IF YOU watched Television One's 6pm news on Wednesday, you'd be forgiven for thinking New Zealand was really a city-state called Auckland. As an ex-pat Hawke's Bay native, I wondered just what the other two thirds of Kiwis made of the lead stories about Ports of Auckland, transport levies and the delayed sentencing of the ex-CEO of an outfit found only in Auckland.
I became an Aucklander by accident. When Paul Holmes, Peter Beaven and I left Karamu High School to carry on our education, we went to Victoria University in Wellington. Auckland University was never considered, as Hawke's Bay at that time was very much orientated to the south with a very dodgy road between Napier and Taupo contrasting with a regular passenger rail service between Hawke's Bay and Wellington.
As Auckland University was the centre for the study of New Zealand history at the time, I moved north to do a master's degree. After a year at Karamu High and an OE I returned to the Bay. The availability of a teaching job in Auckland took me back.
Every ambitious country needs a big city and these are almost always resented by those who live elsewhere. They hog resources, act as a magnet for young people and warp national economies. Auckland does all of the above.
The issue around the Ports of Auckland is a long-running sore. Unlike Napier, whose port is neatly tucked under the Bluff Hill and could expand out to sea without causing concern, the main port of Auckland sits at the bottom of the CBD and juts into Waitemata Harbour. The latest attempt to expand the port by driving two wharves another hundred metres into the harbour and ultimately reclaiming the seabed in between (as a carpark) has been met by vociferous opposition and is the latest chapter in a history of despoilment of what is a beautiful natural asset.