Why Brown is Bad Business for Auckland

Many Aucklanders are finding this week’s election choice tough but it shouldn’t be. Wayne Brown positions himself as the business person. My life has been spent in and around business, technology, start-ups and corporates for some years where I have learned up close from many of the best. Here are five business reasons why Wayne is not our guy:

Commercial Viability: Throughout his campaign Brown has reeled off ideas and claims with little substantiation such as charging the Ports of Auckland $400m a year for using the waterfront. The ports made $265m in revenue in 2022. Brown has also consistently cited his big idea to implement transponders onto buses to make them flow better. But at what cost or benefit this marquee idea is, he has no idea.?

His statements are often attention-grabbing stunts or very bad maths but rarely are they based on any business logic.

Managing the Short and Long Term: Brown has said that as Mayor he will fire the entire boards and leadership of Auckland Transport and several other council entities on day one. Replacing entire boards and management teams with an totally new ones who have never worked together before creates significantly more risk and chaos than whatever problems we currently face.?

?

He has also repeated that we must finish what we’ve started before commencing any new major projects. For a city evolving at the pace Auckland is, while facing climate adaptation and intense housing pressure this should cause great concern. All business people must deal with the here and now while also making solid progress towards the future. Yes, a vote for Brown is a vote to finish today’s projects but by the time he’s up for re-election we will be 10 years behind on the series of things we need for 2030 and 2040. Blockbuster, Nokia and Kodak are legendary examples of what happens with this mindset.?

People who have no interest in planning for future generations should not be in charge of cities.?

Facts: Business people like to deal with information and scenarios based on facts, not hyperbole and rhetoric. Brisbane's council has about 8000 staff so Auckland’s 12,000 according to Brown, is “50 percent overstaffed” which is entirely misleading. Adjusting for revenue Auckland is double Brisbane so by his logic should have 16,000 staff and our land area is four times theirs so perhaps it should have 32,000?

People who can’t manage simple facts and comparisons should not be in charge of cities.?

Collaboration: The Mayor of Auckland is just one voice in a team of twenty, not a dictatorship. The most frightening thing I’ve found about Brown is a statement on the Northport website bluntly confirming they were consulted for “approx 2 hours” on the idea of moving the Port of Auckland there. Brown chaired the working group that forcefully recommended the relocation, one of the largest potential projects in New Zealand history. Yet, the most critical stakeholder of that recommendation (Northport), was afforded about the same time for their input as it takes to watch the latest Top Gun movie.?

People who are not interested in genuinely listening to critical stakeholders on major decisions should not be in charge of cities.?

Conflicts of Interest: Any professional director knows that any situation of potential conflict or personal benefit requires full transparency and often excludes them from decision-making on such issues. Brown works the other way around.??

While Mayor of the Far North, Brown tried to get the Council to pay for his flights to a mining conference while he was a shareholder in a local mining company seeking a permit. In 2013, he was ordered to pay $100,000 for rates and penalties he refused to pay. He used his Mayoral letterhead to fight the battle against his own council. In 2009, Brown filed five submissions on a rate change proposal to the council he was the sitting Mayor of. He didn’t reveal that he was filing them on behalf of other people. Investigations by his fellow councillors labeled his behaviour “unethical” and a “conflict of interest.” The then Auditor General slammed Brown as “unwise” and creating “risk”.?

People who take unnecessary risks and blur private and public interests should not be running cities.

It should be clear that in a two-horse race the choice is not Wayne Brown and should in fact be anybody but Brown. Even better if the other candidate is an honest, sensible, considered and collaborative leader who listens, has vision, and is committed to leading a Council of twenty people forward together. It just so happens Efeso Collins is all of those good things and more. He has weaknesses as all leaders and all supercity Mayors have had. But he has shown adaptive leadership and the humility to learn and change his stance when he has felt he has learned from the past (such as with the trans and gay community). He may not be a business leader, but he shows many of the leadership traits of what it takes to be a good one and the city isn’t a business, it’s a city.?