Project Auckland: A view from the summits (NZ Herald)

The Memorandum of Understanding of Economic Alliance between sister city triplets Auckland, Guangzhou and Los Angeles was signed in 2014 – and if a week is a long time in politics, three years certainly is.

Since then, New Zealand has had three prime ministers. Former Auckland mayor Len Brown “The Singing Mayor” hung up his chains – replaced by Phil Goff, known less for his singing abilities and instead for his prowess in forging New Zealand’s free trade agreement with China.

Guangzhou also changed its mayor in 2016, and although Democratic Party superdelegate Eric Garcetti is still mayor of LA, President Obama was replaced by the entirely different Trump Presidency.

Over that time, three summits were held to recognise the alliance. And just as with geopolitics, the alliance has come a long way.

The first summit, hosted by LA in 2015, was attended by a humble delegation of about 43 Auckland businesses.

In 2016, Auckland outdid the council’s own expectations with over 700 delegates and more than 330 formal business matching meetings.

Guangzhou’s turn to host took place last month, and saw 70 Auckland businesses take 97 delegates, with around 800 others from LA and Guangzhou.

“Auckland companies need to internationalise,” says Pam Ford, General Manager – Business, Innovation and Skills (Acting) at Ateed.

“They have to go global from day one – and it’s hard. “That’s why we ran workshops for attendees ahead of this latest summit. They helped to build the capability of businesses to maximise their time offshore, and gave them the confidence to take part.”

Alongside business matching, networking events and showcase functions, panel discussions and keynote presenters shared insights and ideas from speakers across the alliance.

Los Angeles 2015: New York is a river, Los Angeles is a lake

The first summit saw panellists discuss the cartoonish view of cities that people – including Americans – have about the US, and stressed that the City of Angels should be seen as more than just a gateway to the US, and certainly more than just Hollywood.

Hollywood makes up only a fraction of Los Angeles’ economy. As well as tourism, it is the US’ largest manufacturing centre, a hub for aerospace, logistics, clean technology and innovation, and home to the largest port in the Western hemisphere.

It is the country’s fastest growing tech start-up region – many arguing it has benefits over San Francisco or Silicon Valley for a tech launchpad.

Despite this, there is no denying LA remains the creative capital of the US. One in seven people are employed in a creative field, and it is the top American metro area for art, design and media employment, providing more than US$140b (NZ$203b) of annual economic impact to the city.

“One of the things the LA summit did was open people’s minds that it is more than just film,” says Ford.

“LA is the place for many of Auckland’s companies that create content. Content now fits across so many more mediums – from gaming and television to social media and particularly the influencer economy.”

“But LA is also about cleantech, food and beverage, design and manufacturing. “Because of this three-year relationship, we’ve developed solid partnerships with the organisations for our companies to access – whether that is through the World Trade Center Los Angeles or the Los Angeles Business Council – that we would not otherwise have had.”

One panellist – a resident of LA – described how the city unfolds as you spend more time there. “New York is a river, but Los Angeles is a lake. If you step outside in New York you will naturally go somewhere, the city itself will take you and it is simple to navigate.

“In Los Angeles, to get anywhere you have to actively swim there – or you risk never getting anywhere at all. But that’s what makes it so exciting.”

Auckland 2016: Partnerships, People, and Cross-pollination

The Auckland summit saw global heavyweights take to the stage at the Viaduct Events Centre, speaking about the importance of partnerships and collaboration, and the opportunities that arise when you bring people together and ‘cross-pollinate’ ideas.

Sunny Bates, a serial entrepreneur and a founding board member of Kickstarter who has served as an adviser to companies including GE, TED and P&G, insisted the economic driver of the future won’t come from factories, technology, or software – it will be down to the networks of people.

“Networks are the structural basis for globalisation and for modernisation,” says Bates.

“Networks know no boundaries, and cultural networks are extremely powerful.”

Former Nike innovation expert Erez Morag agreed that networks were critical, but said it wasn’t those networks on their own that lead to innovation, but instead the cross-pollination of ideas through those networks.

“Instead of chasing the competition, chase the insights, listen to everyone, and play bigger than your size,” he says.

Morag used jogging as an example of cross pollination. In 1961, Kiwi runner and athletics coach Arthur Lydiard organised the world’s first jogging club in Auckland, promoting the cardiovascular health benefits of easy distance running.

Lydiard introduced Nike co-founder Bill Bowerman to the concept of jogging on a chance visit to New Zealand.

“[Jogging was] invented in New Zealand and commercialised in the United States,” says Morag – all through the cross-pollination of ideas.

Throughout the Auckland Summit, then-Maori Development Minister Te Ururoa Flavell reinforced the importance of trusted partnerships to the Maori economy. “Maori want to hear your heart, not just slick words.

“If there is no connection to your heart, then there can be no deal – because it will be doomed from the start” – a message that resonated strongly with Chinese delegates, who rely on guanxi – long-term, strong business relationships, based on trust and mutual reciprocity.

Guangzhou 2017: Leverage our Chinese diaspora

Auckland-based Kenneth Leong, co-founder and director at Healthy Breath – an anti-pollution mask using natural New Zealand wool filter media for international markets – spoke about leveraging the Chinese diaspora.

“We sometimes forget Auckland is home to a large, well-connected Chinese business community,” he says.

The summit and surrounding events enabled new connections between the business delegates, and deepened existing relationships.

“Cross-cultural partnerships enrich all parties, by bringing people with great ideas together with people who have connections, capital and channels to market,” says Leong.

“There is a need to accelerate integration between the migrant Chinese and mainstream business communities in Auckland. Everyone is keen to do business together, we just need to create more opportunities for interaction and relationship building.”

New Zealand’s connection to Guangzhou goes back a long way – many of the first Chinese immigrants to New Zealand came from the Pearl River Delta region, including Guangzhou.

Now, Guangzhou is China’s third largest city, contains seemingly endless skyscrapers, and is considered a manufacturing and commercial hub.

It has been consistently ranked by Forbes magazine as the best commercial city in mainland China for ease of doing business, talent, location, and international connectivity, and in many cases, could be a more accessible market for New Zealand businesses than the more recognised larger markets of Shanghai and Beijing.

Project Auckland: Running the ruler over Auckland Mayor Phil Goff (NZ Herald)

It’s just over one year since Phil Goff became Mayor of Auckland after a stellar three decades long career in national politics. Tim McCready asked business leaders to rate how Goff is handling the job.

Heather Ash, Partner, Simpson Grierson: Overall the council is making good progress under Phil Goff’s leadership. My sense is he is working well with council officers and has a good structure around him.

In particular, the proposal for a regional fuel tax is a significant step forward, given the restrictions that local authorities face around alternative funding mechanisms.

Funding, or lack of, is the biggest constraint for the council. Mayor Goff understands the importance of investing in infrastructure – transport, water, etc – for unlocking issues like the housing shortage. New solutions will be needed to help pay for this investment.

A stronger relationship with Wellington will help create solutions for these strategic challenges. The dynamic on this front seems, as expected, to be in good shape. The new Government has a positive attitude to working with local government.

A big issue for the mayor, and council generally, is winning hearts and minds in the community. Progressing the big issues for the city, delivering a great service and keeping control of costs and rates is a major challenge.

For local government, managing the entire Auckland region post-amalgamation is challenging because people’s expectations on what councils do are very different.

Keeping the focus on the big picture and what’s best for the region will mean that local government (the wider Auckland Council group, including the CCOs) does deliver for the city – in particular making the strategic decisions needed to address challenges around growth, transport, infrastructure and housing.

Auckland is a stunning city geographically and has such great potential. It’s an exciting time to rise to these challenges as well as plan for the America’s Cup and Apec.

Kim Campbell, CEO, EMA: Auckland city is facing major challenges.

By 2036 its population is predicted to rise by almost 750,000. We’re already lagging behind in infrastructure investment by billions and that will only be exacerbated with the intensification allowed for under the Unitary Plan.

Furthermore, there continues to be a disconnect between where people live and work, both now and in the future, that will only add to current congestion woes.

Therefore, the mayor’s relationship with Wellington has been constructive and he has a functioning council. After all, he has been successful in convincing the new Coalition Government of the need for a regional petrol tax.

While we don’t necessarily see the petrol tax as a solution, we do know that transport is a major issue for businesses and residents of Auckland.

Our own research shows that the city loses at least $1.3 billion dollars a year in productivity.

The mayor and council in conjunction with Auckland Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency and central Government must work in alignment on the how the roading and public transport networks will operate.

We need to address both short-term bottlenecks and long-term congestion issues that the city’s growing population will put increasing pressure on.

The funding mix is crucial, and Auckland business and residential ratepayers cannot be expected to pay more, unless they know what the network looks like and are confident it will reduce or manage congestion.

The cross-city tunnel has yet to have a major contract let and the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan (Atap) is still only a laundry list of projects being considered with no clear governance or pathway to completion.

Local body funding is an issue facing every council. In Auckland city’s case this is about growth.

The population growth and the growing pressure this puts on the infrastructure, housing, moving around the city and so forth, is a matter the mayor and council are only too aware of, I’m sure. Rates alone will never fund the investment required, and the council is limited in how much money it can borrow.

However, public private partnerships, infrastructure bonds or targeted rates (such as a congestion charge) all have a role to play to overcome investing in some of the significant big-ticket items the city faces. We would like to see these options being given more serious consideration.

I know the mayor has recognised the delays and other planning system issues residing within council but we have yet to see real evidence that lead times have reduced.

It has been a solid start but there is a tidal wave of issues including the America’s Cup and Apec which the city needs to be prepared for.

Tony Falkenstein, CEO, Just Water: The first year has been an opportunity to judge Phil Goff as a leader, and he has failed to lead. He is managing, but not leading this city.

If he was a business leader, taking on a company that was spending more than it was receiving, this would have been the first port of call to get those costs under control.

Something is wrong with the budget process when the mayor “was surprised” and did not realise that the number of executives earning over $200,000 had increased by 25 per cent in the past year.

Either the mayor isn’t getting meaningful information or the CEO is incompetent. Both of them, plus all councillors, should have been all over the staff salaries to see what could have been cut to get the foundation of the council in order.

This is the council’s largest expense, with a new mayor the staff would have been expecting change, and it didn’t happen.

People want to see “leaders” and the inaction over the first year has been disappointing, and a wasted opportunity. I do not see it happening under Phil Goff, as much as I like him as a person.

All we have seen are meaningless cuts, which have done so much to harm our city. If he had been able to reduce only five of the overpaid executives, it would mean our prestigious Art Gallery would not have to consider closing on one or more days a week.

There have been many of these pitiful cuts, which have been overall so small as a percentage of council spending, but so large in terms of those affected.

The mayor can talk about visions of the future, but a vision without a plan is just a dream.

Get the foundation right first, get rid of the shareholdings in the port and the airport, establish private/public partnerships for long term funding opportunities, and most of all get the organisation structure right to match the costs with income.

Graeme Stephens, CEO, SkyCity: I have had a number of positive interactions with Phil Goff and have found him to be highly energised, interested and engaged.

When it comes to translating some aspects of our discussions into action I think his team hits up against the somewhat cumbersome bureaucracy and the silos which dictate decision making in Auckland. The long process to get things done must be as frustrating for him as it can be for us.

Investment in infrastructure, transport and tourism are critical to ensure Auckland keeps pace with regional competitors.

Equally as important, however, is addressing the pressing issue of those with genuine social and financial needs that are not being met under the current system, particularly the homeless.

As a large ratepayer with a big footprint in the Auckland CBD, the decisions council makes strongly impact our business.

The disruption we’re seeing to the roading network is hurting us, as it is hurting many inner-city businesses, but we accept it is critical if we want a vibrant, competitive city in the future.

The council’s vision for a network of laneways, shared spaces and green corridors is also positive, and will ensure the city evolves and responds to community and business priorities.

Homelessness is an issue which requires partnerships from central government, local government, businesses and communities if any meaningful progress is to be made.

Following conversations with the mayor, SkyCity is considering how we can contribute.

Though it does feel as if the city is gaining momentum, with the CRL construction going ahead and the announcement of a regional fuel tax to fund projects like light rail connection between the CBD and the airport, there is still much more that needs to be done, and SkyCity is keen to play a part wherever possible.

Auckland needs major events to stimulate the local economy and promote the city. The New Zealand International Convention Centre will play a role, and SkyCity can and will do more, but the America’s Cup provides the mayor and council an enviable platform to cement Auckland’s place as a global city, for major events, leisure and business tourism, and investment.

Making sure this event is a huge success is critical.

 

Phil Goff extends alliance with Guangzhou, Los Angeles (NZ Herald)

Auckland Mayor Phil Goff has signed an agreement with Guangzhou Mayor Wen Guohui and Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Jeff Gorell to extend the alliance between their three cities for another three years.

The third and final Tripartite Economic Summit took place in Guangzhou last week.
Los Angeles, Guangzhou, and Auckland are sister city triplets, and the past three years has seen the Summit rotate between the three ‘gateway cities’ – previously in Los Angeles in 2015 and Auckland last year.

The 97 Auckland delegates represented 70 businesses including tourism, urban planning and design, bioscience, creative, digital and education.

Auckland Council says this has been the largest ever trade delegation to come out of the city noting that business delegates all paid their own way to attend.

Goff – who signed the free trade deal between New Zealand and China during his period as Labour’s Trade Minister – said , “If like me you’ve been coming here for 30 years, you can appreciate just how quickly, how dramatically, how strongly this country has grown.”

“When I came to Guangzhou in the 1980s I travelled by steam engine on the rail. Today, we see a nation that has progressed more quickly and further than any nation I can recall in history.”

Now, Guangzhou is China’s third largest city, contains seemingly endless skyscrapers, and is considered a manufacturing and commercial hub. Although it may not always be the first city companies have in mind when they consider entering China, it has been consistently ranked as by Forbes magazine as the best commercial city in mainland China when considering ease of doing business, talent, location, and international connectivity. Many delegates left the Summit noting that Guangzhou may be a more accessible market for their business than the more recognised larger markets of Shanghai and Beijing.

New Zealand can tend to overuse the phrase “punching above its weight,” but in this sibling rivalry we indisputably are. Auckland’s population of 1.5 million is dwarfed by Guangzhou’s 14 million. Auckland’s estimated GDP of NZ$93.5 billion could be considered a mere rounding error when compared with Los Angeles’ over US$1 trillion.

Yet Auckland’s 97 delegates were met with around 500 others from Los Angeles and Guangzhou that saw value in making connections and seeking out opportunities to collaborate.

The biomedicine and health forum was an example of these collaborations, co-organised by Auckland’s Maurice Wilkins Centre – New Zealand’s Centre for Research Excellence targeting major human diseases – and the Guangzhou Institute of Biomedicine and Health (GIBH), part of the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The Maurice Wilkins Centre has been working closely with its Chinese counterparts since 2012, establishing a joint centre for biomedicine with the Guangzhou institute in 2015. The two research arms are now expanding their relationship with new projects, joint symposia in both countries, and increased exchange of staff and students.

“GIBH is one of China’s leading biomedical research groups and hosts many world leaders in their fields,” says Professor Rod Dunbar, Director of the Maurice Wilkins Centre.

“We are delighted that our colleagues in GIBH see such value in intensifying our collaboration, and look forward to working with them to deliver new treatments through the clinic.”

Businesses took part in business matching, sector specific sessions and forums, and a visit to tech giant Huawei’s nearby Shenzhen campus.

While New Zealand can be blasé about our mayors and local Councillors, in China they are considered almost like celebrities. It is for that reason that many of the Auckland business delegates considered the high-level representation to have helped connect them to significant players within companies that they would not have otherwise had access to. While the primary aim of the Summit is to build connections for the long-term outcomes that can eventuate, ATEED has said that several companies have made excellent progress at this year’s Summit.

The Council will track and report on the business outcomes of the Tripartite Summit where possible.

– Tim McCready travelled to China as a guest of Alibaba.

Infrastructure: A chat with Auckland Mayor Phil Goff (NZ Herald)

Mayor of Auckland Phil Goff says the incoming Labour-NZ First coalition Government offers a number of advantages for Auckland.

“First, it gives us access to a regional fuel tax which enables us to meet the cost of the new investment that we need to make in transport.

“Secondly, it has a strong commitment to light rail across the Auckland isthmus, to the airport, and ultimately beyond that. As I go around the city, probably the number one priority that most people express to me in terms of major new infrastructure is that we can’t be the gateway city to New Zealand for visitors and have gridlock getting from the airport to hotels in the CBD – that’s critical.

“Thirdly, meeting the housing crisis in Auckland. Clearly, the commitment to 10,000 affordable houses a year would make a huge difference to the crisis that Auckland is undergoing.

“One of the things I have studied in London – and Transport for London have strongly advocated this – when you’re building intensive housing, you need to build it around transport arterial routes and transport hubs.

“When you create something like a light rail system, you can intensify the housing development along that system. There will be value uplift from the construction of that infrastructure, but most importantly houses are built so people can get from where they live to where they work quickly and efficiently.

“You can’t solve the transport problem and the housing problem in isolation. You must do it through projects that meet the needs of both.

“I had a very good working relationship with Bill English. I want to pay tribute to him for being a Prime Minister who was easy to work with, professional, and evidence driven. We worked together to tackle the problems that Auckland was facing. He can be proud of his contribution to New Zealand.”

On Road Pricing
Goff says the Singapore system will be the most advanced congestion charging system there is. But it has been very complex and expensive to implement.

“My view has always been – particularly when you’re using high tech applications – you should buy off the shelf and not necessarily lead them, because there will be a lot of challenges that need to be met and problems to be ironed out before you can get them to work effectively.

“We’ve got some distance to go to persuade the public that congestion charging is the right way to approach the problem of both funding and reducing congestion. I have no doubt that demand management will have big advantages in terms of how you can influence commuter behaviour.

“I’ve been in discussions with Transport for London, who say that the congestion charging in London has worked beyond all expectations. It raises about £150m per year – but more importantly than that – it has stabilised the level of vehicles coming into the city and reduced congestion. Having demand management as a form of road pricing is what we should be ultimately aiming for.

“We’ve got quite a lot of work to put into that, not only in terms of socialising the idea with the public, but also in terms of what system might work most effectively and how it could be introduced in an economic way. We’ll be a follower on that and not a leader. We will get a report later this year from the study commissioned by the outgoing government with the council, but I think we need to take steps in the interim for revenue to fund the transport infrastructure that a city growing like Auckland needs.

“My preference is to have an interim road pricing system based on a fuel tax. If the government is prepared to enable that, we will take responsibility to put it in place. We’re faced with a $5.9b deficit in meeting the cost of the Auckland Transport Alignment Project. The outgoing government said it would meet the most significant share of that, but Auckland would also have to pay a share. We need a source of revenue to do that.

“A road pricing system is far better than a general rating system. It needs to be hypothecated – that is the money needs to be set aside solely for the purpose of improving our transport infrastructure, and the decision on the expenditure of the money raised needs to be made jointly between council and central government.

“For the immediate future, having a fuel tax makes a lot of sense. While we are working through the process of what might be the most effective form of demand management or congestion charging, the regional fuel tax would enable us to get on and implement some of the infrastructure that we need for Auckland to avoid worsening congestion and gridlock closing the city down.”

http://bit.ly/TimMcCreadyDonaldTrumpMood

Tim McCready

The “Trump factor” is one of the major issues impacting chief executives’ confidence in the global economy.

In last year’s Mood of the Boardroom survey – held just over a month before the US presidential elections – CEOs rated the election outcome as their third greatest international concern impacting on business confidence.

A year on, they see Donald Trump’s presidency and its resultant political instability as taking the edge off a generally positive outlook. CEOs rated the “Trump factor” their second highest international concern at 6.47/10 with 10 saying they were “extremely concerned” about its effect on political instability.

“The Trump regime has amplified geopolitical instability considerably,” said Rob Cameron, founder of merchant bankers Cameron Partners. “Global political outcomes are more unpredictable.”

“His performance is so poor we can only hope for impeachment,” added a law firm head.

Despite the negativity towards the president, 80 per cent of those surveyed say their view of Trump’s performance won’t affect their own company’s intentions with the United States:

“Operating in the US isn’t easy, regardless of who is in power,” said a tourism boss. “The domestic economy actually feels very strong in the US from a business operating perspective.”

“It remains a key market for us, no matter the presidency. Therefore, we remain committed to the United States,” added Don Braid, Mainfreight’s group managing director.

Others cited the ability for the US Congress to moderate the actions of the President as offering reassurance:

“Fortunately, in the United States, the founding fathers designed a constitution with checks and balances. Despite the concerns about Trump gaining a lot of media attention, his ability to implement action is limited,” explained a major law firm partner.

“He is mercifully restrained by the constitution and the checks and balances in the system,” said Kate McKenzie, Chorus CEO.

Several executives in the real estate industry thought Trump was having a positive impact on their business, as he unintentionally makes New Zealand a more appealing environment:

“As more Americans look to diversify investment and lifestyle outside the US, New Zealand’s clean green image and welcoming economic and political environment makes us a favoured destination,” said one real estate chief executive.

Another commented: “Trump’s irrational behaviour makes New Zealand’s isolation one of our greatest strengths.”

Neil Paviour-Smith, managing director of Forsyth Barr thinks Trump will help New Zealand businesses to bolster its trade in other markets. “While the New Zealand economy is continuing its expansionary phase, we are seeing more synchronised growth globally – including former laggards Japan and the EU – despite a lot of distraction from geopolitical-related activities.”

Much of the comment was pungent. Simplicity’s Sam Stubbs predicts – “as the ultimate apprentice in the ultimate game show, he will be, ultimately, fired.”

Closer to home there was some criticism of New Zealand businessman Chris Liddell – a former chief financial officer at Microsoft and General Motors – who heads Trump’s strategic development group focusing on priority projects and liaison with the private sector.

“Trump is an absolute tosser! What is Chris Liddell doing there?” questioned Local Government Funding Agency chairman Craig Stobo.

Another added: “Though in talking with a prominent Kiwi in the White House, he believes Trump is a very clever person who knows business and will succeed – as long as he gives up the stupid tweeting and mind games over people.”

Though Liddell is still in the White House, the turmoil and unprecedented staff turnover in Washington and delays in filling key jobs in US Government departments, has been noted.

“A disastrous lack of leadership is leaving the United States increasingly rudderless,” said Beca’s Greg Lowe.

“Trump is worse than I thought he was going to be,” added a real estate executive.

The Trump administration has seen a number of high-profile staff leave the White House.

Recent departures include Sebastian Gorka, deputy assistant to Trump; chief strategist Steve Bannon; communications director Anthony Scaramucci – dismissed after only 11 days in the job – and chief of staff Reince Priebus.

But the new chief of staff, former marine general John Kelly, is said to be bringing discipline to the show.

Protectionism rears its head
One of Trump’s first actions as president was to throw out the TPP agreement which New Zealand signed in Auckland in February 2016 along with 11 other nations. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump frequently criticised TPP – labelling it “horrible,” a “bad deal,” and a “death blow for American workers”.

His new “America First” strategy has had a wide impact on US involvement in regional and multilateral trade agreements. The president favours individual deals on the proviso they can be quickly terminated in 30 days “if somebody misbehaves.”

He has recently stepped up calls for a more protectionist stance. Dismissing some of his top staffers as globalists, he has demanded a plan be drawn up to impose tariffs to remove China’s “unfair advantage” displayed by its trade surplus with the United States. “There is no dodging it, the world is more fearful and feels (but may not be yet) more protectionist,” says a senior player in the investment community.

“The move towards protectionism causes one to be more cautious and concerned about the outlook,” says Cathy Quinn, partner and former chair at MinterEllisonRuddWatts.

The protectionist stance also brings with it the possibility of border taxes, which some congressional Republicans have put forward to support Trump’s commitment to increase American competitiveness and prevent jobs shifting overseas.

This would mean companies could no longer deduct the cost of imports, creating strong incentives to retain and relocate supply chains and research to the United States. But there are fears this could spark a trade war, as countries move away from the US and source products and materials elsewhere.

Without a detailed proposal for border taxes, it is impossible to comment on the specifics. But chief executive respondents to the Herald survey indicated they are reasonably concerned about potential risks to exporters trading with the United States, rating this at 5.2/10.

“Implementation of the Border Adjustment Tax poses a very serious risk to New Zealand’s wine exports to the United States – our biggest export market – and will undoubtedly be damaging to the industry,” says Erica Crawford, founder and managing principal of Loveblock Wines.

Threat of nuclear war
There is no doubt the threat of nuclear war has escalated considerably since Trump became president.

Earlier this month, Pyongyang said it had successfully trialled a hydrogen bomb that could be loaded onto a long-range missile.

North Korean state television said the trial, which was ordered by leader Kim Jong-un was a “perfect success” and a “very meaningful step in completing the national nuclear weapons programme.” It received international condemnation – including from New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Gerry Brownlee, who called the test “utterly deplorable.”

As is customary, Trump responded by tweet: “North Korea is a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China, which is trying to help but with little success.”

This was followed by: “South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!”

Trump didn’t expand on what that “one thing” might be, but at an unrelated event last month he promised to inflict “fire and fury like the world has never seen” upon the totalitarian state if it acted in a hostile manner.

It is not surprising then, that the potential for nuclear war in Asia was considered by CEOs to be of reasonable concern, rating at 5.9/10.

“North Korea is a serious issue, which would have come to a head with or without Trump. The problem is Kim Jong-un can’t be fired, only fired upon. This is not reality TV,” said Simplicity’s Stubbs.

The Trump Factor
CEOs rated President Trump’s policy initiatives and actions on a 1 to 5 scale (where 1= not impressive and 5= very impressive).

  • Implementing his campaign agenda including a radical cut to the corporate income tax to 15 per cent: 1.51/5
  • Trump’s call for an “America First” trade policy with a focus on bilateral trade deals: 1.31/5
  • Threats of a nuclear strike on North Korea: 1.30/5
  • United States withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord: 1.24/5
  • Dealing with Russian security concerns: 1.24/5

http://bit.ly/TimMcCreadyKingmakerorQueenmaker

Tim McCready

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters may not be universally admired by the C-suite, but chief executives rate him a shrewd politician.

“Winston is undoubtedly in my view a supreme politician!” said Joanna Perry, professional director and chairwoman of the IFRS Advisory Board. A legal firm boss added, “Peters plays the political game very astutely. But he is the ultimate opportunist on the political front.”

Peters, 72, has previously held the roles of Deputy Prime Minister in Jim Bolger’s National Government (sacked by Jenny Shipley) and Foreign Minister in Helen Clark’s Labour Government.

NZ First currently has 12 MPs, and following the election expects to have former Labour MP Shane Jones join the ranks, listed comfortably at eighth on the list.

NZ First has released some favourable policies for business – including cutting corporate tax rates to 25 per cent – but his negative stance on the TPP, foreign investment and immigration, along with his growing shopping list of bottom lines, has damaged his reputation with business leaders.

Chief executive respondents to the Herald’s CEO Survey rated Peters’ political performance as leader at 2.76/5 on a scale where 1= not impressive and 5= very impressive. But it is the NZ First leader’s ability to exert leverage under the MMP political system which makes him a key player at the September 23 election.

It is possible Peters will not be the sole potential kingmaker or queenmaker when coalition negotiations begin after the votes come in. Or at least not with the same levels of bargaining power the NZ First leader might have had eight weeks ago, before Labour began its poll climb.

Before Labour’s leadership change, NZ First was considered the only path to power for either National or Labour. But in light of the “Ardern Effect”, there is some evidence that disillusionment with the status quo is spilling over to Labour, with recent polls showing they now have more than one path to form a government.

CEO respondents identified the young vote – and young females in particular – as those who might be drawn to vote for Labour this time, favouring a removal of a stale Government in favour of a fresh one.

When asked who NZ First should form a coalition with, most CEOs (69 per cent) opted for National. Just 4 per cent said Labour. What is notable is that a considerable number said the decision should be up to the voter – and not a case of the tail wagging the dog.

“The party who secures the largest portion of the vote from the electorate as that is the party most New Zealanders want to see form government,” said Beca’s Greg Lowe. Others thought NZ First should just support the largest party on confidence and supply rather than trying to “blackmail policy concessions that result in much being watered down”.

There was growing support for both major parties to reject NZ First as a coalition partner and instead form a grand coalition – between Labour and National – as has been seen in Germany, or for both parties to simply go back to the polls instead of making a deal with Peters. “Maybe National and Labour should form a grand coalition to get some long-term things right,” recommended an automotive CEO.

Both National and Labour have ruled out giving the prime ministership to Peters. Unsurprisingly, 94 per cent of chief executives were also strongly opposed to the major parties conceding the prime ministership on an interim basis to achieve power.

Most thought the party with the largest share of the vote should be in control, and that minor parties should not have this level of influence.

Some of the responses were on the nose: “Heck no,” “FFS”, and “Winston doesn’t have the work ethic to be Prime Minister even for a couple of weeks.”

In this year’s Mood of the Boardroom, a majority of chief executives expected the disillusionment with traditional politicians would spill over and affect the results of the upcoming election.

Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn. Donald Trump.

Recent outcomes of elections and referendums around the globe have been anything but predictable and can be largely attributed to disillusionment and rejection of immigration, globalisation, and a loss of national identities.

But many also believe disillusionment with the status quo can be explained by the curse that comes with ruling for three terms:

“We are already seeing it – sensationalism and strong communicators are winning votes,” adds a media industry CEO.

“There will be some fatigue with another National government term but not the disillusionment with political institutions that we have seen in the US and Britain,” reckoned Rob Cameron, founder of Cameron Partners.

“We are in a very different position to the US and UK,” says a professional director. “Our economy is strong and we have choices as long as we make them wisely.”

Others think the disillusionment runs deeper. An executive in the wine industry: “People are sick of smug, self-indulgent, middle-aged white men. At least I am.”

http://bit.ly/TimMcCreadytaxcuts

Tim McCready and James Penn

The Government’s election-year Budget contained $2 billion worth of tax cuts from April next year – on the proviso National gets elected on September 23.

When the Mood of the Boardroom asked CEOs whether now is the right time to cut personal income tax, most (56 per cent) responded no, 38 per cent said yes, and a further 6 per cent were unsure.

“Tax at the current level is workable; there is no urgency,” says Oregon Group managing director Thomas Song. A recruitment head suggests tax cuts are a good idea “if you want to buy votes”.

Many responded that any tax cuts should be targeted to low and mid-income earners. “Target those that really need it,” says the managing director of a public relations firm. “Give cuts to lower and middle-income earners as a matter of urgency,” said a wine industry executive. “Giving cuts to top bracket achieves nothing.”

Most respondents felt that investing into other areas – particularly housing, infrastructure, education, health and climate change – is more important.

But Bill English disputes that you can’t have both.

“We can achieve our social and our environmental objectives at the same time as having a strong economy,” said English during the recent TVNZ leaders debate.

“We can have a strong economy with reasonable taxes, give hard-working families $1000 a year on the average wage, that they can make some choices about.”

“There is still too much to do in New Zealand,” says a major banking boss. “Infrastructure investments, and fixing our schools and hospitals. After that, maybe.”

Vector Director Dame Alison Paterson agrees: “I think the majority of New Zealanders believe that while there are children living below the poverty line, there should be no personal income tax cuts.”

CEOs were asked whether now is the right time to bring in a new progressive tax rate on high earners. A large majority – 79 per cent – responded no. Just 13 per cent responded yes; 8 per cent were unsure.

Many chief executives were concerned this would discourage growth and could make it difficult to attract and retain skilled workers in New Zealand. “We don’t want to drive talent offshore,” says Mai Chen, managing partner of Chen Palmer.

Most of those in favour to raising taxes for high earners had a caveat: “it is subject to where reinvestment goes,” said a media boss. “As long as the proceeds are targeted towards eliminating inequality,” said another.

There was scepticism among respondents that increasing the tax burden on high income earners would help contribute to long-term productivity and societal gains, and would be against global trends.

“Higher earners will generally still spend a high proportion of their disposable income,” explains a printing boss. “The Government collects GST from every additional dollar spent, and they are more likely to spend in areas such as medical insurance and private education, resulting in a lesser load on government services.”

Several CEOs worry that increasing tax on higher earners could lead to an increase in tax avoidance measures. “A huge proportion of the New Zealand tax burden is paid by a small number of supposedly high-income salary earners,” says an agribusiness boss. “A new progressive tax would make this burden worse.” Others suggested a wealth tax or capital gains tax might be more productive in the long-term.

The other major form of tax paid by individuals is GST. Executives were keen to see a movement towards a regime where GST, as well as regional petrol taxes, was returned to the regions in which it was collected, to go towards local economic development. Indeed, 76 per cent of respondents supported such a policy.

Mainfreight group managing director Don Braid is one of those in favour. “It is so important this debate is had,” says Braid. “Having Wellington think they have the answers for how much is spent on infrastructure in the regions is yesterday’s answer. We need to be thinking about a bottom-up approach to regional tax investment.”

Enthusiasm wasn’t universal.

“Having seen the standard we currently have at local government level, further devolution of power would need to be coupled with a major rethink on how to attract talent and experience to move into that space.”

“Daft idea,” said one executive. “Local government would just waste the money.”

Thomas Song’s top three issues

  1. Productivity: Every factor of input is expensive because of the political insistence on New Zealand labour. If we buy infrastructure, we should buy “quality and speed at cheapest price”. How the supplier delivers shouldn’t be our concern except, of course, slave labour excluded.
  2. Ignorance of world affairs: Move to educate with diverse sources of teachers from offshore.
  3. Complacency: The average Kiwi has very little idea about our largest trade partner – China. Most still believe China is still in the Mao era of cheap labour. Again, make knowledge of our trading partners a priority.

http://bit.ly/TimMcCreadyJamesShawMood

Tim McCready

Chief executives have strongly marked down Greens leader James Shaw’s leadership abilities in the wake of the Metiria Turei scandal which claimed the career of his former co-leader.

Whereas last year, CEOs ranked Shaw second in their performance rankings for Opposition MPs, this year he has slumped to ninth place just behind fellow Green MP Julie-Anne Genter.

It is a stunning turnabout for the MP last year’s Mood of the Boardroom had billed as part of a “dream team for the future” along with first-ranked Opposition MP Jacinda Ardern.

“James disappointingly has been damaged by the Metiria issue and undone all the good work securing new urban Green voters. He lacked decisiveness on an issue that was black and white,” says a transport CEO.

A professional director agrees: “I would have rated James a five six weeks ago, but his handling of the Turei affair was appalling and the Greens are damaged almost to the point of extinction as a result.”

Chief executives believe Shaw should have called time on Turei after her admission she had intentionally misled authorities about her living costs while on the DPB.

Her admission of benefit fraud initially spiked the Greens poll ratings. But outrage grew after further revelations that Turei had registered at her former partner’s address in a prior election in order to vote for a friend.

The fallout continued when Kennedy Graham and David Clendon – two of the Greens’ most long-serving and respected MPs – quit in protest, saying they could no longer support the leadership. The killer blow came when a Newshub-Reid Research poll revealed a slump in support for the Greens – down 4.7 points to 8.3 per cent. Turei finally admitted defeat and stood down leaving Shaw as the party’s sole leader.

“It has become a joke,” says a banker. “The Greens were clearly out to steal votes from Labour with their announcement of a no-questions-asked welfare policy, and Labour have clearly done their best to steal those votes back again, helped by Ms Turei’s extraordinary performance.”

Chief executives had to this point considered Shaw an asset to the Green Party. He has an impressive background, with a pre-politics career in management consulting, working offshore with multinationals to develop their sustainable business practices.

Stick to the environment
CEOs believe the Greens should now “stick to their knitting” and refocus on environmental policies instead of standing by while Labour and National grab terrritory.

A banking boss says: “If James Shaw can make the Greens a truly environmental party – rather than a party of social justice activists and protests – that will be good.

“It will push Labour and National to up their game around New Zealand’s pressing environmental issues.”

“The Greens need to provide the necessary environmental platform and stand strongly on that platform,” says a wine industry boss. “Sadly, they have neglected the environmental aspect for a Labour agenda.”

Labour’s eleventh-hour leadership change to Ardern has seen her reclaim the progressive agenda as her party hoovers up the soft Green vote.

An automotive sector boss said the leadership spill had demonstrated they are not sure themselves whether they are environmentalists, left-wingers or a Third Way party.

“Talk to James and you might think the latter, but I’m no longer sure and Jacinda might be better without them.”

Scrap the MoU with Labour
Some 78 per cent of CEOs now think that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) that Labour and the Greens forged in May 2016 should be scrapped.

Others think it had its merits when the Opposition needed to project an alternative option to a popular National-led government.

“The context in which it was signed is more part of the past than the present given where Labour in particular was in the polls,” says Deloitte CEO Thomas Pippos. “In terms of today, I would have thought the Greens would be better placed out of it and more focused on Green issues in and around the centre; as they could naturally, under an MMP environment, be within successive Governments for extended periods of time.”

During Three’s recent The Nation debate, Shaw was asked why the Green Party did not transcend left and right as it said it would when it was set up.

Shaw explained: “We felt it was only fair to voters who want to know which way their vote is going to count that we would say we’re with the parties of change.

“If you want a progressive, Labour-led government, the Green Party has to be at the heart of that government because they won’t be able to govern without us.”

But many CEOs disagree, saying that a blue-green government is one they could get behind.

“Greens should work with National to form a government” says Onno Mulder, City Care Group CEO.

Mainfreight group managing director Don Braid offers the Green Party and Shaw sage advice: “Get on and believe in yourselves rather than worrying about who you might need at your side, or not!”

Tell me: Who are you?
“Raise your profile” is the overwhelming message from CEOs when asked about Opposition MPs.

While most were rated an average of between two and three (out of a possible five), an alarming proportion of “Unsure” votes were given as well.

MPs such as Labour’s Chris Hipkins and Dr David Clark and NZ First’s Tracey Martin all received “Unsure” responses from over 40 per cent of respondents, for example.

Martin was ranked lowest overall of 20 Opposition MPs rated by respondents, with an average rating of just 1.57.

This translated into uncertainty and pessimism about a potential alternative government.

“What do these people actually do?” asked the director of a law firm. “One hears nothing of them until election year.”

“There is a lot about a Labour government that is unknown – and thus risky,” said Rob Cameron, founding partner of investment banking firm Cameron Partners.

However, cause for cheer will be the performance of Labour’s core election team.

Leader Jacinda Ardern was well in front, with an impressive average rating of 3.81.

She was flanked – as in the election campaign – by deputy leader Kelvin Davis on 2.97 and finance spokesperson Grant Robertson on 2.96.

“The bench strength outside of any Government always suffers from a concern around whether they are ‘game fit’,” said Deloitte CEO Thomas Pippos. “The inexperience in this case exacerbated by the number that have never been in Government – or if in Government, in lesser roles and 9 years ago… but everyone starts somewhere.”

NZ First leader Winston Peters received a smattering of ratings across the spectrum – culminating in an average rating of 2.64. This was a slight drop on his rating from last year (2.90).

“Winston gets a midway mark for being Winston,” summarised one business leader.

“Really!” said one investment banker, when asked his opinions on Peters’s key election policies. “Is that all they have got?”

“Dog whistle – playing to the base,” said Matthew Cockram, CEO of Cooper and Company. “None of these things will add to New Zealand’s productivity or wealth.”

http://bit.ly/TimMcCreadyWater

Tim McCready

Many CEOs raised the state of New Zealand’s water quality as one of the top issues currently faced by the nation. “We are risking killing the goose that’s laid the golden eggs due to our complacency around water quality,” says Theresa Gattung, AIA Australia Chair.

A staggering 93 per cent of CEOs agree more should be done to ensure New Zealand has clean water in the future (3 per cent said we are doing enough, 4 per cent are unsure).

CEOs suggested the current government was under-performing in tackling water quality and the environment, scoring 2.51/5 (where 1 = not impressive and 5 = very impressive).

“We need to be far more aspirational with our targets,” suggests a food and beverage boss.

Added Gattung: “What we have collectively allowed with regard to water degradation is a disgrace and we cannot accept the current timeframes to get back to swimmable waterways.”

Business leaders are concerned New Zealand’s “100 per cent Pure” slogan may not be sustainable unless corrective action is taken. Last month, the Al Jazeera channel launched a two-part investigation into New Zealand’s water quality. The documentary – Polluters Paradise – focuses on the impact dairy farming has had on rivers and lakes, and asks whether New Zealand’s waterways are “as sparkling as the tourist ads suggest?”

The investigation claimed there were “troubling questions about what can happen when a nation’s desire for economic growth, however understandable and justifiable it may be, takes undue precedence over the environment”.

This is a significant worry for many CEOs, who say if decisive action is not taken soon, we could blow New Zealand’s unique environmental position and perception, causing far-reaching economic impact. Several respondents thought water ownership was a major issue. “We need to reach agreement on the ownership of water with Maori, with regard to the Treaty of Waitangi provisions,” says an agribusiness leader.

An independent director agreed: “There needs to be a national conversation on water ownership, management and protection.”

Perhaps offering some perspective to the water debate, one chief executive pointed out that such a high percentage calling for more to be done with respect to water quality is not unexpected: “for context, you would tick yes for every other country in the world too”.

Peak cow
A significant percentage of chief executives believe dairy intensification in New Zealand has gone too far (43 per cent say yes, 27 per cent say no, 30 per cent don’t know), suggesting it is time to move up the value chain event to plant-based milk.

Several business leaders say expansion on to marginal land that is unsuitable for dairy farming is causing lasting damage: “We are doing things with some land that is not naturally aligned. Long term, that will have an impact,” says a capital markets head.

“New Zealand has reached peak cow,” says a major banking chief executive. “The focus should move to creating more added value from dairy, rather than increasing the number of commodities we put on the international market.”

Policies
Several policies relating to water have been announced during the election campaign.

Labour wants to charge for the large scale commercial use of water. The royalty for bottled water would be charged per litre, whereas irrigation would be charged per 1000 litres. Revenue from the royalties would go to regional councils, with the expectation it would be used to keep waterways clean.

Labour’s finance spokesman Grant Robertson says the likely rate for irrigators would be somewhere between 1 or 2 cents per 1000 litres.

The Green Party also wants to charge for the sale and export of bottled water, putting a 10 cent levy on its sale and export, which would be applied at the point of manufacture. The revenue from the levy would be distributed between councils and mana whenua, with councils expected to use the revenue for environmental programmes and drinking water management.

Though many respondents indicated they are in favour of a water tax, the varied responses from CEOs demonstrate it is not a simple task:

  • “Labour’s water policy is a good start to rethinking how to allocate a valuable resource. Would water bottle sales be a more economically sustainable export than dairy?” Craig Stobo, Chair, Local Government Funding Agency
  • “Focus on where water is used and/or polluted – agriculture rather than the small percentage in bottled water.” Food and beverage boss
  • “This is not just a rural issue. Many cities have woeful sewage management and this needs to be addressed as well.” Agribusiness chief.

http://bit.ly/TimMcCreadyReportCard

Tim McCready

When asked to consider the National-led Government on its performance in key areas since the 2014 election, CEOs rated the Budget surplus focus at 4.55/5 most highly, followed closely by economic growth at 4.21/5.

This is perhaps unsurprising given this year’s Budget showing the Government recording a stronger operating surplus than was forecast, and the recently released Pre-Election Fiscal Economic Update showing a robust economy growing at an average of around 3 per cent over the next four years.

“The country has benefited on many fronts from stable and skilled economic policy making,” says Beca Group chief executive Greg Lowe.

But survey respondents cautioned though National can be proud of the economic health of the country, there are significant social issues that need tackling.

“National’s steady as she goes approach needs to change up if they get another term,” says an agribusiness chairman. “They must be more aspirational in their approach to the big-ticket items including water, climate, homelessness and poverty.”

This tale of two very different report cards is obvious in the survey, with National’s performance tackling housing issues (2.43/5), environmental/water quality (2.50/5) and poverty and homelessness (2.43/5) among the five lowest scoring areas.

“There are plenty of gaps starting to appear,” says an automotive chief executive. “They have not addressed environment and housing that well as they don’t want to offend their constituency: farmers and home owners.”

New Zealand’s growing inequality gave National another poor score, with the wealth gap receiving 2.56/5.

Research released by Oxfam earlier this year showed the richest 1 per cent hold 20 per cent of the wealth in New Zealand, while 90 per cent of the population owns less than half of the nation’s wealth.

ICBC chairman Don Brash says many of these issues are interlinked, with housing the crux of the problem: “increasing wealth inequality, poverty and homelessness are all a direct result of the Government’s failure to deal with the unaffordability of housing.”

A legal boss gave National a ruthless assessment: “They have not listened on housing ideas; allowed continued Chinese money launderers a free pass via housing access; missed opportunities to intervene in the market as Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore have done; messed up citizenship and residency revenue and allowed Auckland Council to continue to mess up the city.”

Poverty and homelessness was rated by CEOs as one of the Government’s poorest performing areas since the 2014 election, receiving a rating of 2.43/5. “New Zealand’s performance on a global scale has been impressive in comparison to most economies and National deserve credit for that,” says a director of two prominent companies. “But there are some notable underachievements, including the rise of homelessness — just walk along Queen St.”

When asked “should we be doing more to help the homeless population?” 85 per cent of CEOs said yes, 5 per cent no, and 10 per cent were unsure.

“Homelessness is simply not the New Zealand way. We fail ourselves as a society by condoning it in any form,” says Simplicity managing director Sam Stubbs.

Stubbs was not alone with this sentiment. “Everyone needs a home,” and “there is always more to be done in this space,” and “surely this problem is solvable” were comments peppered throughout this year’s survey responses.

But how to tackle poverty and homelessness was much harder for business leaders to agree upon.

“Give tax breaks to low and mid-income people and stop the merry go round of money,” says Erica Crawford, Loveblock Wine chief executive.

“Our people are struggling and kids struggling to learn. Too many homeless and hungry. Do something.”

The challenge now for National is to clarify what their vision for the future is – for both New Zealand and New Zealanders, explains Deloitte chief executive Thomas Pippos. “They need to capture the hearts, souls and minds of the voting public around it – not straightforward for anyone given the shallow decision-making criteria it seems the average voter adopts.”

Cathy Quinn’s Top Three Issues
Retreat to protectionism around the world: All we can do is to keep advocating for open trade and opening doors with others.

  1. Trump commencing war with North Korea: Bill English openly warning US against it took moral courage. I think it is a position every Kiwi would agree with.
  2. The divide between the haves and have nots: I would support a programme that provides housing for the homeless and support for children in deprived families. The challenge is getting the money spent where we want it to be. For example, on kids in deprived circumstances and not diverted off elsewhere. It is in no one’s interest to simply provide dollars without a degree of confidence that it ends up helping those who are most in need. Fundamentally, as a society I believe the majority want to see the vulnerable looked after appropriately. We find it abhorrent – for whatever reason – that kids have no home, damp homes, insufficient food, no shoes. That is not the NZ most of us want.