A sailboat on the water in front of Auckland’s skyline at sunset, with the Sky Tower visible and a pattern of translucent X and check marks overlaying the image.
Image: The Spinoff

OPINIONSocietyJuly 15, 2025

Auckland’s annual report card is out again – and its grades have barely budged

A sailboat on the water in front of Auckland’s skyline at sunset, with the Sky Tower visible and a pattern of translucent X and check marks overlaying the image.
Image: The Spinoff

The 2025 State of the City report shows marginal improvements more than cancelled out by some big drops. So what can be done to turn around the persistent malaise that grips the supercity?

Mid-July is a tough time to be in Auckland. In summer the sea all around is calling you to be on it or in it, or at least looking at it. In July the water is mainly coming down on you, and you’re stuck indoors brooding on the city’s problems. So it’s the worst but also maybe the most honest time for the third annual “State of the City” report to be released. 

It’s a review and ranking of Auckland against a group of peer cities, and the results are grim. The city is at a “turning point”, according to the report. Normally the expression would imply an arc towards some new exciting future. In fact, it implies that as bad as it is, it could get worse. “Weak economic performance, inadequate skills and innovation development, and disjointed and delayed planning are causing Auckland to lose ground, with the risk of falling further behind,” says Mark Thomas, the chair of Committee for Auckland, an independent organisation that funds and commissions the report. 

It’s striking that the tone of the reports and the accompanying commentary has shifted from ambitious to almost plaintive. “The mission of cities to decarbonise and to heal deep social divides has also come much more into the spotlight,” read the 2023 edition. Just two years ago, and yet a different time. Later that year, Auckland swung pretty firmly to the right in the general election, which makes that Ardern-ish sentiment feel aspirational to the point of absurdity. 

The 2025 report is notably more sober about the issues facing Tāmaki Makaurau. “The cyclical challenges facing New Zealand’s global city have been magnified… In 2025 we find that many measures still endorse Auckland as a top 10 city for balanced quality of life, and one of the world’s most open and diverse cities. But challenges persist and those with a stake in Auckland’s success need to work together to realise the promise the city has to offer current and future generations.” It’s a polite way of saying that across the three reports of 2023, 2024 and 2025, the city feels stagnant and decaying.

Auckland traffic
Auckland (Photo: Getty Images)

Is there any good news?

The report is compiled from “more than 140 global city benchmark and research studies, which together span more than 900 comparative metrics”. Those are then broken down into 10 areas, allowing us to be measured within a basket of 10 cities chosen due to:

  • Reputation as one of the most liveable cities in their continent
  • Smaller size and distance from global circuits
  • Natural setting
  • Climate uncertainties
  • Drive to sustain success

Some of those markers seem a given – which cities aren’t trying to “sustain success” or suffering from “climate uncertainty”? – but in general the group feels well-chosen, at least in terms of what we would like to think of as our strengths. The other cities are Austin, Brisbane, Copenhagen, Dublin, Fukuoka, Helsinki, Portland, Tel Aviv and Vancouver. We’d like to think we belong in that group. Sometimes, reading this report, it’s hard to be convinced that we will for much longer.

There are some good points, though. Auckland has been assessed as improving across four of the pillars (culture, opportunity, resilience and innovation). Its improvement in resilience is described as in part through “ability to respond to shocks”. This can only be proved by testing, but while Auckland is still standing after Covid and the floods of early 2023, it’s hard to brag about resilience when the city still feels somewhat broken. Its cultural standing is put down to the quality of its architecture and dining, but points are deducted for the quality of its major events and sports. 

The latter is a bit of a blind spot for the report. Sport has been one of the few good news stories for the city, with both the Warriors’ sustained popularity and Auckland FC’s spectacular launch season evidence of a latent vitality which can erupt when properly channeled. Yet its major events issues are a compelling counterpoint: it is markedly falling off the map for many promoters, as artists increasingly perform mini-residencies in major cities and ask fans to travel to meet them. The implication is that Auckland is not a major city, nor New Zealand a major country.

A large crowd of enthusiastic soccer fans in blue shirts cheer and raise their arms in unison in the stadium stands, while players and a goalkeeper are visible near the goal on the field.
Auckland FC fans at Go Media Stadium during a match against Adelaide United on March 1, 2025 (Photo: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

Similarly, the praise for the film industry feels overblown – the sector endured a long and painful run which is not yet over. Likewise, part of Auckland’s culture score is attributed to its globally significant superdiversity. Which genuinely has made the city feel like few others – but the awkward truth is that its diversity is essentially a product of successive governments cranking the immigration tap, largely in response to young people leaving in droves.

Its improvement in innovation is attributed to growth in sophistication of its venture capital community, and its broader startup ecosystem. Which is good. But the critiques feel harsher than the praise. “Auckland has fewer firms in its start-up pipeline, and fewer exits, than most of its peers, [and] there is an order-of-magnitude difference in scale between Auckland’s current total enterprise value and the average of its competitors.” Tellingly, we rank equal last for “unicorns” – technology businesses valued at more than $1bn.

A radial chart comparing Auckland's 2023 and 2025 positions in opportunity, prosperity, innovation, knowledge, experience, culture, place, resilience, and connectivity against peer cities, with 2025 values improving in most areas.
In place, experience and prosperity, Auckland is sliding backwards (Source: State of the City 2025)

Where the city falls

It feels grimly instructive that Auckland’s wins are contestable and somewhat reliant on either external factors (storms) or unintended consequences (immigration). Our failures are much more directly attributable to poor policy and planning.

This feels most jarring when the achievements of other cities are rattled off. Copenhagen approved a new nine-station metro that will open up a reclaimed island. Tel Aviv commenced a three-ring congestion charging system which will raise $600m for public transport. Austin announced a huge Samsung innovation campus, backed by an $8bn government grant. And Dublin will in 2027 start construction on a driverless MetroLink that will halve commuting times across the city.

In Auckland, by comparison, we have talked a lot about a new stadium before picking the old one, weird location and all. We had a bold and privately funded bid for a new sports complex, before the process seemingly chased the money away. We announced light rail to the airport, before taking so long to break ground a new government could simply put a line through it. The two most profound pieces of transport infrastructure the city has commissioned this century (the CRL and the Waterview tunnel) were funded more than a decade ago.

This gets to the areas where the city is sliding backwards. They are place, experience and prosperity – a marked two-rung drop. Place is defined as “the overall desirability and coherence of a city as a mosaic of discrete and distinctive living environments”. Experience is what the city offers to its residents and visitors in terms of “interactions, engagements and encounters”. Prosperity means exactly what you think it means.

If these feel like more important pillars than some of the others, as well as things we can more control, that’s because they are. It gets to the maddening reality of Auckland as a city right now. For all its history, cultural diversity and incredible twin-harbour location, it is a city which feels stuck. Even when we get a win – a globally admired approach to upzoning for housing density, for example – we find a way to take an L, by failing to invest sufficient to really get a housing pipeline operating.

A render of Te Waihorotiu City Rail Link station (Photo: Supplied)

Who owns the bad grades?

The uncomfortable truth behind the report is that while some of these problems are Auckland’s alone, most of them are interlinked and have political authors. Building is costly and risky in part because of our planning laws and regulations. Operating many businesses is wildly expensive due to the eye-watering cost of power, which is in short supply in part due to those planning laws. Housing remains incredibly expensive, particularly for a low-wage economy, because: see above. 

As a result, our young leave in droves, thinning the tax base from which to pay our relatively generous universal superannuation. Once mighty corporates like The Warehouse and Spark seem to be decaying before our eyes, in part because our talent works elsewhere. And the lack of bipartisan agreement on how to fix any of this holds back investment, which might improve productivity and create opportunities that keep younger people here, or bring them home.

Side-by-side images of advocacy ads: Left—an open letter titled "Action on Social Issues in our City" addressing the Prime Minister, signed by various organizations. Right—an open letter titled "Our energy market is broken," also signed.
Full-page ads in the weekend’s newspapers (Images: NZH digital editions)

Over the weekend a group of inner-suburban business associations took a rare full page advocacy ad in the Weekend Herald, demanding “action on social issues in our city”. It decried the lack of progress on crime and rough sleeping in their neighbourhoods. The inner city has been a construction site for years, with high retail vacancies, persistent hospitality closures, the rise of work-from-home culture and inadequate transport all combining into a powerful repellent force. The following day, a group of business leaders published an open letter calling for urgent action to fix a “broken” energy sector. 

It feels symptomatic of a sense of polycrisis throughout the city. It means an excess of hope is pinned to the City Rail Link and, to a lesser extent, the SkyCity Convention Centre, both due to open next year. They remain the city’s most plausible hope at turning around the persistent malaise this report highlights. However they are also the result of decisions made years ago. What matters now is what comes next. On that the report is stark in its conclusions. We have great human potential and natural features. But without meaningful political change we will continue to squander both.

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder
Keep going!
Map of New Zealand in black and white with yellow and white tape across the top and bottom of the image

OPINIONSocietyJuly 14, 2025

Counting the true toll of the Covid-19 pandemic in New Zealand

Map of New Zealand in black and white with yellow and white tape across the top and bottom of the image

As the Royal Commission of Inquiry into New Zealand’s Covid-19 response continues, modelling expert Michael Plank presents a new study on the country’s excess mortality rate.

How many people died because of the Covid-19 pandemic in New Zealand? It sounds like a simple question, but the answer depends on more than just counting reported Covid-19 deaths.

My colleagues and I recently published a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology looking at excess mortality – the number of deaths above what we would have expected if there hadn’t been a pandemic. 

Excess mortality helps us to measure the overall impact of the pandemic, not just from Covid-19 itself but also from things like delayed medical care or the side effects of lockdowns. And because it’s based on the total number of deaths from any cause, it doesn’t depend on how the cause of death was determined, nor whether the death was recorded as being due to Covid-19 or not.

Many people will have seen the Our World in Data Covid-19 dashboard, which allows users to compare excess mortality between countries. This dashboard shows that New Zealand’s total excess mortality up to the end of 2023 was less than 1%. In other words, the number of deaths during the pandemic was less than 1% higher than expected.

World map showing excess mortality by country from Jan 2020 to Dec 31, 2023, with colors indicating percentage differences in cumulative deaths compared to projections based on previous years. Some regions have missing or incomplete data. New Zealand is coloured in yellow, meaning 0-10% cumulative deaths

But not everyone agrees with this conclusion.

A 2024 study by John Gibson argued that the excess mortality in New Zealand was actually much higher than this. Our World in Data’s method missed a crucial factor: New Zealand’s population growth ground to a halt in 2020 due to pandemic travel restrictions. With fewer people in the country, Gibson claimed, we should have expected fewer deaths; so the excess mortality was actually higher. 

We wanted to know if this was really true. Could the Our World in Data dashboard be inadvertently hiding a swathe of excess deaths in New Zealand?

To answer this question, we built a statistical model that estimated trends in the death rate in different age groups over time. We then used this model to calculate how many deaths would have been expected if the pandemic had never happened and pre-pandemic trends had simply continued. 

Our model accounts for changes in population size and ageing to ensure a fair comparison. We looked at excess mortality up to the end of 2023 because we wanted to include the period after New Zealand’s elimination strategy ended and the virus became widespread. 

Was New Zealand’s pandemic death toll higher than reported?

The answer from our work is a resounding “no”.

We estimated the total number of deaths between 2020 and 2023 was somewhere between 2% higher than expected and 0.8% lower. In other words, we can’t be confident that more people died during the pandemic than would have died anyway. We can be confident that the number of deaths was no more than 2% higher than expected. 

In 2020, the number of deaths was unusually low, mainly because border closures and lockdowns inadvertently wiped out influenza as well as Covid-19. 

‘Media is under threat. Help save The Spinoff with an ongoing commitment to support our work.’
Duncan Greive
— Founder

In 2022 and 2023, deaths increased as Covid-19 became widespread. The timing of excess deaths matched very closely with reported Covid-19 deaths, with the highest death rates occurring during the biggest Covid-19 waves of 2022. This suggests that the virus itself was the main driver, rather than indirect factors. 

Overall, New Zealand’s estimated excess mortality of less than 2% is far lower than that in countries like the United Kingdom (10%) or United States (11%) over the same period. 

And although our study only covered the period up to the end of 2023, the overall age-standardised mortality rate in 2024 was below pre-pandemic levels. 

This shows that there is no mystery factor causing large numbers of unexplained deaths. Reported Covid-19 deaths appear be an accurate measure of the pandemic’s death toll. 

Police stop cars at a checkpoint during the Auckland Covid-19 outbreak in 2020 (Photo: Brendon O'Hagan/Bloomberg)
Police stop cars at a checkpoint during the Auckland Covid-19 outbreak in 2020 (Photo: Brendon O’Hagan/Bloomberg)

So why the controversy?

Gibson was right that New Zealand’s population growth stalled during the pandemic. But that’s only part of the story. 

Most deaths happen in older people, and this part of the population continued to grow during the pandemic. So, even though total population growth slowed, the number of elderly people – the group at highest risk of dying – still increased as expected. 

In other words, New Zealand’s ageing population was a more important driver of the expected number of deaths than the number of immigrants, who tend to be relatively young.

Why does this matter?

The next pandemic is a question of when, not if. If we are to respond better to future pandemics, it’s essential that we understand the full impact of our response to Covid-19. 

Some critics argue that New Zealand’s elimination strategy just delayed the inevitable. Deaths that were prevented in 2020 and 2021 – the argument goes – were simply delayed until 2022 or 2023, when the virus became widespread. 

But the data tell a different story. Our response bought time for people to get vaccinated before they were exposed to the virus. And that massively reduced the fatality risk. 

New Zealand’s response was far from perfect, and there were undoubtedly harms as a result of lockdowns and other measures that are not reflected in mortality statistics. But there can be no doubt that the response saved thousands of lives compared with the alternatives.  

Read the full study here.

Michael Plank led a group of researchers who were commissioned by the New Zealand government to provide modelling in support of the response to Covid-19 between 2020 and 2023.