Josie McNaught: Debate? That's one way to put it

By Josie McNaught

NZ Herald·

18 Aug, 2014 05:00 PM4 mins to read

Details of the state house sculpture destined for Queens Wharf are thin on the ground. This image was leaked to the Herald.

Auckland Council is doing its best to avoid lawful discussion on the Queens Wharf state house sculpture.

Drip, drip, drip - it's the sound of the slow but inexorable dribble of information about the Michael Parekowhai artwork on Queens Wharf finally finding its way out of the council vault and into the public realm.

The public have been kept in the dark about almost every aspect of this project. Being fed morsels of unauthorised details via the media is not only inappropriate, it is contrary to the very statute that governs how Auckland Council is to conduct its relations with the long-suffering ratepayers in this city.

The Local Government Act 2002, section 82 (a) to (c) "Principles of consultation" refers to a local authority's requirement to provide ratepayers with "reasonable access to relevant information" and under subsection (b) "that persons who will or may be affected by, or have an interest in, the decision or matter should be encouraged by the local authority to present their views to the local authority".

How this marries up with the abject refusal of the council to engage with the public over the process around the selection of the artist and the existing and ongoing public funding of the artwork remains a mystery. Guests at the recent opening of the Walters Prize art exhibition were none the wiser when Mayor Len Brown mentioned the project in his speech.

Instead he proudly congratulated his council on the wonderful "debate and discussion" around the Parekowhai sculpture which he said was all part of building the world's most liveable city.

So, while Mr Brown may not be fully familiar with the ins and outs of the Local Government Act, he should be aware that a debate is an argument about a particular subject, especially one in which many people are involved. It's also a two-way process. Unfortunately he seems to regard the one-way traffic of letters to the editor of this paper, calls to talkback radio and opinion columns by those cut off from the decision-making process, as qualifying for debate or consultation.

In its place rumours fly around the city about the rising costs, with a figure of $2 million recently mentioned in art circles.

All this as the council and Waterfront Auckland refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion about the project, let alone release any quality information around which a true debate could take place.

Instead a glossy and expensive Public Art Policy has been produced, which studiously avoids any mention of the Parekowhai piece.

On page 11, the document promises that the council will "ensure openness and transparency in the way decisions are made about public art". They also promise "dynamism and diversity", with no clear plan on how it is to be delivered.

The only concrete figures mentioned (apart from those appearing in Francis Upritchard's work Loafers in Symonds St), are a vague reference to funding public art from general rates working towards 1 per cent of capital expenditure developed incrementally over the 10-year lifetime of the policy. Does this mean that a 50 per cent cut in capital expenditure, for example, on the City Rail Link, will result in a similar cut in arts funding?

In July the public was invited to "help shape Auckland's arts and culture" by commenting on the draft arts and culture strategic action plan. Yet in the middle of the consultation period the Public Art Policy fell with a giant cliche-ridden thump into my letterbox, making a mockery of the feeble attempt at engagement.

I accept that curatorial decisions about public art should be made by experts. However, ratepayers are perfectly entitled to ask questions about the process of selecting and funding the Parekowhai project and the council is legally bound to answer those questions.

Queens Wharf's owners, Waterfront Auckland, proposed removing the Cloud and replacing it with a saltwater swimming pool, so I wonder where the mandate for this project came from - not to mention money to look after the sculpture?

The conservative rule of thumb for undertaking major maintenance of outdoor public artworks is 10 years. Yet this piece is being sited in a very harsh environment and could require a level of maintenance outside this measure. How will it be funded?

Perhaps Mr Brown is intending to charge ratepayers for the privilege of seeing art they have already paid for?

Josie McNaught is a freelance arts journalist and studying law at AUT.