Brian Rudman: Protect Mt Eden? What a cunning plan

I've no idea what triggered off the screamer in Edvard Munch's famous painting, but let me guess: his local city council had announced another round of public consultation on a matter close to his heart.

Auckland City Council's announcement of a review of the Maungawhau-Mt Eden management plan should, in theory, fill me with joy.

"Aucklanders will have the chance," trumpets the press release, "to voice their views on how one of the city's most noted landmarks ... can be preserved for future generations."

Trouble is, I'm suffering from a severe dose of consultation fatigue.

The council, we're told, is keen to know "how Aucklanders would like Maungawhau-Mt Eden to be cared for in the future."

Well, that's nice. But why? So the bureaucrats can write it down in big leather-bound folders and compare it with an identical report from 1986, and one to be prepared in another 20 years? Yes, 20 years ago the city went through exactly the same process, producing a management plan that has largely been ignored.

Ignored, but not forgotten. In this week's release, the guilty bureaucrats come up with an excuse for the lack of action on the 1986 report.

"The short answer is because of budget constraints. The cost of managing the mountain has escalated since 1986 - largely due to the work required to repair damage caused by increased visitor numbers."

This sort of reasoning would have had Kafka screaming right alongside Munch's chap.

The 1986 plan called for, among other things, a dedicated ranger and a visitor information centre. This week's explanation is "the council has not been able to allocate funds due to other priorities".

The plan also called for a ban on vehicles in excess of six tonnes. Two decades on, this requirement also continues to be ignored.

The bureaucrats' defence? "While this may have been realistic in 1986, tour coaches today are bigger and heavier."

Talk about weird reasoning. The proposed ban was to prevent exactly what is now happening - bigger and heavier vehicles destroying the roadway and surrounding geological structures.

So will it all be different this time round? Well, at least the council is refreshingly honest. In a Q&A document accompanying the press release, the bureaucrats ask, "Will all parts of the revised management plan be implemented?"

Their answer: "The city will be working hard to implement all parts of the plan within the budget available." In other words, not likely!

No wonder I'm feeling cynical. Of course, the indefatigable campaigners for preserving Maungawhau and the other cones are made of sterner stuff and will be lining up to fight for the mountains yet again.

With a bit of luck, they might even get the message through that what's needed is not just another feel-good management plan to put up on a shelf and forget, but a true revolution in the council's approach to these unique heritage sites.

It never ceases to amaze me that the council treats Maungawhau as just another park. At the very least you'd think it would have a ranger of its own. Where are the archaeological, geological and cultural experts for this and the other cones?

This is, after all, as the press statement emphasises, "one of Auckland's most treasured volcanic cones", which "more than 1.2 million people and 270,000 vehicles visit" annually. It is also "protected by the Reserves and Historic Places Act and the isthmus district plan."

The council has a strange way of looking after its "most-treasured" and "protected" sites.

Even if we put aside our purely custodial obligations to protect these sites for future generations, you'd think, as a visitor destination, we'd be doing more to develop and promote their tourist potential. Recreate some Maori palisades. Charge tourist parties a fee.

* Last week, I wrote about having Auckland's volcanic cone field added to the Department of Conservation's list of possible world heritage sites. Auckland Regional Council chairman Mike Lee says the ARC would back this campaign. Auckland City Council should join in. If we are to embrace our heritage, and exploit it in the best possible way, what better peg than the fight for world heritage status?