Infrastructure and transport. A new report into how New Zealand’s largest city can improve its economic performance says Auckland needs consistent infrastructure investment and to reduce its transport deficit if it wants to grow, and attract talent.
State of the City, the first of three benchmarking reports comparing Auckland to international peer cities, was released on Tuesday morning by the Committee for Auckland, Deloitte and Tātaki Auckland Unlimited (TAU).
The Committee for Auckland is an independent organisation that is “all about building connection, behaviour and initiatives to a better Auckland for All”.
The report found there needed to be a greater focus on the conditions for attracting businesses, investment and talent into Auckland’s “innovation economy”, and Auckland needed strong outreach and visibility in international markets to support its high-value industries.
The report compared Auckland against peer cities in Australia, Asia and the Middle East, Europe and North America including Brisbane, Copenhagen and Vancouver.
It found Auckland outperformed its peers when it came to lifestyle and “highly-regarded” natural environment, but needed to raise its game in infrastructure planning, attracting investment and talent to boost productivity and innovation, and addressing safety and housing affordability.
Committee for Auckland director Mark Thomas said among its peers Auckland had pressing knowledge, skills and innovation deficits.
“The region is not providing the skills needed to match the growing demands in technology-led sectors. Also, a range of innovation enablers need attention including access to incubators, university pipelines, seed and early state funding.”
He said Auckland played a significant role in Aotearoa New Zealand’s economic growth, international profile, and in responding to national challenges such as the impact of climate change.
“The report tells us Auckland needs to do more to be resilient, decarbonise at pace, adapt to new working patterns, address inequalities, and compete for talent, visitors and investment”.
Pam Ford, Tātaki Auckland Unlimited Director of Investment and Industry, said for Auckland to improve its global performance “we need to focus on the conditions for attracting more businesses, investment and talent into Auckland’s innovation economy”.
“There’s a need for supportive national policies and local economic development interventions to ensure Auckland doesn’t miss out on international talent, investment, trade, innovations, visitors, events, and the positive economic and social outcomes these bring – to our region and the country.”
She said Auckland had a strong foundation in high-value technology sectors such as foodtech, cleantech and aerospace.
"To support their momentum, the opportunity for Auckland is to focus on strong outreach, visibility and relationships in international markets, as well as efficient local infrastructure, planning, and setup costs.”
On August 1, the Government-appointed Startup Advisors Council released a report into improving support for startups.
The report, Upstart Nation, found New Zealand needed to double the number of start-ups and recommended tax breaks and increasing Government investment in venture funding by $500 million.
43 Comments
I don’t think this will broadly help productivity but I agree, office workers and even some school runners could be off the road at peak times if there was safe mass transit. Trunk metro just needs the commitment. It works. More roads just means more cars. Like drinking to beat a hangover.
I didn't say talented people can't "afford to live here" - they can for sure. It's about affording a quality of life they'd be able to achieve in other cities. I'd fall into the "talented people" category here, work in tech, highly qualified, immigrant. If it wasn't for my wife and her family ties here, we'd be off. I'd make a lot more money in the USA and live a life much more grand life.
Now NZ doesn't have to compete to the same level - just being in New Zealand has its own merits. That's what brought me here in the first place. But it is slipping. The current government has caused serious damage.
It seems that our expectations have fallen so far in Auckland. You're a tall poppy if you drive a new-ish car, can afford your mortgage and paying for the shopping isn't a problem.
There is no tall poppy syndrome except on the internet.. no one in the real world cares what car you drive.
There are always people that will move country to chase money, fair play to them. I suspect most people value other things more, once they have achieved a level of comfort where they don't need to worry about money.
I'm in the same boat except was raised here so do consider it home. Have lived overseas but starting a family and parents getting older brought us home.
I work for a US tech company and have people in California reporting into me who earn almost 100k NZD more than me and 2 levels down 45k more than me. It's market based pay and i still earn well by NZ standards (believe me i have tested the market here) but gives you an idea of how much better off financially you can be in US and how difficult it is to attract talent to NZ.
There's this underlying theme that oozes from previous generations, something about how young people (professionals or not) shouldn't feel entitled to enjoy a good quality of life, where small luxuries like Avocado on toast are taboo. They've "worked hard all their lives" to create an economy built on consumerism and housing, in which nobody under the age of 40 must participate.
personally I dont think this is true - if you work for something you can have it. Entitlement is more in tune with "I should have something just because everyone else does"
and avocado on toast is not a luxury - although they were not around when I was 40
The disappointment for me (as a previous generation) is that the structures that underpin a high quality lifestyle have disappeared - these include really good schools and health services as well as infrastructure that works - sewerage, water and transport being the visible parts. Its been a slow decay to this point and now lots to do to get back to where we should be
My car drives me to the city when I'm in the office. 20 years ago I thought my car was flash because it had dumb cruise control.
It'll hit a critical mass, then cars will start driving automatically and co-operatively. Road use efficiency will go up. Wireless trickle charging. Then we'll do away with human drivers. Car ownership will dwindle, you'll just summon a self driving Uber when you want one.
Cars won't spend most of their lives sitting on driveways. A smaller number will be working 24 hours a day. People will shun shared public transport. Too slow. Too inconvenient.
Realistically that's decades away. We have an older vehicle fleet to start with and all of this self-driving tech - to be at the point where it's networked and compatible with other systems is years away from the day that they get self-driving to an acceptable status for regulators - which it is not now. And then it has to be affordable enough to use, even casually.
Meanwhile, in the interim of this future (40 years? 50 years?) there's millions of hours of lost productivity and family time due to congestion that could be alleviated by actually building the public transport option that tech bros seem determined to render as obsolete, and if we just sit around and wait all of our problems will be solved... eventually. So... maybe we'll get there, one day. But you're taking a lot of short- and medium-term pain for something that may not actually happen and starting with an assumption that waiting around is free, when time is the one thing people can't make more of and it's generally not considered worthless.
Nonsense. Self drivng tech doesn't change the fundamental issue with roads. a million people in almost a million cars all trying to move about at the same time, it makes no difference if the human is in the drivers seat, or playing on their iPad in the passengers seat.
Well if there was an automated carpooling service where you might have to wait a bit longer and share with strangers that would cut down on congestion.
Actually, maybe if instead of regular sized cars, you could have larger vehicles with many more seats. And they could go on set routes at set times so people don't have to book them every day. It would cost each traveller very little that way, and much less congestion.
We can but dream of the wonders of the future.
You jest, but you are right. Self driving minivans/Small buses would make a huge difference. No fixed route or timetable, summoned via an Uber like app. You schedule your ride 30mins or more in advance with a destination and a latest drop-off time. Door to door, but ridesharing with say 8 - 15 other people so a massive traffic reduction.
Add a social scoring of other passengers so you eventually the AI groups you with compatible people.
Full size buses could be used for high traffic routes and schools.
Auckland contributes to 38% of NZ's economy but only 20% of its exports, i.e., the region runs majorly on domestic consumption and housing. Clearly a reason for the government of the day to focus its efforts on the other regions instead if export-led growth is the economic goal.
Auckland's contribution to productivity is hugely crippled by decades of underinvestment for the population burden the rest of the country expected it to take on.
To now that use as an excuse to not develop it to the extent it can realise its full potential is specious. Other regions have been happy to take the 30% of taxpayer contributions to infrastructure their own population bases couldn't possibly support.
You can tell this was done by business heads, because they again blame a lack of talent. There is no lack of talent in Auckland, if you're short on skills it's because businesses have not taken the time and effort to bring people in train them up, get them experience and guidance and pay them enough to keep them. If you can't keep people, it's because you can't afford them.
If people are paid enough, the commute is not an issue. I was able to by an apartment literally right next door to my office, it gives me an extra 2 hours a day compared to my brother who's commute takes probably an hour each way.
I never understood this mentality in the corporate world.
People who are great people managers and can keep staff/team on track to deliver results should be managers.
Staff who are technically good at their job should do just that.
Yet there is this inbuilt salary structure that requires staff to be moved into management positions to justify paying them more.
I've seen it a number of times where staff with valuable skills, or long timers put into a management role just to justify enough salary to keep them ends up causing a lot of damage.
You are spot on Ocelot. Train your staff, treat them well and remunerate them commercially including profit pools and equity. Stop whinging about the talent who leave when you are the very reason that is happening. The wealth distribution skew to the top 5% is grotesque in NZ.
Tbh until nz companies start paying a reasonable pay for talent, they will always leave. Everybody I know who has any ambition or brains leaves to Aus for the better pay. When you confront employers in NZ over fair pay they just say they just can't justify a competitive wage.
I'm not sure it makes sense given those same companies are owned by their Australian counter parts.
I moved from a NZ company that couldn't justify a pay rise to its parent company in Aus, doing less work and less hours for a 50% pay rise.
Auckland needs 300,000 fewer people.
The need for monstrosity suburbs like Flat Bush wouldn't exist. Hospitals and roading would be under pressure but not yet broken. A 20-yr plan on immigration and how to lift infrastructure without crippling rate payers is needed.
Compared to some European cities where I have spent weeks-months (Brussels, Barcelona and various Swiss cities), Auckland is a festering mess.
Disclaimer: I am an immigrant and my rates rose 10%.
I'd be keen for 1,000,000 more people in Auckland personally. If infrastructure isn't sufficient then the answer is to improve it, not throw up our hands in defeat. More trains everywhere, more hospitals, less sprawl, more medium density high quality townhouses and 5+1 storey apartments with shops on the ground floor.
Compared to what Auckland was like in the 70's I think we have come a long way. In my school days there was one hourly bus down the Great South road to Papatoetoe and the trains had wooden seats.
The electrification of the rail, the improvements to bus and ferry services have made a huge difference to public transport. We still need congestion free light rail out to Mt Roskill, Onehunga and to the North Shore plus less cars on the road.
To me the biggest problem is the right wouldn't dream of using public transport as they think its for the poor and the WC. I'm sure if they had their way the southern rail line would have been torn up to add more lanes to the southern motorway.
Anybody with the brains and ability that you may want to attract, would use those abilities and very quickly decide that Auckland is the last place that they should move to.
Totally unaffordable houses
Impossible transport system
Mediocre Education system unless you wish to pay mega dollars for private education
Widespread risk of crime and violence.
At the heart of all these issues is the greed fueled property/population ponzie
Auckland deserves to be the cesspit into which they degraded.
Can you here any of our leaders saying "lets stop this unsustainable growth and try to fix Auckland so that these issues are addressed. Lets concentrate on other cities and develop them in ways where we failed in Auckland, direct growth there and give Auckland some breathing space to get sorted out."
Unfortunately no such line of thinking. Thinking back to the last National government, they only thinkining that they seemed to have in relation to the rest of the country was "lets make the rest of NZ like Auckland." _John Key
So NZ look to Auckland
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.