Brian Rudman: Gagging orders and secret meetings no way to treat public

Why is it, in an intimate, easy-going democracy like ours, that bureaucrats crave the secret decision-making processes of a closed society?

No sooner had the Herald revealed details of the secret machinations surrounding plans for the redevelopment of the Tank Farm last Saturday, than Auckland Regional councillors were being asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.

It's one of those cross-your-hearts-and-hope-to-die pledges "without limit in time" never to reveal what's going on regarding "possible changes to ownership and governance of Auckland Regional Holdings waterfront investments ... "

Chief executive Peter Winder, in his June 19 memo to councillors, warns they will see, over the next month or so, information that "will be extremely commercially sensitive".

What he omits is they will also be discussing the fate of a priceless peninsula of publicly-owned, CBD harbourside land. Why shouldn't councillors be able to consult their electors before any decisions on this are made?

Meanwhile, uptown at the Auckland Town Hall, the city council continues to debate the fate of the historic Jean Batten building as though it was a deal to be stitched up between old mates in a private room of the Northern Club.

Next Wednesday is crunch time for Jean Batten. That's the day the special panel appointed to hear the resource consent application for the Multiplex-BNZ redevelopment plans meets.

The members - Wellington architect Ian Athfield, Deputy Mayor Bruce Hucker and councillors Christine Caughey and Scott Milne - have the choice of calling for public submissions, or nodding it through as complying with the district plan and leaving ratepayers voiceless.

Those campaigning to save Jean Batten, such as Allan Matson and the Art Deco Society, are pressing for public notification. But they're not alone. Heavy guns, namely ARC chairman Mike Lee and ARC parks and heritage chairwoman Sandra Coney, agree. Which is perhaps a tad ironic given the confidentiality agreement touted at Regional House.

On June 12, the two senior ARC politicians wrote to Mayor Dick Hubbard about the fate of the building seeking "urgent clarification and detail about what is to be retained, particularly with respect to interior elements of the building." They also sought assurance that the consent application for development of the site would be publicly notified.

As of yesterday afternoon, no reply had been forthcoming. Mr Lee says he's relieved the building won't end up "a pile of rubble" but is concerned that the interior will be "completely gutted." He wants public hearings so that "the heritage eager beavers can have their say. That's what local government's about, isn't it?"

Local government is also about following the rules, and here, too, questions are being raised.

In December 2004, Allan Matson requested the Jean Batten building be added to the council's schedule of heritage buildings. Council had three months to reject the request. Alternatively it had until November 17, 2005 to notify it. It did neither, although it did assess the building as worthy of a category B listing.

The justification for not following the rules was the informal, old boys' moratorium announced by the mayor and BNZ on March 10, 2005. On the shake of hands, BNZ agreed not to demolish the building or seek resource consent for a planned new office tower, and in return the city agreed to suspend the heritage protection process.

On May 9, 2006 BNZ signed a deal with the Historic Places Trust promising to protect certain key heritage features, and the following day, the mayor and BNZ declared a compromise had been reached which would save about a third of the Jean Batten building, which would be connected to a modern tower block. The moratorium was also lifted.

Since then Mr Matson has been asking why the scheduling process hasn't restarted. Mr Lee and Ms Coney repeated the query in their letter. From city hall comes only silence.

No doubt the bureaucrats are squirming about whether to stick to the rules and annoy the BNZ - scheduling might mean a delay of a year - or brazen it out and hope Mr Matson goes away quietly.

Scheduling is not going to stop the redevelopment. But it would offer the public - and the heritage campaigners - a first chance to express their views on this project.

It would also mean the bureaucrats were playing by their rules. Are either such a bad thing?