Cover story: World class New Zealand. What does it take?

That old joke about how the inevitable result of putting two economists together in room is three opinions is not, thankfully, mirrored in small, informal poll that NZ Management conducted recently. Inspired by the World Class New Zealand Awards’ focus on contributions to New Zealand’s growth, development and reputation, the questions the half dozen leading Kiwi businesspeople individually were asked were based around the themes of the country’s reputation, brand and future prospects. While they certainly couldn’t be accused of groupthink, there are number of remarkably similar strands in the six’s insights.
It’s not great shock, of course, that no one is talking up vision of New Zealand in the future that features ever-widening social and economic disparity, and environmental degradation. Instead, there are variations of the hope expressed succinctly by Sue Watson, Kea New Zealand’s global chief executive, for “a thriving, intentionally-diverse economy and society that’s found its place in the world and that everybody has an opportunity to participate in and contribute to”. As Douglas Pharmaceuticals’ Graeme Douglas notes, “We would all like to enjoy increased prosperity and security – in every sense of the word.”
And while such aspirations could be dismissed as empty, antipodean equivalents of motherhood and apple pie, they’re not unrealistic, according to Peter Watson, expat head of US-based investment bank, The Dwight Group.
“I’m extremely bullish on New Zealand’s future,” he says, pointing to demographic, trade and investment projections indicating that by mid-century the Asia-Pacific region, China and Latin America are going to be high-value economies. “Clearly New Zealand is well positioned to benefit from this, both in terms of its current integration into those markets as well as its understanding of many of them.”
Equally unsurprisingly, there is great deal of agreement about the current state of New Zealand’s international reputation and brand, which is generally regarded – in the words of Sue Watson – as “overwhelmingly positive; we’re seen as nation and people of enormous integrity”.
Douglas concurs, noting that in his company’s considerable experience in the offshore health industry, the high esteem in which New Zealand’s integrity is held “really is the major card for us to play. The ‘world can trust us’: this advantage must be protected and enhanced at all costs.”
As well as integrity and honesty, professional company director John Stace points to the international estimation of New Zealanders as “hardworking people who are not afraid of ‘getting our hands dirty’. We are often viewed as trail-blazers and pioneers.”
That said, there are problematic aspects to image, reckons Stace, who declares he’s “not fan of pushing the No 8 wire theory that New Zealanders are adept at tackling challenges from basic, down-to-earth point of view. While it might have attractions, it also indicates rather rustic attitude to life.”
There are related reservations expressed about the amount of emphasis put on the country’s ‘clean and green’ credentials in its branding. Yes, it’s largely good thing for myriad of obvious reasons, including as part of positioning New Zealand as “a place where talent wants to live”, as the late Sir Paul Callaghan advocated. But as Sir Paul also pointed out, there’s real risk in trying to present something as reality when the data doesn’t entirely support it.
It’s well worth recalling, too, that he saw need to promote the virtues of our apparently paradisiacal natural environs in tandem with the idea that we’re smart country. After all, pastoral idyll is not exactly synonymous with innovation, point picked up by Douglas.
“Our brand does not appear to project that we are cultured country with high standard of education and the capacity to be highly innovative in the demanding areas of technology and science,” he says. “I consider the bias is inappropriate. The record shows that our scientists and engineers can compete with the best; perhaps unfortunately, this is capitalised on by larger countries that benefit from the high level of education provided to our graduates.”
It’s sentiment echoed by Red Eagle Corporation’s Tony Falkenstein: “We are seen as beautiful country, with lots of space and lots of sheep and cows. However, I would like us to see ourselves as being innovators in all that we do by thinking laterally, and individually.”
Making persuasive argument for bridging this apparent divide by adopting and projecting national ethos of “raw sophistication” is BRR’s Brian Richards, who talks about marrying New Zealand’s core brand values – “unaffected, honest, open, young, active and fresh” – to “mindset shift from commodities to niche, and from our current obsession with improving processes to focus on the product”.
However, he warns, effecting such transformation will require visionary leaders to encourage and facilitate marked increase in collaboration – something that, as “a nation of backyarders, who worship the guy who starts up in the garage and has go”, we’re generally not very good at.
The pressing need for collaboration born of consensus is, appropriately enough, another key point of agreement.
“We need coherent vision that’s shared and articulated across all sectors of New Zealand society,” says Sue Watson. “I believe we need shared vision of what we want this country to be, and what our place in the world is and can be. And we all need access to shared understanding of what that is; shared language and shared consensus about what that looks like, and an agreement that we want everyone to be able to participate in it.”
What is shared at present is an anxiety encapsulated by Falkenstein’s suggestion that, as nation, we’re just meandering along when we should be planning for the future.
Stace says that, in the political sphere, “We need stronger leadership than we get at present”. While he believes that part of the problem is attitudinal, some of it is as simple as the three-year parliamentary term being too short.
“If you had four-year term there’d be less tinkering. And we do have the habit of pushing out some of the world’s worst drafted legislation. lot of that comes down to the haste with which it’s prepared and the research that goes into it. I’d love to see better drafted legislation that’s more likely to stand the test of time and won’t waste future governments’ time having to go back and amend it.”
There are also intimations of widespread feeling that it’s well past time to move beyond the politics of ideology.
“I have serious concerns that our strategy to achieve the goals of increased prosperity and security is not well defined,” says Douglas. “In my opinion we need at least 10-year strategic plan that all politicians should endorse and pledge to pursue with single mindedness that is patently not apparent at this time.
“A small but classic example would be the incentives for companies involved in research and development with potential for export,” he elaborates. “In three years we had three separate schemes, which made planning by private companies and corporations most difficult.
“I consider the current scheme is working well and directed admirably by New Zealand Trade & Enterprise. But it concerns me that the opposition is already talking about reverting to tax deductions, policy wide open to rorts.”
What’s essential in creating shared strategy, says Peter Watson, is the harnessing of “our pragmatism and willingness to be honest and objective about ourselves”, and, in the passionately dispassionate spirit of Sir Paul Callaghan, engaging in “fact-based, rigorous analysis” that’s “demonstrably politically-neutral and non-partisan”.
The leadership that’s required for New Zealand to advance confidently into the future is not just political, cautions Sue Watson; it needs to come from the body politic as well. “Everyone needs to contribute to shaping that vision,” she says