KEY POINTS:
Finally the business community gets what it's been barracking for: A Labour economic minister who wants to be BOLD.
The waterfront stadium is bold. It will define Auckland's image on the international stage and will be a catalyst for change if Trevor Mallard persuades city leaders to a develop a conference centre alongside the facility. And the 2011 deadline will help fast-track progress on other transport and communications development projects.
Sure it disturbs Ports of Auckland's operations. But that is merely a negotiation between the Government and POA's ultimate owners, the Auckland Regional Council, over how the company is compensated for any disruption to its business and where the funds come from to invest in alternative infrastructure to any works displaced.
It's not a deal-breaker and could be washed up in a debt-equity swap in the new stadium.
Best of all - the Government is prepared to back the project with some taxpayers' cash and build a stadium which will not be throttled by debt even before the first game of the 2011 Rugby World Cup series is played.
But instead of breaking out the champagne and openly supporting Mallard, the city's business leaders have been strangely absent from the debate.
In the seven years since Labour was elected I've heard endless - but well-justified - whinges from the Auckland business community: remember Catching the Knowledge Wave where petulant business power-brokers threw their rattles out of the cot when Prime Minister Helen Clark said she would surf her own Government's wave - not theirs; the investment conferences; special CEO pow-wows with Clark's key Cabinet ministers right down to this year's symposiums on Auckland's future.
There have been plans by the bucketful. But precious little concerted action.
Presented with a new plan to catalyse Auckland's economic growth (one that is not their own) the business community appears to be struck dumb.
Surely all those Auckland CEOs who have been strongly engaged in forming the Metro Action Plan - designed to help arrest the economic decline of NZ's major city - or those on the Committee for Auckland, or, those behind scenes lobbying for positions on a new entity to drive Auckland's regional development - could put their heads up over the parapets and demonstrate some leadership by backing Mallard's "dream"?
But when it comes to demonstrating leadership mettle by taking a timely stand - even if it's a "no vote" against the waterfront option, or, making the obvious pro decision which some traditionalists might find a bit too brash, or casting a public vote showing just where they sit through the Herald survey that checks support for the stadiums options - the chief executives are just about as balkanised and ineffectual as the publicly elected Auckland leaders they criticise.
For instance, the Committee for Auckland - which has a range of high-profile business members with differing views - has formed a small taskforce to "look impartially" at which particular stadium (Eden Park or the waterfront) can "best propel Auckland toward our aspiration of being one of the world's great places". The committee says the rival plans are creating "loads of impassioned discussions" - but - "a period for cool reflection is with us now".
Don't get me wrong - the committee has done some sterling work. But Mallard's proposal - in essence - has been doing the rounds for more than two months. How long does it take to form a public view?
Anyone in business would take all the current cost projections with a grain of salt. But what is clear is that of the two rival projects, the waterfront stadium will earn more significant income streams into the future.
The great irony is that while the business sector is keeping its collective head down, Mallard still has sufficient confidence in them to want to appoint a private sector board (almost like an SOE) to drive the waterfront stadium's development should Auckland decide to run with the project.
Auckland chief executives who have been keeping their public heads down - but putting in private calls to assure Mallard that he's making a good call with the waterfront stadium - might want to rethink their tactics.
The other great irony is that Auckland City Mayor Dick Hubbard - who has been oft criticised by many of the city's leading business luminaries - has had the guts to take an "impassioned" stand and try to lead opinion within his openly divided council to form a consensus around the waterfront stadium.
Auckland's governance system is ineffectual when it comes to taking the big decisions that will propel the "city-region" into being a thriving metropolis that can hold its own with other regional super-cities like Sydney, Melbourne - and the fast-developing Brisbane and Perth.
But the Auckland City Council did pass a resolution "in principle" supporting Mallard's proposal to build a new stadium smack in the middle of the waterfront before the Economic Development Minister unveiled the plan.
Where Hubbard's strategy came astray was when councillors Richard Simpson and Christine Caughey - from the anti-development wing of the council - tried to float an option to build the stadium at Carlaw Park.
There were emails aplenty as in-fighters ran the line that a waterfront stadium could displace Ports of Auckland's container operations towards Hobson Bay which is right beneath where many of Auckland's elite live.
The Labour Government would have to watch out that it did not suffer the same fate as former Auckland Mayor John Banks who was tossed out after pledging his support for the Eastern Motorway. You get the drift.
The resultant letter by the breakaway councillors to Helen Clark probably resulted in the Government's surprise move to throw the decision back to Auckland to make. The last thing Clark and Mallard want is for an organised Auckland-based campaign to get them out of office at the next election - simply because they want to make good on their promise to put Auckland's development at the heart of their economic transformation agenda.
Since then Hubbard has been rebuilding his constituency within council. The ARC's chairman Mike Lee has been more subterranean in his politicking and is expected to drive a reasonably hard bargain with the Government in return for support.
The apple cart could still be upset. PR spinmeisters like Sweeney Vesty are doing their damnedest to swing opinion behind Eden Park. Labour MPs - and their National counterparts - are being heavily lobbied against the project.
Surely it's time for business to put its collective head up and say where it stands.
