Let’s get it right

Sunday is a great day for visiting the best of the big city attractions. But next time you may be elbow to elbow with people who are well paid to be there — consultants.

This week we were told Regional Facilities Auckland, an Auckland Council body, has hired American consultants to review some of our more popular civic drawcards.

AEA Consulting has been contracted at an unspecified cost — but less than $150,000 — to look at the future of our cultural institutions. Interestingly, this comes not long after Auckland Council paid Australian consultants $178,000 for a similar exercise.

Both reviews cover the Auckland Art Gallery and New Zealand Maritime Museum, which the council review recommended being split from the regional facilities body. The Australian consultants, Stafford Strategy, highlighted a concern that the regional facilities agency is heavily focused on commercial matters and lacks heritage and culture strength on its board.

It is often a concern when consultants are summoned to run a ruler over something where much of its purpose for being is almost impossible to measure. In the case of our art galleries and museums, there may well be a method to assess the cultural, emotional or educational benefits of these places but we have yet to see it.

How much is it worth to have thoughts provoked by a confronting oil painting? How much is it worth to have a sense of awe evoked in revisiting adventurous sailing exploits?

It is, mayor Phil Goff says, essential to find an enduring solution to run and fund the city’s cultural institutions. Absolutely, and we must be able to provide facilities worthy of a worldclass city within our means.

There must come a time to call time on reviews, however, and time for city leaders to lead. Councillor John Watson reckons the councilcontrolled organisation has spent enough on reviews, which “stretch from here to Bluff”.

Consulting with consultants doesn’t always get it right anyway. Just ask our outraged Concert FM audience.