Such a differential charging regime shows a meanness of spirit in a city and brasses visitors off. Even if Te Papa was the only one, then Aucklanders should remember that they have their hands out left right and centre for Government money expecting taxpayers elsewhere to help pay for running their cities.

But the lawyer in her pointed out that the “so-called” $5 admission fee is actually a donation, and as Auckland ratepayers we were already funding the museum so we should not feel obliged to make any further payment. So we just walked in past the cashier, past her icy stare.

Now from last week, to celebrate the museum’s 80th anniversary it “will not be asking for an admission contribution from the Auckland region’s residents”. (http://www.aucklandmuseum.com/1310/i-am-free-for-aucklanders)

But to qualify for this you have take along ID and also proof of residence (like a bill with your name and address on it). And while this is happening, the “suggested donation” requested from non-Aucklanders has been doubled to $10 each!

Is this sort of mickey-mouse revenue raising the brainchild of Dr Vitali?

What a complete nonsense it is. As we proved two weeks ago, admission is actually already free, but over summer you get to enjoy “guilt-free” no-cost admission (sans icy-stare) by taking ID and proof of residence along with you.

What a farce. To paraphrase the Clayton’s advert, “it’s the free admission you enjoy, when you already enjoy free admission”.

Was the revised ‘admission charge’ system to exempt Aucklanders from these ‘charges’ a sop to the mayors? Aucklanders do not have to pay to see Te Papa, parliament, etc it is unfair to expect those from Wellington to pay admission to auckland attractions when Aucklanders are exempt.

But Aucklanders support the Auckland Museum through rates and Te Papa through taxation so they’ve already contributed to both. Wellingtonians have contributed to Te Papa through taxes but provide no other support to the Auckland Museum except their admission fee.

I wonder who has been lobbying Auckland mayors to try and save her bacon, interesting that John Banks has not taken the bait.

IMO the Hilary incident alone would have been sufficient for the Board to question whether whether they had the necessary trust and confidence in her. A CEO doing the job properly would have never let it escalate to the point where the Prime Minister had to get involved.

I agree with DPF, is there no NZ talent for top jobs? IMO there are higher risks with appointing overseas people to jobs, because it is so easy for them to conceal shortcomings or unsuccessful performance in previous positions and it is pushing salary levels above what is needed for competent people. It is funny that a new CEO can readily change the top level management structure and quite easily replace top management, but a board has a far harder job to deal with an ‘out of step CEO.

Was the revised ‘admission charge’ system to exempt Aucklanders from these ‘charges’ a sop to the mayors? Aucklanders do not have to pay to see Te Papa, parliament, etc it is unfair to expect those from Wellington to pay admission to auckland attractions when Aucklanders are exempt.

She seems to now have a bunker mentality.I suspect Banks is right.