OPINION: Welcome to Irkland

LOG ON. Go to Google toolbar. What to search for? Um, "parliament nz'', that should do it. Hmmm ... maybe not. How about "nz government departments''? Aha! The A-Z of Government Agencies.
Accident Compensation Corporation, Centre for Critical Infrastructure Protection, Organised and Financial Crime Agency (good idea. We don't want disorganised crime, financial or otherwise, in New Zealand, do we?). Lordy me, got right down to the Youth Court, and that's the end of the list. Must've missed it.
Wouldn't you have sworn there must be a Government department in Wellington, bearing all the pomp and coats-of-arms that the Crown can muster, that has the statutory responsibility to apply the maximum amount of annoyance to Aucklanders? They could call it the "Auckland Irritation Agency''.
This is not another rant about the single city, the castration of democracy, or the abdication of responsibility and accountability by the Minister Against Local Government.
Nor are we banging on about - though we reserve the right to revisit the subject during the next few weeks and months - the Building Minister hanging up the phone when our mayors wanted a wee chat on behalf of several thousand leaky-home owners.
This time it's Queens Wharf. And the Rugby World Cup. Yes, again.
You will not take too much reminding that the last Minister for Rucks, Trevor Mallard, told
Aucklanders they could have a thumping great footie paddock on their front doorstep or nothing.
Auckland chose nothing: the long-term vision of tarting up a decaying stadium in the middle of a prime residential area with limited parking, otherwise known as rebuilding Eden Park.
Given that Mr Mallard ducked out of better options - the regionally owned Mt Smart, with
rail access from Britomart and the airport, to name one - anything was a slightly better
decision than putting a stadium smack-bang at the end of Queen St. If we want to block our view of our harbour, we'll stack shipping containers seven-high on a wharf ... oh, that's right ...
Then, assorted slightly interested authorities "bought'' Queens Wharf for $40 million and "gave'' it to Aucklanders to develop as a public open space, or some such urban design planner's phrase.
And if the thought crosses your mind that the trade-off will be consent for Ports of Auckland to dump a Domain-full of dirt into the harbour, right next to Queens Wharf, to build an even more gargantuan container port on our front doorstep ... why, hush yo' mouth.
So we had an urban design planning contest to come up with a scheme to build an iconic cruise-ship terminal that could double as a floating bar for footie fans, all to be done in time for the Rugger World Cup.
It was a flawed idea from the kick-off, so regional council chair Mike Lee and Auckland City Mayor John Banks were probably right to toss the blueprints into the harbour, though it would have been nice for us to have a decent look at what had been floated.
So the plan became: bung up a few temporary grandstands, plug in some big TV screens, some troughs for eating, drinking and dancing during the Cup, Bob's your uncle, all for the price of a ferry ticket to Waiheke. After the Cup, Auckland could turn its attention to a long-term vision for the precious little of our waterfront that we're ever likely to be able to use.
And that, Aucklanders thought, was where the matter lay, probably until the new Mayor and council are sworn in later this year. Silly us: we forgot the work of the Auckland Irritation Agency.
Turns out that Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully, Rugby World Cup Deputy Minister (surely this is a joke? - Ed) Gerry Brownlee and their officials are determined to see a beefed-up version of the contest-winning design. The one that Aucklanders never saw. Officially. Because there wasn't a contest winner. Officially.
Mark Ford, head of the Auckland Transition Agency (not to be confused with the Auckland Irritation Agency), has been given the job of salvaging the project, according to the NZ Herald.
The issue was discussed four days before Christmas at an extraordinary, closed-door meeting of Auckland Regional Council attended by only seven of the 13 regional councillors. We hope this is not an indication of how the Ford-designed Auckland Council will go about its public works.
The few councillors invited or available saw a "tarted-up'' version of the design which could cost $100 million, rather than the earlier $47 million, and Mr McCully ain't saying who's gonna pay the bill.
What do our present leaders think? Mr Lee says the regional council is determined to proceed with a cruise ship terminal for Queens Wharf, ideally in time for the World Cup, if the design is good enough.
Mr Banks says he won't be told by Wellington what could be built at the bottom of Queen St. "There is some enthusiasm for a quick fix and a cheap build, but that is not the expectation of citizens across Greater Auckland. People want something great for the bottom of Queen St and they are prepared to wait until we put in place a comprehensive master plan for the entire waterfront.''
Heart of the City chief executive Alex Swney echoes: "When are we going to stop and take a longer-term view on the way we develop our city? We need a plan that sees ports rationalisation, the freeing-up of Bledisloe Wharf - a far superior site for a cruise ship terminal - and a plan that integrates the Tank Farm to the west with Queens, Captain Cook and Bledisloe wharves.''
So does Labour's Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford: "We are only 10 months away from a newly-elected mayor and council for Auckland. It seems appropriate to wait to determine the future of the waterfront and cruise ship terminal until this occurs and decisions can be made in a democratic and accountable way.''
The Herald reports Mr Ford could approve the Government taking out a $100 million loan in the name of the new Auckland Council and dump the cost on Auckland ratepayers. That would be Mr Ford, the unelected and presumably about-to-depart czar of Auckland.
Anyone care to think how that will play with the good ratepayers and voters in Grey Lynn, Glen Eden, Bucklands Beach and Murrays Bay (to name just four National-held seats)? We won't even try to read the minds of people who vote in Epsom.
There's another puzzling aspect to this debate: the timing. Why are we talking about this now? Because there are only 18 months to the World Cup? Or because it diverts attention from Mr McCully's foray into diplomacy on behalf of the Japanese sushi industry? Good to give the cartoonists and editorial writers something else to think about, eh, Muzza?
Tsk, tsk, perish the thought. No, it's all the work of the good, honest, hard-working bureaucrats at the Auckland Irritation Authority down in Wellington, finding another way to stick pins into the voodoo doll north of the Mumbais. This Aucklander is absolutely positive it exists. Maybe it's hiding behind one of those deliberately bland names. How about "Crown Entity Subsidiaries''?
- Ewan McDonald is the editor of The Aucklander
UPDATE 14/1/10:
At his first press conference of the New Year, Prime Minister John Key backed away from Mr McCully's scheme. Mr Key said if a new design was too rushed and compromised long-term objectives for the waterfront, the Government would have no qualms about erecting a good, short-term development for the Rugby World Cup. Mr Key said a short-term development could cost $15-$20 million.
Meanwhile Cooper and Company, developer of the Britomart precinct, has released a proposal for the waterfront which takes a broader approach than just redeveloping Queens Wharf. The uncosted plan involves making use of land behind the red fence to create an 800m-long, 35m-wide promenade from the Viaduct Harbour to Bledisloe Wharf. The promenade would be lined with trees and hedges and include seating and lighting. Quay St's existing four lanes of road, 20m wide, would stay.
Source: NZ Herald