Brian Rudman: Trust must stand up to fight the bug

Murray McCully. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Having failed to save the whales in Morocco, Foreign Minister Murray McCully now seems to be trying to redeem himself by protecting the "giant slug" the Government plans to build on Queens Wharf for the Rugby World Cup.

The slug-like $9.6 million temporary "party central" structure was announced by Mr McCully, wearing his Rugby Wold Cup ministerial hat, in late April, and has struggled to gain any local support.

Not only did it look cheap and unworthy of its premiere waterfront position when plans were unveiled, there was also widespread opposition to the irrationality of knocking over two historic cargo sheds to make way for this temporary edifice.

As joint midwife in this proposal, the Auckland Regional Council came in for considerable criticism, and by early May was busy behind the scenes trying to squash the ugly bug.

But Mr McCully is refusing to let it off the hook, insisting that the "slug" live.

The Regional Council had an escape clause. Its resolution of support had been conditional on consultation with the Historic Places Trust.

The trust and the ARC, which has a statutory role to protect Auckland heritage, came under intense public pressure not to destroy the sheds once the plans were announced, and soon came to their collective senses.

In confidential discussions they drew up a solution that converts Shed Ten, the larger of the two, into a venue which could be used not only as "party central" but also for an additional cruise ship terminal.

The overwhelming desire for better cruise ship facilities on the cheap was what got the ARC into this Faustian pact with the Government in the first place.

The ARC broke its "plan B" proposal to Mr McCully just a week or two after he and ARC chairman, Mike Lee, jointly unveiled the slug.

It told the minister that on second thoughts, the Auckland waterfront already had enough toxic slugs to be going on with and didn't want another one.

Mr McCully was not pleased. That was seven weeks ago and there's been an impasse ever since.

Mr McCully is arguing he has public backing for his plan, quoting, I am told, in one letter to the ARC, that the public are in favour of his proposal.

The only public poll I can find along these lines is the Herald-Digipoll survey in May 2010, but this made no reference to demolishing the sheds.

It just asked "do you support or oppose Government plans for a temporary Rugby World Cup 'party central' on Queens Wharf?"

A total of 53.2 per cent came out in support and just 37.7 per cent were against.

That is hardly surprising. If you're building something for a short, one-off event, why would you build permanent?

This result is not an endorsement for knocking down the sheds.

Following the April announcement, I called the Historic Places Trust "lily-livered" for not rushing to the sheds' defence.

Documents subsequently released under the Official Information Act, suggest the trust has spent more time since then, trying to prove I was wrong, than it has on speaking out on behalf of the sheds.

The word from inside the ARC and the trust is that Mr McCully has put pressure on the trust to remain docile. Whether true or not should not matter.

The trust has a statutory responsibility to stand up for our heritage, regardless of where the pressure comes from.

And given the Government's reform plans for the organisation, what has it got to lose?

Arts and Heritage Minister Chris Finlayson has already announced plans to emasculate the trust by cutting its 23,000 local members off from the main body, and dumping the remaining minority of elected trustees, in favour of a totally government appointed board. So why not put up a fight while you can?

The key thing the trust could do to strengthen the battle for at least a resource consent hearing to discuss the shed's fate, is to proceed with the registration of the site as a place of heritage value.

An application for registration was being considered when Mr McCully announced the "slug" project.

Instead of proceeding with the registration process, Wellington-based chief executive Bruce Chapman tossed in the towel, saying the trust was "disappointed".

Registration on its own is not going to save a building.

But it would indicate the Historic Places Trust cared and wasn't a pushover when politicians blew hard.