By FRAN O'SULLIVAN
We came, we spoke, we networked - and while we set out to conquer the challenge posed by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research to explore public policy challenges facing this country, it's fair to say putting 21 "independent creative thinkers" together for one day in Wellington may have allowed sufficient time to gain consensus on the economic issues facing New Zealand - but not the answers.
Twelve months ago, a policy workshop - especially one openly attended by about 40 observers from government departments such as Commerce and Treasury - would have been dominated by the usual suspects: neo-liberal types; the ubiquitous Roger Kerr from the New Zealand Business Roundtable leading the pack.
What was intriguing about the NZIER's first Washington-model think tank held in Wellington last Friday, was the rehabilitation of those marginalised during the 16 years of policy dominance by others with a strong free-market and individualist bent. Professor Jane Kelsey of Auckland University, a longtime opponent of globalisation and privatisation, and Wellington economist Peter Harris, formerly of the public sector union movement, now working directly with Cabinet Ministers, stuck out.
But apart from Comalco chief executive Kerry McDonald, himself a former institute head, and two business media players there were few players with a business orientation taking part in the talkfest.
It may seem perverse to welcome the fact that 21 people who are highly passionate about this country could not achieve consensus on the best policy for sustainable economic growth.
But given the fact that it is a very simple issue for business people to fold their individual tents when a new government takes power - and not buck the system - it's a measure of this country's growing maturity on economic debate that none of the business players present shirked from the task of expressing strong views, NZIER head Alex Sundakov, working off the standard Washington think tank model, broached new territory for the Wellington-based institute by setting an ambitious target by holding the workshop a mere three months after Labour took over the governmental reins.
Several issues stood out:
* New Zealand's sense of nationhood is very diffuse: New Zealanders have yet to reach agreement on this country's destiny - nor has the current government expressed a coherent vision for the nation and the steps needed to get there. While participants were in general agreement that sustainable growth needed to be achieved, there was a sense that the sands of time were running out and a "burning deck" issue, or major economic threat, needed to occur to stir the government to take significant action.
* Labour, and in particular, the Prime Minister, is making huge capital from the Hawkesby and Peter Doone affairs to the applause of their party's natural constituency. But there has been little focused attention on problems such as the current account deficit, or on charting a strategic plan for New Zealand.
* We also have huge racial and generation handicaps which will have deleterious effects on our economic health. Some compelling figures from Sir Tipene O'Regan indicate a widening achievement gap for Maori. Paradoxically, Maori are gaining tertiary qualifications at an exponential rate in strict numerical terms. But their achievements on proportional basis are sliding because the population rate increase for Maori outstrips the rate at which qualifications have been achieved.
* Generationally: large numbers of people are moving into part-time work well ahead of their official retirement period. New Zealand is facing a skills shortage yet there have been few significant attempts to retrain people in their 40s and 50s for different work.
* Both private and public sector expectations are also too low. Goal-setting as a nation is virtually non-existent. Compare recent statements by Finance Minister Michael Cullen putting a six-year time frame for economic policy success with the holistic approach the Singapore Government took after the Asia Crisis which had an immediate focus.
* Investment in our culture can provide a unique - and cost-effective - means of defining New Zealand's place on the world stage. This is particularly important now that New Zealand is no longer the darling of the Economist magazine. The New Zealand Experiment is no longer fashionable but our films and art give New Zealand some international "cut-through".
New Zealand Film Commission chief executive Ruth Harley relates that in Brazil our trade commissioner is using a Kiwi film show attended by two of our internationally recognised directors as the precursor to a New Zealand cheeses launch. It seems the Brazilians do not get steamed up about our Pure New Zealand branding. Kevin Roberts probably had it right after all.
Policy critics come in out of the cold
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.