more appeal than a stand-alone passenger terminal. But without going through an international search for ideas and designs, how will we ever know what marvellous options we're about to throw away?