Brian Rudman: Maritime marriage makes better sense than two museums

Talking about regional co-operation is cheap, but acting parochially is still so much more satisfying for many Auckland decision makers. Hot on the heels of plans for yet another sports stadium comes news of the Royal New Zealand Navy's desire to commandeer the Devonport ferry wharf buildings for the national Navy museum.

Excited North Shore City councillors, who in June paid out $2.9 million for the rundown facility and have ever since been scratching around for a way of making the purchase pay, have made the museum their "preferred option" for the wharf.

Not surprising, I guess, given the matelots are offering a $11 million upgrade of the above-deck buildings.

But wouldn't a more sensible solution be to bring the Navy's small "boutique" collection of medals and old uniforms and other memorabilia across the water to the National Maritime Museum at the Viaduct Harbour and give Auckland one significant maritime museum.

Such a marriage, I suspect, would increase the pulling power of both institutions, and provide a richer and more varied experience for visitors. It would also protect the wharf for its true focus, which is surely as a major terminal in the expanded harbour ferry network that North Shore councillors are so keen on.

A report to city councillors takes a rather starry-eyed view of the benefits of siting the museum on the wharf. The Navy would spend $11 million on "a major redevelopment" and be responsible for ongoing maintenance over the period of the 80-year lease at nominal rent. Council would maintain the below-deck infrastructure, offsetting costs with berthage and other ancillary income.

It predicts the museum would generate significantly more ferry rides from Auckland City, boosting the Devonport economy. "In 2003," the report says, "the average day visitor spend was $81. Another 100,000 visitors per year could potentially bring $8 million per annum revenue to North Shore's economy ... This museum would join the Auckland War Memorial Museum, Motat, Kelly Tarlton's as a visitor destination."

The size of the tourist spend sounds like wishful thinking, as does comparing the pulling power of the Navy's small collection, with that of Auckland Museum or Kelly Tarlton's. After all, currently, the National Maritime Museum, with its impressive title, receives around 80,000 visitors annually, 80 per cent of those, overseas tourists.

The maritime museum is one of those "regional" or "national" institutions that survive on the smell of an oily rag, and the generosity of Auckland City ratepayers, along with a few generous private sponsors. A healthy injection of naval rental income and curatorial support would be a major boost to the existing museum's well-being. Joining both threads of our maritime history on one site can only enhance the story telling, and the customer appeal.

Apparently the city museum made some brief overtures to their naval cousins some years back, but no interest was shown. But now the Navy wants to step out and "has undertaken to establish a heritage capability with a new museum as its flagship and primary public interface." This after 30 years in a "small-overcrowded facility with poor access" at the back of a carpark at the entrance to the Devonport naval base.

A few months back, the two museums jointly hosted the international congress of maritime museums, assembling a special exhibition, "Snapshots - Moments from New Zealand Maritime History." Since 2003, the Navy has assigned sailors each week to assist maritime museum staff on the maintenance of traditional vessels and other work, so obviously the two organisations get on all right.

But as far as living together is concerned, I'm reliably informed, neither side has made a move. Perhaps they're too shy, though whisper is, the city museum wouldn't be averse to being chatted up.

Hopefully, there's a matchmaker out there to bring them together. It's the sort of union we need in this divided city.

Meanwhile, getting back to stadiums, a month or so back I said a planned survey of Auckland sports stadiums led by Sport and Recreation New Zealand (Sparc) would be a waste of effort unless Sparc got a prior commitment from local politicians to follow its findings. Sparc is upset I named it as lead participant when the project is the baby of Auckland Regional Physical Activity and Sport Strategy, which is 50 per cent funded by Sparc. If Sparc would pass on my comments to its child, I'd be grateful.