Brian Rudman: Dull dollar-centric city plan offers nothing to the workers

And what about the workers? Last Friday, Auckland's business and political elite joined Prime Minister Helen Clark to launch "a comprehensive action plan to transform Auckland into a world-class city region".

The driving force behind this Metro Project action plan, Chamber of Commerce chief executive Michael Barnett, was quick to predict his baby would "catapult Auckland into a world-class of its own: the top class".

But the top class of which century - the 19th or the 21st?

What staggered me was how an economic blueprint issued in the seventh year of a Labour Government can still treat workers as no more than cogs in a great economic wheel - mere units to be tracked down and upskilled for the greater economic good.

Well for the good of the members of the Chamber of Commerce anyway.

It was as though Sir Paul Reeves, chancellor of one of the report's sponsors, the Auckland University of Technology, was speaking about some other document in his opening comments about "economic development can only be a means to an end" and "let us remember that the key to Auckland's greatness lies in its people".

In a report designed by and for the business community, it comes as little surprise that the authors see becoming world class as all about economic growth, commercial hubs, global markets, digital connectedness, "developing a skilled and responsive labour force" and the like.

But a city built on these building blocks doesn't sound like one I'd much like to live in.

Nor is a city in which 70 or 80 anonymous, un-elected "Champions for Auckland" are now to take "pro-active steps to ensure that [the action plan] is successfully implemented". Talk about the Masons and their funny handshakes.

To provide international gravitas for the action plan, the Metro Project invited a team of international experts to Auckland to critique a series of local reports, and to come up with a report of their own. This report was to form the underpinning for the action plan.

Unfortunately, the Auckland plan writers seem to have discarded the social and human aspects of the international review, concentrating on the wealth creation side of things.

The international report talks of interrelationship between economic growth and quality of housing and amenity and "the broader quality of life". It warns that "increasing globalisation brings risks of widening economic disparities between localities and communities". It even contains a graph with "standard of living" at the top of the pyramid, and feeding in at the second level are "social inclusion", "economic performance" and "environmental sustainability".

But the action plan is dominated by economic performance alone. Of the other two pillars, social inclusion and environmental sustainability, nothing. To the international experts, this is bad economics. Having "disadvantaged or disconnected communities who become constrained in [their investment] choices will constrain the productivity of a region". The experts add that "metropolitan areas that pay systematic attention to both regional growth and issues related to historically marginalised and poor communities are more likely to be competitive for national and international economic opportunities". The action plan is also totally silent about the arts, despite the international advisers pointing out that encouraging artistic and cultural institutions are "critical" to the development of a successful creative city. Talented people, they point out, seek an environment open to differences. They want to hear different kinds of music, eat different kinds of food, spar over issues.

Compared to that vision, Friday's action plan is a dull dollar-centric document. It's all about high-speed broadband deployment and well-coordinated response and delivery mechanisms and ensuring tax policy rewards investment in early-stage ventures. Would you believe they plan "to inspire innovation by staging intellectual property showcase events". Please hold me down.

The business-oriented view of the future is highlighted by the place we workers rate in this brave new world. Once more, the contrast between the international experts and the locals is instructive. The experts proposed a permanent working group to oversee workforce issues,with representatives from business organisations, relevant government departments and the unions. About the closest the action plan gets to such a body is "a business-led skill leadership group" on which no workers' representation is mentioned.

The report is littered with references about encouraging "positive labour market outcomes," developing a "skilled and responsive workforce" and a "globally competitive workforce".

When the men in suits start using those sort of phrases, its time for workers to unite. And to come up with a more palatable vision of a future Auckland ourselves.