Opinion
The very term "sister cities" has a 1980s sound to it. It evokes the goodwill and friendship festivals of a Cold War world, the era before globalisation in which such relationships might have opened bridges to cultural and economic ties.
And so it was that Auckland and Manukau
and many other local authorities began collecting municipal siblings.
Many would have been surprised this week to learn that not only is Auckland City still investing in such intangible associations but is expanding its repertoire to include a "strategic alliance" with Hamburg, Germany's second city.
That Mayor Dick Hubbard objects to one of his councillors having likened the Hamburg tie to a sister city relationship perhaps underscores the faded, jaded appeal of that programme.
Mr Hubbard insists that a half billion dollar benefit should result from his negotiations during a council-funded trip to Hamburg and later here with German officials. He believes the relationship is one of his finest achievements. If the $500 million materialises, he may well be right, although it is difficult to know precisely what trade will be a result of his efforts and it may be years before such gains.
Which comes back to the broader point of feel-good sister city relationships. For example, a founder of the Auckland-Fukuoka link believes in the education and cultural benefits but questions the bureaucratic muscling-in on community-to-community benefits.
It was telling that the city council's sister city costs totalled $270,000 in a year, before adding mayor and councillor travel - and the fact that this local body has, would you believe, an "international affairs" officer.
Ratepayers with more domestic concerns might ask why either cost is carried on their tab. Councils never tire of talking about their long list of vital spending projects.
Too little is heard of their cutting non-essential costs.
