Brian Rudman: Grannies need to lighten up

COMMENT

Why don't the Ma Grundys on the Auckland City Council just lighten up a little. In recent weeks, if they were not fussing about the evils of hip hop dancing, they were angsting over the placement of brothels.

Their agonising on the latter issue reminds me of the days when school girls were forbidden to wear patent leather shoes for fear that boys might see their bloomers reflected in the shiny surface.

In the case of our present-day city fathers and mothers, they've come up with "an anti-reflection circle" radiating out 250m around certain institutions within which brothels are forbidden.

To be protected by these magic circles are kindergartens and churches in suburbia but not the central city, schools everywhere, and, I promise I'm not making this up, major public transport interchanges.

The latter are carefully defined as meaning "an airport, a railway station, a ferry terminal, or the Otahuhu Bus Interchange".

Just why the commuters of Otahuhu are singled out compared with, say, the commuters of Herne Bay or St Heliers, I don't know. Maybe they're weaker of will than the rest of us.

You might also ask why patrons who take public transport, will be forced, by these proposed regulations, to walk the last 250m or more to get to their sin. Punishment for their naughtiness perhaps, or just another aspect of the present council's pro-car policy?

A couple of weeks ago I wondered whether the White House brothel in Queen St on the edge of Myers Park would fall victim to the 250m rule because of the proximity of Kadimah College, across the gully in Greys Avenue. Since then the council bureaucrats have been on their hands and knees with the city's ruler and are claiming the White House falls just within Kadimah's 250m cordon sanitaire.

You have to wonder at the arbitrariness of the rule. Where did the exact figure come from? Is it the greatest distance, plus a metre, that a squeal of delight travels according to Local Government New Zealand manual 32, part 3a(ii)? Or perhaps a wink and a nod?

One assumes that if the radius was maybe 225m, the White House would be in the clear. So why not adjust the rules accordingly? It's not as though a metre or two is going to make a difference to the moral hygiene of the Kadimah pupils. From their side of the park, all they can see is the rear of the White House, one of a line of non-descript commercial buildings.

Making this even sillier is the fact that the college has signalled its intention to move out of the area in the next year or two, not because of any dislike of its neighbours.

From the documentation provided to councillors, it appears the origins of the 250m rule lie in a 1996 study into the social impact of the sex industry in Auckland.

Among the key complaints about the sex industry uncovered in the study was "the location of massage parlours near schools and residential areas" and "a perception that the safety of the general public is at risk in areas where commercial sex premises and brothels operate".

I find a mere "perception" among those complaining that they might be "at risk" near a brothel, hardly a very scientific guideline on which to base the new regulations. The police must have figures measuring the risks of walking near a brothel. Where are they?

It could be that the perceived fear was of the complainant's own fraility, that Mr and/or Mrs Grundy might succumb to the temptation.

Meantime, while the full council was tying itself in knots over brothels, the ludicrous law and order committee was living up to its zany reputation by going along with a scary report on "hip-hop culture" which declared it "has a sinister side - most commonly expressed as graffiti vandalism".

Rob Shields, the graffiti prevention officer, therefore suggested "that all funding associated with the hip-hop culture be linked to a requirement for the applicants to denounce graffiti vandalism in writing". On a bus shelter in spray paint perhaps?

Endorsed by the committee, this bizarre requirement has now become council policy, resulting in the withdrawal of a funding request from organisers of the 2003 Aotearoa Hip Hop Summit, a two-day event at council-owned The Edge, starting on October 10. The organisers rightly rejected the pledge demand as absurd and insulting and refused to sign.

Last year 11,000 turned up for the popular event, which showcases international and local hip-hop artists. Not a wayward tag was left behind in the vicinity.

This year they'll be conferencing and break-dancing and turntabling and painting away in the Aotea Centre, the Town Hall and out in the square and The Edge management is delighted to have them back.

Fortunately, while the Auckland City Council seems awash with lunacy, a ray of common sense has broken out in Manukau City. The council has rejected the proposed collar-and-tie dress code and voted for the innocuous, "it is expected that members will dress in a manner that does not bring discredit to council".

How easy is is to be sensible, when you try.