Mood of the Boardroom: CEOs fear loss of skilled New Zealanders to Australia (NZ Herald)

Mood of the Boardroom: CEOs fear loss of skilled New Zealanders to Australia (NZ Herald)

Business leaders are increasingly worried about losing skilled New Zealanders across the Tasman.

Asked how concerned they were about the loss of critical skilled personnel to Australia and other overseas markets, respondents to this year’s Mood of the Boardroom survey gave an average rating of 3.52 out of 5, where 1 was “not at all concerned” and 5 was “very concerned”.

Just over half (52%) rate their concern at 4 or 5, including 21% who say they are very concerned. Just 2% say they aren’t concerned at all.

The pull towards Australia has intensified in recent years, driven by higher wages, a larger labour market and strong demand for skills.

Stats NZ figures show 47,500 people departed for Australia in the year to December 2025, while 19,000 moved in the other direction — a net loss of 28,500 people — only slightly down from 31,100 a year earlier.

Under the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, New Zealand citizens can live and work in Australia indefinitely. Since July 2023, New Zealanders who have lived in Australia for four years also have a direct pathway to Australian citizenship.

A recurring concern among chief executives is the loss of young New Zealanders who cannot see enough opportunity at home. “New Zealand needs to be a country where talented people see opportunities,” says an engineering CEO. “There are just no jobs for them and they are leaving to find opportunities and potentially won’t come back.”

Mainfreight Group’s managing director, Don Braid, is seeing the trend first-hand: “The number of our younger graduate recruitments moving offshore has increased in the past 12 months.”

A state-owned enterprise chief reports the same pattern: “We are seeing an increased loss of youth around 23 to 30 leaving New Zealand with no intention of returning.”

A professional services director is particularly concerned about young men. “It seems harder and harder for our young male graduates to secure roles in a really tight labour market,” they say.

For others, the pressure is concentrated in industries competing directly with Australian employers.

A construction boss points to the “loss of key talent to increased opportunities in Queensland”, as the state ramps up infrastructure investment ahead of the 2032 Brisbane Olympics. Their answer is to “get jobs out ASAP and stick to the plan”.

A healthcare executive says the country needs to “stop New Zealand doctors and nurses leaving the country” by making it more attractive to stay.

It isn’t just frontline skills. “We are a net exporter of leadership talent,” says another professional services leader.

Could the tide be turning?

Despite the concern, some think the tide is about to turn. Economist Cameron Bagrie is relatively relaxed. “Australia is headed into a downturn and with that we will see a lot of people come to New Zealand.”

A real estate chief says they are already seeing it happen.

“We are seeing many New Zealanders returning and buying or renting here again.”

They attribute that partly to recent changes in Australia, saying the property market has cooled and left many people “with less money in their hands”.

Whether the migration cycle turns on its own or not, the concern running through many of the responses is that New Zealand cannot rely on returning expats to solve its skills problem. It also has to give talented people — particularly younger New Zealanders — enough reason to stay.

An energy CEO puts it plainly: “We need these skills back for the potential economic boom in front of us.”

NZ Super age: 82% of business leaders back raising eligibility (NZ Herald)

NZ Super age: 82% of business leaders back raising eligibility (NZ Herald)

Chief executives have delivered a decisive verdict on New Zealand Superannuation – 82% of respondents to this year’s Mood of the Boardroom survey say the age of eligibility should be raised. Just 14% are opposed and 4% are unsure.

That puts the boardroom well out of step with the public. A 1News-Verian poll in June found only 26% of voters supported gradually raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. Another 44% wanted it kept at 65, and 25% preferred reducing or removing payments for those with higher incomes or assets.

For many business leaders the case barely needs arguing.

“A no-brainer,” independent economist Cameron Bagrie says. “Current settings are unsustainable,” responded a grocery boss.

NZ Super is universal and isn’t means-tested. It is paid to everyone aged 65 and over who meets the residency requirements, regardless of their income, assets or whether they are still working. That simplicity has long been one of its strengths. But as the population ages, it comes with an increasingly large fiscal bill.

More than 960,000 New Zealanders get NZ Super, at a cost of about $24.7 billion a year. That makes it the largest single item of government spending. The bill is forecast to climb to more than $31b by 2030 as New Zealand’s population ages.

The eligibility age was last changed between 1992 and 2001, when it was raised in stages from 60 to 65. Australia raised its pension age to 67 in 2023, while the United Kingdom is increasing its State Pension age from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028.

Simon Bennett, managing director of Metro Performance Glass, suggests a simple test of where the self-interest lies: “Ask for a show of hands in the room of all those over 60. Ask them to keep them raised if they need super when they’re 65.”

But support for a higher eligibility age does not mean CEOs want an abrupt change.

The most common theme from respondents is that any change must be gradual and signalled well in advance, so people have time to adjust their savings and retirement plans.

Port of Tauranga chief executive Leonard Sampson favours a “staged approach over two decades”. Non-executive director Fraser Whineray agrees it should happen “in time and phased”.

How high should it go?

Some have a clear number in mind. “Happy for it to go to 67,” a real estate chief says.

One long-serving company director goes further and would raise the age to 70 over 10 years.

Under her proposal, people could still elect to receive NZ Super from 67 at a lower rate, with payments calibrated so the expected lifetime value was broadly the same.

This would see the total value of payments over a person’s retirement be about the same whichever age they chose to start.

Versions of that flexibility exist overseas.

Canada’s pension, for example, can be taken from 60 at a permanently reduced rate or deferred until 70 for a larger payment. The US Social Security system also adjusts payments according to the age at which they are claimed.

One age does not fit all

A recurring qualification is fairness for people in physically demanding jobs. Several respondents point out that asking a 67-year-old lawyer to work longer is very different from asking the same of someone who has spent decades on a building site, farm or factory floor.

“Raise the age, but not over 67,” the head of an engineering consultancy says.

“We do need to do something about it, but I don’t think there is one option that fits all. I think people have the right to choose when they retire – some have physically demanding jobs.

“However, we owe it to our future generations to improve the current settings.”

Greg Gent, chair of Seafood New Zealand and Dairy Holdings, backs raising the age “but with an exception for hard manual work”.

Means-testing splits the boardroom

Among those opposed to raising the age, one infrastructure chief says the answer is to means-test.

But a health CEO, who supports raising the age, strongly disagrees with that approach.

“Raise it, but don’t means-test it. It is not fair, and sends a very bad signal to punish those who have made sacrifices in the short term for the long term.”

Whatever the preferred mechanism, the Mood of the Boardroom results show little appetite among business leaders for leaving the system untouched.

For most, the question is about how quickly, how far, and what protections should accompany it.

An energy CEO frames the argument in intergenerational terms: “This needs to happen – it is bloody selfish to be burdening our tamariki and mokopuna [children and grandchildren] with the long-term debt levels caused by the refusal to raise the retirement age.”

Supermarket shake-up policies score below 2 out of 5 in boardroom survey (NZ Herald)

Supermarket shake-up policies score below 2 out of 5 in boardroom survey (NZ Herald)

Business leaders are unimpressed by supermarket shake-up policies, writes Tim McCready

Business leaders are unimpressed by the supermarket policies being taken into the election.

Plans to break up, restructure or directly compete with the grocery duopoly all scored below 2 out of 5 in this year’s Mood of the Boardroom survey.

National has proposed amending the Grocery Industry Competition Act within its first 100 days, then giving the Commerce Commission six months to assess whether Foodstuffs should be separated into two entities: one combining New World and Four Square, and the other Pak’nSave.

If the commission recommended separation, National says it would legislate to implement it.

The boardroom is unconvinced

Respondents gave National’s proposal an average score of just 1.83 out of 5, where 1 was ‘not impressive’ and 5 was ‘very impressive’. More than half — 51% — gave it the lowest possible score of 1 out of 5.

“The Foodstuffs move seems to be driven more by the need to be seen to be doing something than by any strong rationale,” says a property sector director.

Another non-executive director is similarly sceptical: “Signalling the potential break-up of privately held businesses is unhelpful.”

An energy sector leader warns the policy “will increase the cost of capital for all industries in New Zealand as businesses and their funders ask ‘who is next?’”

New Zealand First has proposed splitting Foodstuffs into two national co-operatives. Its policy scored 1.76 out of 5.

Labour would require Foodstuffs and Woolworths to operate independent wholesale businesses, guarantee smaller grocers access to wholesale supply on fair terms, and free Four Square operators from restraints of trade.

This policy scores 1.81/5, with 47% rating it 1/5.

The Green Party’s KiwiMart proposal — a $2.8 billion plan that would bring 120 stores and two distribution centres into public ownership to establish a state-owned supermarket chain — received the lowest score of all: 1.15 out of 5. Some 86% of respondents gave it a 1.

Act opposes a restructure of the incumbents. It says it would instead make it easier for a new operator to enter the market, through streamlined consenting and fewer council hurdles.

Boardroom out of step with voters

The boardroom’s verdict is much harsher than the public’s. A Talbot Mills poll commissioned by Foodstuffs found 45% of respondents supported National’s policy to investigate separating Pak’nSave from New World, with 38% opposed.

But even so, voters are not convinced it would make a difference at the checkout. Just 28% of those surveyed believed forcing the separation would lower grocery prices. A Verian poll for 1News found only 32% thought any of the parties’ proposed policies would lead to lower grocery prices within three years.

Agreement on the problem

New Zealand’s grocery market is dominated by Woolworths and Foodstuffs. Australian-owned Woolworths operates the Woolworths supermarket chain, while Foodstuffs comprises two co-operatives — Foodstuffs North Island and Foodstuffs South Island — whose owner-operators run Pak’nSave, New World and Four Square stores.

The Commerce Commission’s 2022 market study concluded competition in the retail grocery sector was not working well for consumers, and recommended a package of measures aimed at improving price, quality and choice.

At the time, it estimated the major grocery retailers were earning excess profits equivalent to about $1 million a day.

The Government responded by creating a Grocery Commissioner and passing the Grocery Industry Competition Act. In 2024, the commission declined clearance for the two Foodstuffs co-operatives to merge, saying it was not satisfied the deal would avoid substantially lessening competition.

Progress since has been slow. The commission’s latest annual grocery report, released in June, found “little observable change in core competition metrics”, with the two groups’ combined market share essentially unchanged at around 80%.

The search for a third major player has also stalled, with The Warehouse ruling itself out last month.

The low policy scores do not mean business leaders believe the grocery market is working well.

A healthcare executive argues that addressing cost-of-living pressures “requires targeting monopolies”.

They support “formal inquiries into margins across major banks, the grocery duopoly and energy gentailers to lower everyday costs”.

While many accept there is a competition problem in groceries, there is little confidence that structural decisions designed in the heat of an election campaign will solve it.

Mood of the Boardroom 2026 (NZ Herald)

 

Election policy uncertainty tops NZ CEOs’ concerns

Each year the Mood of the Boardroom asks CEOs to assess their level of concern about a range of domestic issues. This year, boardroom anxieties have shifted away from electricity and towards politics and the price of fuel.

Election policy uncertainties ranked as the most pressing domestic concern at 7.62/10, on a scale where 1 means “no concern” and 10 means “extremely concerned”.

Fuel costs followed at 7.52/10, then cyber attacks (7.22/10), infrastructure constraints (7.08/10) and cost of living pressures (7.07/10).

Institute of Directors chief executive Kirsten Patterson says the concerns can’t be viewed in isolation.

“It’s hard to say any of these are ‘not a concern’ because they’re so interconnected. Cost, capability, confidence, infrastructure and regulation all compound each other. The challenge is to avoid treating them as separate problems when business experiences them all at once.”

Cyber security is a growing worry. A logistics boss names staying on top of “the cyber security risk, especially with the addition of AI-related threats” as a business priority, while an investment firm leader wants New Zealand to “join Australia’s more extensive cybersecurity arrangements, while building our own over time”.

Energy worries shift to fuel

Electricity price increases scored 6.75/10, down from 7.41/10 last year. Security of energy supply fell from 7.26/10 to 6.63/10.

Some respondents say concerns about energy have shifted towards fuel and gas rather than electricity.

“My rating on security of energy supply relates to petroleum-based fuel security,” says an energy sector director. “I am a lot less concerned about security of supply in the electricity sector, and indeed overall energy security and total energy costs would improve if we had more energy independence — largely electricity-driven.”

Another respondent singles out “gas availability and price”.

Policy risk

With the election approaching, many respondents worry about what a change of government could mean for business settings.

“Employment legislation — and the prospect of wholesale changes under a new Government — makes it difficult for business to evolve their internal capability,” says EMA chief executive John Fraser-Mackenzie.

A professional director is concerned “about a new Government becoming more interventionist in the economy and increasing debt. That just makes New Zealand less efficient and attractive to do business in.”

An insurance CEO points to “extreme political views on tax and the belief that success should not be celebrated. This leads us to mediocrity.”

Others cite “sovereign risk” and “poor quality politicians” among their domestic concerns.

An energy CEO warns against derailing what they see as a healthier recovery.

“The economy is experiencing a real recovery rather than an artificial consumer demand-driven one.

“We need to take care not to tip it upside down with ill-thought-out policy settings that punish those in primary industries and energy who are driving the recovery.”

Concern about labour productivity remains high at 6.60/10.

“The real issue is productivity, not simply growth,” says Arup’s New Zealand country leader Mayurie Gunatilaka.

At the other end of the scale, the dairy price slump (4.39/10), emissions reduction policies (4.49/10) and immigration settings (4.78/10) were the least concerning domestic issues for New Zealand executives.

Simplicity founder Sam Stubbs says the concerns should be kept in perspective.

“New Zealand is well placed internationally. Domestic doom and gloom needs to be put into context. It is worse in most other OECD countries,” he says.

Mixed fortunes across industries

Despite those concerns, optimism about conditions within executives’ own industries has lifted overall. On a scale where 1 means ‘much less optimistic’ than a year ago and 5 means ‘much more optimistic’, respondents rated the business situation in their own industry at 3.42/5. This compares to 2.47/5 in the last election year.

Some 57% of respondents are more optimistic than a year ago, including 11% who are much more optimistic. Just 20% are less optimistic.

The biggest turnaround is in energy. Utilities and energy respondents rated their industry at 3.93/5, up from 2.40/5 last year, when they were near the bottom of the table.

Manufacturing, and transport and logistics (both 4.00/5) were the most upbeat sectors, followed by food and beverage (3.75/5), technology (3.71/5) and financial services (3.64/5, up from 3.47/5).

“Hospitality has started to recover, as evidenced by tourist numbers,” says a food distribution boss.

China Travel Service’s Lisa Li is “generally more optimistic about the tourism and travel industry than I was a year ago. Despite uncertainties around oil prices, exchange rates and the wider global environment, New Zealand’s inbound tourism continues to grow in both volume and value.”

Last year’s leaders have lost ground. Agriculture and agribusiness optimism slipped from 3.80/5 to 3.54/5, while real estate fell further, from 3.80/5 to 3.20/5.

“Political leadership at a local level is not there,” says an agribusiness leader. “Far too much populism driving very short-term decision making.”

Professional services is now the least optimistic of the major sectors, at 2.85/5, down from 3.47/5 last year.

Entertainment and leisure has recovered from the bottom of last year’s table, rising from 2.20/5 to 3.20/5, though challenges remain. One venue chief executive cites “the current constraints of attracting major entertainment content to New Zealand”.

Business confidence hits nine-year high

Business confidence hits nine-year high

New Zealand’s top business leaders have rediscovered their optimism about the domestic economy. Confidence has climbed past the nine-year high recorded in 2024.

Respondents to the Herald’s 2026 Mood of the Boardroom survey rated their confidence in the New Zealand economy at 3.37/5, on a scale where 1 represents “much less optimistic” than a year ago and 5 represents “much more optimistic”. That’s a sharp rebound from last year’s 2.82/5 and above the 3.23/5 recorded in 2024.

More than half (56%) of respondents are more optimistic than they were a year ago, including 10% who are much more optimistic. Just 22% are less optimistic.

The stronger outlook reflects a recovery that has finally taken hold. It has stayed on course despite the fuel crisis, conflict in the Middle East and a looming election that remains too close to call.

“There are the right fundamental signs for economic growth,” says Rheem New Zealand general manager Mark McCutcheon. “2026 so far has been solid, without being spectacular, and a vast improvement on 2024 and 2025.”

Port of Auckland chief executive Roger Gray is seeing the recovery in his port’s volumes.

“We’re seeing strong volumes of imports, reflecting increased demand and economic activity.”

Simplicity founder Sam Stubbs says the economy has proven more resilient than many expected.

“If Kiwis had been told 10 years ago that house prices would be down 20% but the economy was still growing, they wouldn’t have believed it. But that’s exactly what’s happening, pointing to better times ahead.”

Not everyone is convinced the recovery has fully arrived. “Conditions generally do feel like they are improving, but not yet at a level suggesting sustained growth has arrived,” says an energy sector director.

Auckland Business Chamber chief executive Simon Bridges questions whether “okay” is enough.

“The New Zealand economy is okay, but the global economy does concern me …

“On that basis, is just an ‘okay’ economy good enough? I’d argue we need significant reforms that enable us to perform above the mean, not at it.”

A banking executive is more cautious. “New and ongoing global geopolitical events, higher fuel prices, rising interest rates and general election uncertainty have introduced more pessimism than optimism.”

The election factor

For many, this year’s optimism depends on the outcome of the election. “If we have the Government re-elected, I will be much more optimistic,” says Plato Creative’s John Plato.

The head of an entertainment venue is more direct: “Optimism in the New Zealand economy is subject to there being no change in government in November. A change in government would change my response to ‘much less optimistic’.”

War, oil and a global drag

CEO optimism about the global economy has slipped further, from 2.63/5 last year to 2.52/5. More than half (56%) of respondents are less optimistic about the global economy than they were a year ago, and just 15% are more optimistic.

Where tariffs dominated last year’s concerns, this year it’s conflict in the Middle East and its effect on energy markets.

“Oil prices are the worry and they underpin so much,” says Greg Gent, chairman of Seafood New Zealand and Dairy Holdings.

“The war in the Middle East continues to be concerning, with no end in sight; and volatility remains with regards to US tariffs,” says a government agency leader.

An energy boss warns that “the global energy balance, driven by the situation in the Middle East, could have significant implications for global growth and macroeconomic stability”.

New Zealand International Business Forum executive director Felicity Roxburgh says exporters are still finding a way through.

“Unprecedented disruption overseas has meant the international trading environment is tough, but our exports are booming due to our great market access through FTAs, and our high-quality premium goods, which consumers are prepared to pay more for. Plus commodity prices are high and the dollar is weak.”

Some see an opportunity in global uncertainty. “International uncertainty and volatility is our friend, making New Zealand, as an investment destination, even more attractive. We should exploit it as far as we are able,” says an energy CEO.

Non-executive director Fraser Whineray agrees. “The fog lights are on, but we can’t afford to stop. When the rest of the world pauses in certain areas, that is the time for pushing forward with New Zealand’s comparative advantages and structural reform for the long term.”

Company director Rob Campbell provides a measured view: “Optimism is not a business virtue. Neither is pessimism. Realism is.”

AI ranks second among CEOs’ concerns

AI ranks second among CEOs’ concerns

Artificial intelligence has quickly become a topic NZ’s chief executives cannot ignore, writes Tim McCready

Asked to name up to three issues most likely to keep them awake at night, 34% of respondents to this year’s Mood of the Boardroom survey chose “adopting AI effectively”.

That puts it ahead of sourcing skilled staff (22%), cyber security (22%) and achieving revenue growth (28%). Only the impact of policy uncertainty (39%) ranked higher.

AI is now firmly embedded in New Zealand’s boardrooms, but the harder work of redesigning businesses and jobs around it has only just begun.

“AI and cyber threats are at a whole new level of concern,” says Simplicity founder Sam Stubbs. “If it isn’t a top three concern for executives, it should be.”

AI moves into the mainstream

Asked which investments their companies plan to make in the next 12 months, almost every respondent is either already giving staff generative AI tools or considering doing so.

Some 75% say they have already rolled out generative AI tools, and another 24% are considering it.

The pattern is similar for automating processes and systems: 69% are already doing it and 28% are considering it.

AI agents — software that can carry out entire workflows rather than assisting with individual tasks — are moving quickly into business. Just over half (55%) of respondents say they are already using them, and a further 38% are considering doing so.

Governance policies are keeping pace with adoption. Some 75% already have an AI governance and risk policy in place, and 24% are considering one.

The harder work starts now

Only 40% of respondents say they have redesigned roles around AI — less than half the proportion already giving staff AI tools.

It is also the area with the largest group still undecided: 41% are considering redesigning roles and a further 15% have no plans to.

Predictive AI, which uses data to forecast demand, risk or customer behaviour, has a similar profile: 45% are already using it and 41% are considering it.

AsureQuality, which won this year’s Best ICT Team Culture & Inclusion Award, was one of the few respondents to have already made every AI investment on the survey’s list, including redesigning roles around AI. Yet it expects no material change in headcount as a result.

Chief executive Kim Ballinger says the company didn’t treat AI as a technology project. Instead, it built a “movement”, linking communities of practice, strategic planning and modern ways of working.

“Successful digital transformations start with people,” she says. The result is “an inclusive, frontline-connected workforce equipped to embrace digital, technology and AI change with confidence”.

Others have made the leap too. “We have doubled our profit by re-engineering our business model to adapt to changes with AI,” says Plato Creative managing director John Plato.

A non-profit chief says their best achievement of the year was “using AI to completely transform all our business processes”.

Beca group chief executive Amelia Linzey says the firm has “broadened the conversation from business performance to focus on innovation, AI as a tool for improved productivity and effectiveness in delivery, ownership culture, positive impact and long-term resilience”.

Deloitte chief executive Mike Horne describes the challenge as “building our workforce of the future — the skills, capability and fungibility required for an integrated human and AI-enabled workforce.

“This is a skills, confidence and enablement exercise.”

A financial services leader credits “rapid training, adoption and implementation of AI alongside a permissive risk culture to support the use of these tools”.

AI as a cost-cutting tool

As businesses brace for economic uncertainty, AI has become one of their main tools for cutting costs.

Asked what actions they are taking or contemplating to safeguard against economic challenges over the next 12 months, 54% say they are already using AI to reduce costs and a further 39% are considering it. Just 6% have no plans to.

Only general operating cost reductions (57%) are more widespread. By comparison, just 25% say they are reducing their workforce, 15% have imposed hiring freezes and 15% are slowing investment.

Fewer jobs or different jobs?

Asked what effect AI will have on their company’s total headcount over the next three years, 41% of respondents expect a decrease. A further 49% expect no material change, and just 7% expect AI to increase their headcount. The companies furthest down the AI path are the most likely to expect fewer staff. Among respondents expecting a lower headcount, 62% are already using AI agents, compared with 40% of those expecting no change.

Even so, most expect the change to be modest. A banking executive expects AI to cut headcount “around the edges, but not dramatically”. An infrastructure services boss also expects a decrease, but only a “marginal” one. For others, the nature of the workforce limits the impact. A food distribution boss points to the company’s “large blue-collar workforce”.

Several leaders stress that AI is meant to augment staff, not replace them. “We don’t see AI replacing our workforce. We see it enhancing our people’s skills and capabilities,” says an engineering CEO. “We will still need the human-to-human and critical thinking element.”

A real estate chief who has rolled out AI tools for salespeople and property managers says: “Where we save through AI, we want to move those people into other areas to keep them in employment if they have the skills.”

Investment in people is keeping pace. Some 68% of respondents are already upskilling their workforce in priority areas, and 24% are considering it. The minority expecting AI to grow their workforce see it as an engine of growth rather than a cost-cutting tool. “It’s an opportunity that we should grab with both hands,” says an energy CEO.

NZ’s productivity opportunity

Executives say the stakes are higher for New Zealand than any one company’s bottom line.

Many respondents see AI as one of the few levers that could make a meaningful difference to the country’s long-running productivity problem.

But some see scale as a barrier. “The size of the New Zealand market limits the return on investment for larger capital automation projects, ultimately placing New Zealand at a GDP per capita disadvantage,” says Rheem New Zealand general manager Mark McCutcheon.

An energy sector director sees AI as a potential “game changer in terms of health, education and productivity benefits”, but warns that New Zealand “should grasp the opportunity or risk being left behind”.

The missing ingredient in Election 2026: A vision for New Zealand (NZ Herald)

The missing ingredient in Election 2026: A vision for New Zealand
Tim McCready

Hayden Wilson says the biggest thing missing from the election campaign is a sense of where either major party wants to take the country.

The chairman of Dentons New Zealand and global vice-chairman of Dentons, Wilson says voters are being given plenty of reasons to vote against the other side, but far fewer reasons to believe in what comes next.

“Neither of the major parties is selling a vision,” he says. “They’re not talking about anything that speaks to what New Zealand could be in the future.”

Wilson made the same case in last year’s Mood of the Boardroom, warning that government “isn’t a business school exercise – it requires vision”. A year on, with the election weeks away, he says that need is even greater.

Both major parties, he argues, are campaigning on a variation of the same line: “we’re not the other guys”.

“It’s relentlessly negative. And I get it – it’s negative because it probably works.”

The cost, he says, is that voters are looking elsewhere. “For me, that is probably the primary driver of the rise of the minor parties.”

He points to the Opportunity Party, which has found space in the centre. “Say what you like about their policies, one of their attractions is that it is something new. All of a sudden, there’s someone saying, ‘Hey, maybe there might be a better way.’”

Wilson doesn’t expect the campaign to settle the country’s biggest questions. What he wants is a sense of direction: “Someone saying, ‘Broadly, this is where we want to go, and this is how we’re going to get there.’”

He lists the “big rocks” New Zealand will need to tackle over the coming decades: funding superannuation, closing the infrastructure deficit, and lifting investment in defence and security as the world grows more volatile.

But the ideas on offer, he says, are recycled. “No one’s talking about how to solve those problems or offering new ways to do it. They’re all variants on things we’ve already done – do more of this thing, or less of that thing.”

Enable growth, don’t just demand it

Wilson says business keeps hearing the same message from politicians – lift productivity, innovate and grow. His question is, what is the Government doing to make that easier?

“It’s not enough just to stand in front of business audiences and say, ‘You need to be radically disrupting yourselves.’ New Zealand businesses are doing that. But what is the Government’s idea of how it creates the conditions to enable growth?”

For Wilson, that means derisking investment in an uncertain world, attracting the international talent the country needs, and getting capital to businesses that can use it to grow.

“That is the role of government – rather than simply saying, ‘Well, you need to get out there and smash it,’ or focusing on the structure of the grocery sector or the electricity sector.”

Cohesion is important too

For Wilson, the argument goes beyond economics. He sees social cohesion as one of the biggest issues facing New Zealand.

He describes the Treaty Principles Bill as “a completely unnecessary distraction for the Government, for a policy that was never going to proceed. It created a platform for a really unpleasant debate on something that needs to be dealt with very carefully.”

Then there’s the growing perception of a K-shaped country, “where some people are doing quite well and some people are really, really struggling”.

Those are the kinds of things that feed disengagement from political life, he says, leading to protectionism and nationalism. “Those are not positives for a small trading nation like New Zealand.”

He argues political leaders need to handle those divisions with care, pointing to former Prime Minister Jim Bolger and his Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister, Sir Douglas Graham.

“It’s incumbent on our political leaders to take really careful and nuanced leadership positions in that debate,” he says. “Where are those leaders now? They’re not there.”

Growth is only part of the job

Wilson says the Government’s focus has been “relentlessly economic”.

“The role of government is economic, but it’s more than just economic. The obligation of any government is to make things better for the whole of society. It feels like they’ve only got one lever.”

Debt is the clearest example. “Everyone accepts it needs to come down. The question is how quickly, and at what cost?”

Ultimately, Wilson sees growth and cohesion as part of the same challenge.

“Where’s the political leadership to say, ‘Look, we’re all in this together.’ How do we ensure New Zealanders as a whole community succeed in the next five, 10, 15, 50 years?’

“For me, that ties back to the same questions: where’s the leadership, and where’s the vision?”

The battle to build a better city (NZ Herald)

The battle to build a better city
Richard Hills explains his vision for a housing density plan to Tim McCready

As chair of Auckland Council’s Policy, Planning and Development Committee, councillor Richard Hills sits at the centre of the debate over how the city will grow.

“I really like the role because it’s complex,” Hills says. “I like details.”

Those details will shape one of the biggest questions facing Auckland: where the next generation of homes will be built.

Earlier this month councillors agreed a set of principles to guide how Auckland reduces its theoretical housing capacity from around two million homes to about 1.6 million, after the Government signalled it would lower the target.

The decision follows five years of national housing reforms requiring councils to enable significantly more housing, including rules permitting up to three homes of three storeys on most residential sites.

In Auckland, that meant the city’s planning rules had to demonstrate enough zoning capacity for roughly two million homes.

The figure was never a construction target. It simply represented the number of homes Auckland’s zoning rules could theoretically allow if every eligible site was developed. But it quickly became a lightning rod in the debate about Auckland’s future.

Under the principles agreed by councillors, any reduction in capacity would likely begin further from the city centre, including areas more than 10km from the CBD, while retaining higher densities around rapid transit, City Rail Link stations, and walkable catchments around bus corridors, town and local centres.

“Density makes sense around stations, centres and places where we’ve invested billions in infrastructure. In any major city you would expect more homes in those areas,” Hills says. “We would look first at removing development capacity on the edges of the city, preventing six-storey buildings far away from jobs or good public transport.”

For Hills, the debate is less about forcing people into a particular type of housing than about giving Aucklanders more choice. “It’s about giving people options,” he says.

The economics of the city, he adds, are already pushing in that direction.

“We expect people to live on the outskirts, commute long distances, and then we’re surprised when the cost of living goes up.”

Petrol prices alone can reshape a household budget overnight.

“You could be hundreds of dollars in the red just by a change of political conflict overseas.”

Protections for historic neighbourhoods also remain. “We are still allowed to use qualifying matters, including special character.”

For Hills, one of the hardest parts of the job is navigating the politics.

“It’s not easy because everyone expects you to help their one issue,” he says. “You’re constantly balancing the area you were elected to represent with the whole city.”

That tension has only been amplified by the stop-start nature of national policy.

“I was looking forward to this year being more proactive: more vision and more focus on what we could be doing from planning development to regeneration,” Hills says.

“But unfortunately, we’ve gone straight back to being reactive.”

He says Auckland needs clarity.

“Other councils in New Zealand have already implemented the National Policy Statement for Urban Development in their plans. Auckland — the biggest city with 40% of New Zealand’s GDP — is the only place that hasn’t rolled this out.”

What the city needs now, he says, is certainty for homeowners, firsthome buyers, developers and investors. “Nothing is ever going to be perfect,” he adds. “But we have to do something.”

The council is now waiting for the Government to finalise the legislation that will determine the next steps.

Hills says the next phase will involve councillors and local boards reviewing options for redrawing the city’s zoning maps.

“We need to protect the integrity of the 10,500 submissions that have already gone in, but also make sure people affected by changes have the ability to have their say.”

After that, the independent hearings panel will examine the detail.

“They’ll be measuring it against access to trains, the city centre, jobs, parks and amenity,” Hills says.

Beyond the policy mechanics, he says the debate ultimately comes down to the kind of city Auckland wants to be.

“My vision is a city centre that is full of people, with higher-density housing near stations where people can walk to work and access public transport easily.”

That includes homes for young people entering the housing market, and downsizing options for older residents who want to stay in their communities.

In some areas, he says, that is already happening — with older residents moving into smaller homes nearby and freeing up family houses for younger buyers.

“If you’re thinking about your parents, or your kids, or your grandkids — where are they going to live?” he says.

“The city centre is safer when it’s full of people walking around. When people pop out of stations and walk into markets, theatres and restaurants.”

Sprawling development makes that harder.

“We have to enable growth where the infrastructure investment is already going,” he says, pointing to projects such as the City Rail Link and the Central Interceptor.

Despite the controversy around intensification, Hills remains optimistic.

“I’m sick of people being negative about Auckland,” he says. “It’s a fantastic city.

“Year after year people come here and want to live here. The natural environment — our beaches and our forests — are second to none.”

Ultimately, he says, the challenge is not just building more homes, but building a better city. “We haven’t done infrastructure well for generations,” he says.

“But we’re getting on top of it. We just need to make sure we bring everyone along with us.”