Dialogue: That yacht race: should we have let it just sail on by?

Effective mayoralty includes taking measured risks, such as hosting the Volvo round-the-world yacht race, writes Auckland Mayor CHRISTINE FLETCHER.

I am aware that Brian Rudman has been endeavouring to bait me as mayor in his Herald columns. It is a common sport among the media and politicians.

Generally, the nonsense factor is best ignored and I have not responded on previous occasions, even where the story was factually incorrect.

So when in a recent column there were references to my travelling to places I had never been to in all my 46 years, I maintained a wry smile and thought at least it referred to our city and kept the transport debate alive.

But when one's integrity is attacked, nonsense should not be ignored. Rudman's column on the Volvo round-the-world yacht race is a case in point.

He chose to link two entirely different council and decision-making processes. One was the car replacement procedure, the other the city's planning and funding for hosting the Volvo (previously Whitbread) race.

There are standard practices for council car replacement. When I became mayor in 1998, the mayoral stable contained a Daimler kept for infrequent ceremonial occasions, a 1996 Ford limousine for city-wide functions, including transporting dignitaries and for use only by the city's designated official driver, and a 1996 four-litre Ford Fairmont Ghia for the mayor when driving him (or her) self.

The council's finance and property committee adopted my recommendation for the sale of the Daimler in April 1999. About 12 months later, the other two vehicles came up for replacement on the regular schedule and we took delivery of the two new leased vehicles last month. Obviously this transaction was within council guidelines and subject to normal audit provisions.

I am pleased with the new vehicles. They are safe, clean and efficient. The self-drive, being two rather than four-litre, uses much less fuel than the previous car.

The second and separate issue is the Volvo race stopover, which in a delegated and accountability context comes under the arm of the city attractions committee and, then, the full council.

Volvo Event Management is a separately run division of the company that owns Ford and Volvo and, for that matter, Jaguar and many other companies besides.

Volvo picked up the sponsorship for the premier sailing race, which Auckland has hosted for several stopovers but had lost the right to host.

More than $80 million has been invested in the redevelopment of our waterfront. The economic value to our city of events such as the America's Cup and the Volvo far outweighs this. To allow those facilities to remain underutilised is unacceptable. There must be a major event each summer at the Viaduct Harbour.

So rather than letting the Volvo race stopover sail on by Auckland, I did all I could to mount a professional bid to retain it.

We got the chance to stay on the map and the council supported the bid, agreeing to put up $1.5 million, with $1 million to come from sponsorship and revenue.

We made a decision, to do something to benefit the city. What was the option? To do nothing, to miss the opportunity to have 500,000 people visit the Viaduct Harbour, to miss the generation of more than $16 million.

Would Rudman approve if we played safe, sat back and did nothing, missing out on jobs, spending, promotion for our marine industry, city and country?

I would rather be a taker of calculated risks, someone who sticks her head up above the crowd and works to achieve something for Auckland than someone who sits back and does nothing because perhaps it won't succeed, perhaps it might make waves or be criticised.

If there is any criticism, it should be for the city's failure to gain sponsorship and for the need for the city to underwrite its budget.

A mayor should be accountable for everything done by the council and I am fully prepared to accept that accountability for myself. But there will always be those who are comfortable only with the status quo and those who make a career out of knocking any courageous decision made by the council.

The saddest truth of all is that political considerations - real or invented - can overshadow the positive moves and belittle people's brave efforts.

It comes back to vision, and I am clear about the sort of events which give us the best leverage, make the most of our best assets to promote our city, our harbour.

Why should people come right across the world to Auckland for this event? Because we have the most beautiful harbour and the best facilities, because we work hard to achieve a reputation as a world-leading small city and the premier sailing and boatbuilding harbour in the world.

So who are we? What is it about us that will attract and maintain international competitiveness, bring employment and prosperity for all our people?

We are New Zealanders living in the country's largest city with a population drawn from 160 different nationalities. We must use to fullest advantage our people and their talents, as well as our natural and beautiful location and advantages.

We are a small nation at the bottom of the Pacific. We can choose to be competitive and enjoy a high quality of life that is not simply the cheapest but also the best.

If we allow ourselves to become isolated, there's the risk that we will alienate our young people, our brightest and most creative.

With this vision for Auckland, I see good reason to be courageous. I don't mind being counted among the risk-takers. At this moment, I wish also for courage under media fire.