By FRAN O'SULLIVAN
Passion and vision - two buzz-words which trip easily off the tongues of those who have signed up to the Competitive Auckland crusade.
But Competitive Auckland must quickly pick up the pace and underpin the buzz-words with big ideas, concrete actions and aggressive implementation plans if it is to first stymie, then turn around, Auckland's decline as a regional investment destination for both capital and talent.
Competitive Auckland's business-led focus aims to do just that by developing a well-articulated, competitive strategy with recommendations for specific outcomes and actions. Its success will be tested when the business forum begins to marshal support this year, at both national and local level, to pursue major opportunities that are expected to be identified during the project's short lifespan.
As Competitive Auckland chairman David Irving puts it: "We want to under-promise, but over-deliver."
Irving and his steering group are working to a June deadline and do not wish to make too much noise before the project is completed.
The group has its genesis in lobbying by Auckland property development high-flyer Richard Didsbury, who has emerged as a powerful inside player within Auckland City.
Appointed to the board of Infrastructure Auckland in late 1999, the joint managing director of the Kiwi Income Property Trust has publicly championed controversial issues to the point of going head to head with a cabinet minister - a step few business players are prepared to take in the Helengrad regime.
Among those on the steering group are Rick Boven, of Boston Consulting Group; Bridget Wickham, CEO of University of Auckland Business Developments; David McConnell, managing director of McConnell International; Bryan Mogridge, principal of Jump Capital; Richard Munro, chairman of Enterprise North Shore; Keith Phillips, of IT Capital, Alasdair Thompson, of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern); and Michael Barnett, chief executive of the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Project executive director Hilary Poole, Boston Consulting Group and the other project partners who are providing advice on a pro bono basis are pulling together an analysis of the Auckland region's economic performance as it compares with competing locations.
This information-gathering is aimed at identifying lessons for Auckland by exploring what has worked elsewhere. It will also provide an economic analysis of Auckland and examine trends.
The hard yards - primary research delving into which industries have the best potential, and why businesses have left or by-passed Auckland as an investment destination - come later.
As a project, Competitive Auckland is long overdue. Auckland is losing its best people. Lion Nathan has gone and its visionary chairman, Douglas Myers, will soon leave.
Fletcher Challenge, which once spawned a host of NZ managers, is effectively being liquidated. Its Penrose HQ is fast becoming the site for small technology offshoots of the Auckland University of Technology.
Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite have long gone, Alan Gibbs and Charles Bidwill are based in London, and investor Craig Heatley has gone travelling, selling out of INL.
It's not just the home-grown big business players and high-flying entrepreneurs who reached prominence during the 1980s and 1990s who are seeking fresh pastures. Nor is it just Auckland's younger generation who are bent on gaining their OE.
Auckland is experiencing a net loss in international migration - managers, professionals and IT-skilled players are trying their luck elsewhere in growing numbers.
The trends show a big growth in departures by middle-aged people, with 25 per cent of those leaving during 1999-2000 falling within the 40-59 age group.
Globalisation has opened the international doors to skilled New Zealanders - as much as those from other countries - and allowed them to move to countries which pay the best dollars for talent and entice them to stay.
Jobs Ireland, for instance, will soon visit Auckland as part of its international roadshow to vacuum up talented players to feed Ireland's burgeoning growth rate.
But the brain drain is not just a regional issue. The Government's decision to increase the tax on so-called rich people - those earning more than $60,000 a year - combined with the collapse of New Zealand's exchange rate means that the international net worth of higher paid individuals has markedly declined.
On top of that New Zealand pay rates are low and outstanding student loan debts are a discouraging factor for younger New Zealanders to return.
Auckland has also failed to mobilise its imported talent pool. Plenty of anecdotal evidence indicates that many trained migrants find it impossible to get jobs in their fields.
But Competitive Auckland's work will inevitably have to be underpinned by national action if the region is to grow. A quick statistical trip illustrates the magnitude of the challenge Auckland faces - it has GDP per capita of $US14,000 compared to other regional cities such as Sydney and Melbourne, both on $US20,440. To bridge such a gap, Auckland needs to lift its performance by 46 per cent.
The omens are not good. Central Government has been slow to grasp the fact that its policies have contributed to New Zealand's, and hence Auckland's, loss of competitiveness.
Auckland itself is suffering from report fatigue. Aucklanders have been treated to a plethora of reports in recent years: Auckland City Council's "City of the Pacific," Auckland Regional Council's strategic plans and road transport strategy, and the work by Infrastructure Auckland. Then there is the multiplicity of updates on the regional economy, including last week's ARC report, Business and Economy 2001.
The action plans have lacked impetus. Competitive Auckland wastes valuable time and resources by reinventing the wheel with the first phase of its project. It would gain more traction if it sped quickly on to the opportunity phase.
Within the insiders' camp there are concerns that by widening the stakeholder groups to include local government, academia and, potentially, central Government, Competitive Auckland risks losing its ability to pull together an independent report.
It is hard to reconcile how Competitive Auckland can maintain its business-led branding if it is seeking public-sector finance from the multiplicity of territorial authorities - a point which has not been lost on the local authority CEOs who are being asked to stump up research money.
Also at issue is the capacity of the group to develop large ideas when its focus is directed towards consensus building. As with the Knowledge Society initiatives, which come years after other small nations embraced similar strategies, there is a need to think outside the square and develop true points of difference.
ASB Bank's Ralph Norris, who headed an information technology advisory group, identifies the need for a strategic vision. But the overwhelming need is for action.
One thing is sure: Auckland's competitors are not standing still.
Full text of Auckland economy report