At first glance, a rescue helicopter trust and a maritime museum would seem to be strange bedfellows. However in Auckland, the NZ National Maritime Museum, The Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust and nine other organisations ( see box at right ) have banded together in an informal grouping to promote a Private Bill in Parliament. The Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill seeks to assure a sustainable level of financial security for the organisations by providing a better structure for local authority contributions to their funding. The Bill proposes a funding mechanism similar to that by which Auckland War Memorial Museum and MOTAT are funded. 

FAIR SHARES?

The NZ National Maritime Museum (NZNMM) is, unusually for any national museum, operated by a private trust independent of national or local government. Auckland City Council is the museum’s principal sponsor, contributing about 30% of the annual operating budget under an agreement reached a few years ago. The other territorial local authorities in the Auckland region contribute less than 0.5% combined. The highest contributor from this group, North Shore City, contributes less than 1.5% of that contributed by Auckland City and two of the councils, Franklin District and Waitakere City, have steadfastly re-fused any contribution despite repeated presentations by museum officers to the Annual Plan process. The situation varies between the amenities but Auckland City is by far the largest contributor to the amenities’ funding.

In the case of Franklin District, distance lends a measure of credibility to the stance, yet NZNMM CEO, CraigHobbs, points out that visitors to the museum from each ofthe other local authorities equate almost exactly to the demo graphic spread of the region, allowing onlya slight weight-ing for distance from the museum. North Shore residents – 16% of the region’s population - for example, comprise about 15% of the museum’s Auckland region visitors and those from Waitakere - 14% - a similar percentage.

The museum runs an active schools education programme and here too, participants are drawn from the region in general accord with the region’s population spread. The museum holds an LEOTC contractbutthis meets less than 50% of the cost of running the program-mes, which are thus subsidised indirectly from the councils’ grants.

MUTUAL CONCERNS, COMMON APPROACH

The situation is not dissimilar in respect of the other amenities, which suggests “regardless of where these organisations are physically located, their immense popularity reaches across the entire Aucklandregion.”  The group back this statement up with figures from research conducted over the past 12 years across the Auckland region by Phoenix Research. In 2005, 55% of the respondents indicated that the NZNMM benefits most Aucklanders, 37% Aucklanders with special interest and only 5% indicated that the museum benefited those who lived nearby ( see table 1 ).

Table 1. Perceived benefits of facilities in the Auckland regional - 2005. Source: www.together.org.nz

The initial group of 13, drawn from the market research, was reduced to the current 11 after a rigorous assess-ment by an independent group of notable Aucklanders. The Edge Convention Centre in Auckland City andan aquatic centre in Waitakere did not meet the stric assess-ment criteria and were dropped from the final list of amenities.

The Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 19 September 2007 and was unanimously referred tothe select committee stage. Submissions closed on 5Novem-ber and at the time of writing are before the Committee.

One submitter summed up the situation thus: “Our family has attended performances or events staged by or through the Auckland Festival, Auckland Philharmonia, Auckland Planetarium (Stardome) and NZ Opera. At these performances and events we frequently meet friends from the North Shore and other local authority areas. Fortunately we have not required the services of the rescue services, but we have seen the Westpac helicopter operating in our area, observed the lifesavers at North Shore beaches and are aware of the Coastguard presence in our waters. It seems only proper and fair that the citizens of the Region should contribute to the funding of these amenities.”

Craig Hobbs, the Museum’s CEO, notes that the NZNMM, along with the other amenities, has reached its maximum earning potential and that the Museum has returned a deficit almost every year for the past 10 years, surviving only by not funding depreciation. vvcHe sees the Bill as being the most viable means by which the museum can move to a position of sustainable funding.

WORKING TOGETHER

The eleven organisations, with support from Auckland City Council, have pooled resources to mount a pro-active campaign, bringing together a diverse range of community stakeholders. In addition to publishing and widely distributing information under the slogan “Together – creating a better future for Auckland”, they maintainan effective website. Supporters can get guidance on lob-bying tactics, market research data, details of the Bill and its progress and can feel part of a regional cause. The Bill may have its final reading in the House by June 2008. This alliance was forged for a single strategic purpose, but whatever the outcome of the campaign, all parties will have benefited from a greater understanding of each other’s missions and concerns, as well as insights into the priorities of the communities that they serve.

Te Ara - Journal of Museums Aotearoa ; Volume 32; Issue 1 & 2; December 2007