Brian Rudman: Wharf or square - a chance to pick your party

Prime Minister John Key trotted out the old Wellington mantra about Auckland needing to unite to progress in a speech yesterday after declaring Queens Wharf would become "party central" for the duration of the Rugby World Cup. The downtown wharf would be "the magnet for fans who can't be at the games during the six-week tournament".

It's a shame he hadn't "united" with Auckland City beforehand, and shared his party plans. If he had, he would have discovered that just the day before, the city's arts, culture and recreation committee had decided it would host World Cup "party central" in newly renovated - at a cost of $26 million - Aotea Square. The committee even voted to boot Terry Stringer's Mountain Fountain sculpture out into the wilderness, so the square would be cleared of extraneous obstacles for the expected crowds.

In anticipation, they called for a report on buying a $1.5 million giant outdoor television screen to make the rugby "accessible to the broader public".

Officials proposed buying a screen rather than hiring one, because of an expectation of "a national shortage of screens at the time". A shortage that won't be helped by Mr Key cornering the hire market for his competing festivities at the other end of Queen St.

The lesson here, surely, is working together is not a one-way street.

Of course it's good that the Prime Minister has followed his predecessor and joined the cheer squad for turning the downtown port area into Auckland's fancy new gateway. The concern is, his and Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully's interests seem just as tunnel-visioned as were those of Mr McCully's predecessor, Trevor Mallard. It was the latter who, in a burst of World Cup madness, came up with the stadium-on-the-waterfront lunacy, and gave Aucklanders just two weeks to decide. Then when we did kick the concept way out of the park, central Government spat the dummy big time.

This time round, Mr Key seems to be pushing the more modest goal of an international cruise ship terminal. He is hoping Ports of Auckland will agree to sell the wharf, so that the terminal can be built - presumably by Auckland ratepayers - in time for 2011.

But there are no ultimatums a la Trevor Mallard. The difference in approach is no doubt related to the fact that Mr Mallard was dangling hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in Auckland's face, whereas Mr Key's best offer is said to be a miserly $20 million in seeding money.

What is similar though, is the awful ad hoc approach both Governments have taken to the transformation of the waterfront. Both Labour and now National are treating the fabled future gateway to Auckland development as little more than a bit player in the Rugby World Cup drama.

How different from the brave words just two months ago in Making Auckland Greater, the Government's response to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance report. Then the Government declared it would create a single Waterfront Development Agency "which will cover the waterfront and its connection to the central city". The agency would "have scope for central Government involvement" and was being set up "to address the fragmented approach to developing the waterfront and central city area".

The Government said "improving the attractiveness and functionality of the waterfront ... will benefit Aucklanders and their quality of life". I cheered the announcement. It promised an end to the ad hockery, and the stultifying conflicts of interest between Auckland City, the ARC and the port company. Yet yesterday's announcement is a return to the bad old days. The only focus is to rush through a visitor terminal to have a home base to the temporary hotel ships arriving for a few rugby games.

It's a long way from the spirit of the 2006 Auckland Plus report, signed up to by Government and local agencies alike, which calls for a "signature attraction" on Queens Wharf, as part of creating a world-class city and tourist destination.

A simple bog-ordinary visitors terminal is not a signature attraction. It needs to be combined with something spectacular. Something appealing to visitors and locals alike. Like, for example, the modern first-class drama theatre Auckland lacks.

I was hoping a Waterfront Development Agency might have the imagination to see the brilliance of this idea. I'm not so sure about Mr McCully.