By Chris Trotter*
About twelve kilometres from the farm on the North Otago coast where I grew up stands the Brydone Monument. Constructed atop Sebastopol Hill, the Oamaru stone monument memorialises Thomas Brydone’s pioneering role in exploiting one of the great industrial innovations of the Nineteenth Century – refrigeration.
It was the consignment of sheep and lamb carcasses from the Totara Estate’s slaughterhouse, and loaded into the SS Dunedin’s refrigerated hold at Port Chalmers, that departed Otago Harbour on 15 February 1882. Ninety-eight days later, those same, frozen carcasses were unloaded in England. In today’s money, that single Totara consignment returned Brydone’s employer, the Australian and New Zealand Land Company, a profit of $200,000.
In the absence of an innovative breakthrough as transformative as refrigeration, Christopher Luxon’s energetic promotion of economic growth rings a little hollow.
In the century that followed Brydone’s original 1882 shipment, this country’s economy expanded enormously. Refrigeration not only rendered the raising of sheep and cattle for slaughter profitable, it more-or-less created New Zealand’s dairy industry. In historian James Belich’s memorable metaphor, it created a 16,000 kilometre-long protein conveyor-belt from the ports of New Zealand to the ports – and, ultimately, the tables – of Great Britain.
Refrigeration not only made billions for the largely British concerns that oversaw New Zealand’s economic evolution in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (fair enough, it was their capital that made it possible) but also formed the material foundation upon which New Zealand’s society and culture was built. Our national character, forged on the owner-operated family farms that refrigeration made economically viable, would have been very different without it.
Is there an equivalent industrial innovation which today presents itself to those with capital to invest as ideally suited to New Zealand?
The disruptive innovation that immediately springs to mind is Artificial Intelligence. In New Zealand, however, the potential of AI would appear to lie in the human labour it replaces. In sharp contrast to refrigeration, AI looks set to get rid of jobs – not create them. Compared to New Zealand’s flesh and blood economy, an economy evolving out of AI would be a much more ethereal affair. Certainly, it is difficult to envisage the AI equivalent of a freezing-works.
Still, the world in which AI promises to play an increasingly vital part may see in New Zealand a secure, faraway location, plentifully supplied with the cheap, climate-friendly, and renewable energy supply needed to power the colossal computing resources AI demands. From farming sheep and cattle, could New Zealand become an energy farm for the tech lords of the Northern Hemisphere?
Luxon’s forward vision fell short of confronting that possibility. Instead, the Prime Minister homed-in on two economic sectors: tourism and education. Sadly, his goals for both would appear to embrace nothing more than the restoration of the economic status quo ante.
His ambition for the tourism sector is “more”. More bums on the seats of tour busses; more budget accommodation; more huge crowds at New Zealand’s premiere attractions; more pressure on an already inadequate infrastructure. His Labour predecessors wanted fewer, but richer, tourists. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Luxon, the former CEO of Air NZ, is looking for an increase in tourist numbers.
“Mexicans with cell-phones” was how American producers described the Kiwis who staffed New Zealand’s film industry in the 1990s. How will investors describe the workers in Luxon’s low-wage, low-skill, tourism sector of the 2020s? “Filipinos with cash-registers.”
More bums on the seats of the nation’s lecture theatres is also what Luxon is looking for in the education sector. Full-fee-paying overseas students, the golden geese of the pre-Covid era, returning to these shores in ever-increasing numbers: that is what former health minister, now universities minister, Dr Shane Reti, is being asked to deliver. Such is the fate of this unusually intelligent and thoughtful politician: to be asked to do things that are not only impossible, but stupid.
Insufficient funding, compensated for by the financial contributions of overseas students, is steadily wrecking New Zealand’s universities.
Charging students for their tertiary education may have been justifiable when universities were basically finishing-schools for the ruling classes. In modern, highly-complex, societies and economies, however, user-pays is deeply subversive of the crucial role higher education is expected to play in refreshing and reinvigorating the nation.
Supplying credentials in return for a hefty sum of money transforms students into customers. Unfortunately, when it comes to the arts and sciences, the customers are not always right. Pretending they are undermines the entire meaning and purpose of a university.
As is the case with tourism, the tertiary education sector would benefit from fewer but better students. When tertiary education is state-funded the whole of society becomes the universities’ customer, and the quality of the knowledge and skills imparted, rather than the quantity of degrees awarded, becomes the sector’s primary goal. Graduates are thus reassured that not only do their qualifications possess genuine academic value, but so, too, do they. Indeed, “the best and the brightest” will be viewed by their fellow citizens as crucial to the social and economic development of their country.
But, this is not the state of mind in which the nation finds itself. New Zealand has spent the last 40 years telling its citizens that, barring the handful of social services its political class has – so far – been unwilling to dismantle (although David Seymour and Act are up for it) they are on their own.
If you purchased your tertiary education, and are still paying off the necessary loans, then the resulting qualification is yours, and yours alone. If somebody overseas is willing to pay you more for it than a New Zealand employer, then you are perfectly entitled to take up their offer. What is New Zealand, after all, but a name on the cover of a passport?
There is nothing in Luxon’s 2025 State of the Nation address suggesting than he regards this rugged and morally unimpeded individualism as a cause for government concern. On the contrary, it is precisely the “mojo” made manifest in such clear-eyed selfishness that he is so eager for New Zealanders to recover and display. Economic growth is possible, he reassures us, but only under a government that is willing to get out of the way and let those with the drive and ambition needed to succeed get on with it.
Luxon would have loved Thomas Brydone’s mojo. By all accounts he was a burly, bruising, bully of a man who got things done and wasn’t too particular about how. The men who worked in the Totara slaughterhouse fought heat, filth, stench, flies, and exhaustion to get those carcasses to Port Chalmers on time. Their efforts may not have been deemed worthy of a monument, and the quantum of their “profit” went unrecorded, but they, too, had mojo. Except the mojo of Nineteenth Century New Zealanders was very different from the Twenty-First Century mojo that Luxon prizes.
The extraordinary expansion of Europeans across the globe in the Nineteenth Century reflected something much more profound than mere demographic pressure. It was driven by a desire to create a new home for themselves and their descendants. A home very like the home they had left, but stripped of the evils that were driving them from it. These new homes – in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand – may have been built with the capital of the elites they were fleeing (and upon the bones of indigenous peoples) but they were constructed differently, and in the name of objectives that were not exclusively commercial.
To have mojo in 1882 a New Zealander had to be a strong individual, but not an individualist. The great attraction of refrigeration wasn’t just its immediate profitability, but the vista it opened up of a national home that was prosperous, and growing constantly in confidence and ambition. A nation that would be better tomorrow than it was today. To have mojo in 1882 you had to be driven by dreams a lot bigger than yourself.
When I was a boy, a stand of tall trees surrounded the elegant homestead of the Totara Estate. John Macpherson, who acquired the property in 1906, and farmed it until his retirement in 1920, would never have seen them attain their full height and splendour. He planted them anyway.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
111 Comments
Rather a deep article, but fair I think in it's criticism of CL's lack of understanding of the shortcomings of his 'vision'.
It is frustrating the CL seems unable to look at the COVID era objectively and understand what and where NZ needs to do and go. Limited perhaps by his business experience and unable to connect the bigger picture dots. Worse persisting in demanding more growth in a finite world. It will be interesting to see how he deals with a Trump America.
Only deep if your pool was shallow to start with.
CT has demonstrated, unequivocally, that he is energy-blind and Limits-to-Growth blind. His comments are as of the past, as Luxon's. And maybe that is how it is; Steerage advocate lambasts the White Star Line while both miss noticing the diminishing freeboard...
'The disruptive innovation that immediately springs to mind is Artificial Intelligence'. Comparing a non-physically-productive process with a physically productive one, is the key thought-split. Real meat, versus an idea. We have been trading in remote proxy so long, we've lost track of what underwrites the proxy. Too many parasites, too few at the coal-face.
CT is sounding old. Where are the new generation of onto-it journalists?
PDK your blinkers are showing. CT's article is about CLs lack of vision. His example of refrigeration as a transformative technology is just that an example to support his premise that CL has no substance in his "growth" mantra, nor a pathway that is credible to provide the type and quantity of employment the country needs. His vision is a crippled and unlikely to succeed as JK's technology based economy was.
Within the reasonable limitations of the article CT evidences his argument reasonably I suggest.
He claims AI will replace labour, but refrigeration enhanced it?
Come on
The EROEI of food-production, pre fossil energy, was marginally above 1. Most people spent most of their time, producing food. Refrigeration of meat was labour-saving per ingested calorie; part of a lessening of human labour hours per food calorie produced - he's away back at the 'jobs in the freezing-works' days, but even in his time it involved less and less labour.
CT would have been better arguing that, from first principles, growth is in the (global average) rear-view mirror. That's the overarching truth.
Widen your scope - the university system was betting on an ever-bigger future, as was government, as was local government, as was just about everyone, including the issuers of debt.
The energy and resource inputs - the REAL inputs - are plateauing now, and the total underwrite for all forward bets is diminishing (exacerbated by the increasing demand of entropy). Some are offloading onto others, but universities, local government, health and infrastructure are the ones starting to show the pressure.
Teaching can always be done for no money - I do it all the time. The problem is a collection of bets based on projections of the past - not helped by folk like CT apparently not being reality-aware.
All governments here are short term, only 3 years.
So they look for quick wins and only focus what can be delivered in 2 years, so they can campaign on what they have done. So all growth will be short term only and anything done for long term gains may be grudgingly done if they can take credit for it or if their donors demand it.
It's why places like China/Singapore etc have or will overtake us in the next decade or two, they plan decades out, invest and build policies around improving their country. If we don't want to change this, then we are doomed to become even more of a backwater. We need either institutions not beholden to political whims or longer term governments. There are no other options if we want to maintain a standard of life, let alone improve it.
... forgive me for stepping in ... Apparently PDK is at his Wall of Woe , wailing ... as one does ..
If we have a 200 year supply of oil ( known reserves to date ) , then the peak ought to be Saturday the 27'th of January , 2125 ... aroundabout 4 pm .... should be worth waiting for ... deck chairs , popcorn & all that ...
Of course not .... we would need much much longer than a mere 100 years ... RMA ... traffic management chaos & all that ..supply delays .. cost overruns ... Iwi interventions ...
. ..but , if we outsource it to Japanese or Sth Korean engineers , it'd be achieved in a heartbeat and under budget ...
You are quickly veering into harrassing other forum members, you commented on Digital nomads welcome in new ‘yes’ economy | interest.co.nz to insinuate that GBH is a national party plant.
The content of your comments is lacking in any robust arguments.
Just to cover the bases - Brent crude oil ceased production in 2021. So the 'peak' of Brent crude oil specifically was a long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Crude
In terms of global peak oil production? Probably sometime between now and 2035, with a stronger likelihood being before 2030. Shale oil in the US is likely to peak between now and 2027, which would produce the same date for US production as a whole, and since the US is the world's largest producer, peaking of US production contributes significantly to peaking of global production.
That argument as to where the food comes from applies to any dwelling or group of dwellings, such as a city, high-density housing, etc., that cannot produce enough food to feed the family on the land they own.
This argument can also cover any product that cannot be resourced and manufactured on your property. Like the computer you are using.
The short answer to where does it come from? Is somewhere else.
Blobs for this we would need compromise and commitment to lasting solutions to fund future growth in health and retirement, but the left and right cannot agree on a middle ground, I doubt that the average kiwi could either. But yes longer term outcomes often take time to realise..
It is persistently frustrating that politicians, for all their claims to being smart, seem unable to adequately communicate their visions and plans in a coherent way to the people. Repeatedly saying "economic growth" does not constitute this. Detail is important. Short electoral terms should not matter if their communication is up to the task.
National supposedly wanted to set up a pipeline of work that all parties could agree on, but then went on a rampage of cancelling everything labour did. If they actually did set this up properly and include good projects that both parties supported, it could be a real winner, but unfortunately they can’t swallow that pill.
A party leader does not set the entire agenda, rather sells the story.
National as a party, IMHO , do not have an answer but to try and return to a past that has not worked well, and cannot work again. saving waste will not turn NZ around neither will doggedly focusing on balancing the books, we need a growth engine and they have no story to tell.
We cannot have another property boom, without a bust first , least entry level homes in Auckland get to 1.5mil.
We will have no one left here post degree.
I do not see any economic plan from Labour either by the way and for balance. The greens want to push us into PDKs world before it arrieves.
Good article. I recently spent a depressing afternoon reading though the latest Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update out of Treasury. A lack of mojo indeed.
Is anyone in government aware that NZ Governments could play a role in growth aside from seeking short-term "wins" that ultimately lead to longer term issues? Aware of the thinking of Mariana Mazzucato for instance?
Mazzucato is close - but not there.
I've read some of her stuff, linked her McAfee/Davos 'interview' (publicity opportunity) here ages ago.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/news/2020/jan/watch-iipp-…,
'To generate $1,000 of GDP, a country today must consume 416 kg of materials and 111 kg of energy. How can carbon emissions targets be achieved without compromising the global economy?'
And there it is - the sleight of hand which addresses ultimate scarcity, then not just shifts, but changes the goal-post (carbon emissions). There in a nutshell is her shortcoming, or her cynical fudge (depending on how much cred you give her).
Chris : To date , I'm yet to see vast numbers of people displaced by A.I. .... I am aware of the incredible possibilities it opens up to mankind ... across energy / science / medicine ...
... and deep in the thick of it is a Kiwi lad , one Shane Legg , a New Plymouth boy ... a co-founder of DeepMind , now owned by Google ...
Lest we forget , there's more to economic progress than lamb & logs ... or milk powder ...
China have just released an open source model - and DeepSeek R1 shatters long-held assumptions about AI
According to the DeepSeek research paper, the project took only $6 million to train, and it performs on par with leading AI models.
According to venture capitalist Nic Carter, the release of the AI model, which was developed in China, dispelled notions that the country would only produce closed-source AI, and has eroded Silicon Valley's perceived advantages over global competitors.
Carter added that DeepSeek is evidence that OpenAI does not have an unbeatable moat and that assumptions about scaling, value accrual in AI models, and development costs were also dispelled by the development.
"Insufficient funding, compensated for by the financial contributions of overseas students, is steadily wrecking New Zealand’s universities."
I disagree. It's the low value, exacerbated by wokeness, that many degrees offer domestic students, compared to the alternatives. Young men are increasingly realising the value of an apprenticeship, other technical training or direct entry into the commercial world, compared to an arts or humanities degree. After all, why spend $50k or more to get a BA, when you could become an electrician earning good money in you early 20s having acquired a fees-free qualification that opens up opportunities across the world?
The argument that arts and humanities degrees lack value compared to technical training or apprenticeships reveals a troublingly narrow view of what constitutes a meaningful life. Sure, learning to wire a house might land you a paycheck in your 20s, but does it expand your capacity to think critically, understand the human condition, or contribute to the broader cultural and intellectual fabric of society? Doubtful.
A typically arrogant self serving entitled "elite" comment. Have you any tradies in your range of friends/associates?
"Indeed, “the best and the brightest” will be viewed by their fellow citizens as crucial to the social and economic development of their country." Thats how we've ended up where we are now.
Ah, the classic ‘elitist’ deflection—when faced with an argument you can’t counter, throw out a lazy label and hope it sticks. This isn’t about who I know; it’s about the value of education that goes beyond the practical and contributes to the intellectual and cultural advancement of society. If that’s too hard to grasp, maybe it says more about your defensiveness than my point.
Oh, so it’s not a boast, just a preemptive strike against assumptions I hadn’t even made yet? Impressive—who knew postgraduate qualifications came with a built-in forcefield against elitism? Let me know when you activate the ‘humility’ upgrade; I hear it’s a game-changer
Comparing critical thinking in governance to unblocking a toilet is a laughably poor analogy. A blocked toilet has a clear, mechanical solution—governance, on the other hand, involves complex, multifaceted challenges where the ‘fix’ isn’t as simple as tightening a pipe. Leading a nation requires balancing competing interests, anticipating long-term consequences, and making decisions in the face of uncertainty. These are problems that no wrench, plunger, or simple technical skill can solve
My point was we need both thinkers and doers. The two groups are not mutually exclusive.
As for "Leading a nation requires balancing competing interests, anticipating long-term consequences, and making decisions in the face of uncertainty" I don't disagree. However, I'm not convinced our current government is doing a very good job.
You’re absolutely right that we need both thinkers and doers—they’re complementary, not mutually exclusive. But governance isn’t about dividing leaders into neat categories of ‘thinker’ or ‘doer’; it’s about integrating both skill sets in decision-making. The ability to balance competing interests, anticipate long-term consequences, and navigate uncertainty is what separates leaders from managers—and yes, it’s fair to question whether the current government is excelling in that regard.
That said, leadership isn’t just judged by perfection but by adaptability and how well challenges are managed over time. Criticism is valid, but it should focus on specific failures of leadership or decision-making rather than dismissing an entire government’s approach outright. If the issue is performance, let’s critique the actual decisions rather than falling back on general dissatisfaction
"Let’s critique the actual decisions rather than falling back on general dissatisfaction"
1: Changes to smoke-free legislation
2: Dodgy fast-track legislation
3: Canceling clean car rebate
4: Borrowing to fund miniscule tax cuts
Help me out here people, what have I missed? I know there's plenty more.
1. Changes to smoke-free legislation – While it’s easy to frame this as a public health setback, it’s worth noting that policy must balance health goals with economic realities for small businesses. Expanding the retailing of tobacco may be controversial, but the government could argue it reduces inequities for small retailers impacted by previous regulations. Framing this as purely negative ignores the economic context.
2. Dodgy fast-track legislation – The term “dodgy” is subjective and doesn’t provide any specifics. Many governments use fast-track mechanisms for urgent matters, and unless you can point to clear harm or misuse of power, this is more about optics than substantive critique. Were outcomes compromised, or is this just a process complaint?
3. Canceling the clean car rebate – Canceling the rebate could be seen as a response to concerns about affordability and fairness, particularly for lower-income households unable to access electric vehicles even with a rebate. The focus may have shifted to broader climate policies rather than rebates seen as disproportionately benefiting the wealthy. This isn’t inherently a bad move but a recalibration of priorities.
4. Borrowing to fund minuscule tax cuts – Borrowing is often necessary in economic downturns to stimulate the economy, and modest tax cuts are designed to provide immediate relief to households. Criticising the cuts as “minuscule” ignores the intent behind them: to ease pressure on everyday New Zealanders. Whether this is effective or not is debatable, but labeling it outright negative oversimplifies the situation.
The list relies heavily on framing every decision in the worst possible light without fully engaging with the complexities behind each choice. Governance is about trade-offs, and while these decisions may be imperfect, they can’t be fairly evaluated without acknowledging the context, competing priorities, and longer-term goals. Instead of a blanket critique, a deeper dive into each decision’s rationale and impact would make for a more credible argument.
"Expanding the retailing of tobacco may be controversial, but the government could argue it reduces inequities for small retailers"
Really?
A critical thinker could argue that the government has chosen to benefit tobacco companies at the expense of clogging up our health system and at the expense of those individuals (and their children) who who become addicted to a harmful and unnecessary product.
Yep, a government worried about small retailers would allow them to access product wholesale at the same price as the cartels, rather than have them rely on selling cancer sticks for passing addicts that can't wait for the supermarket checkout. Big tobacco 1 : society nil.
Ending electric car subsidies rebalancing priorities? Sure is. The priority seems to be getting drillers here as quickly as possible, with the carrot of taxpayer funded cleanup once the profits have been extracted. Big oil 1 : planet Earth, kick in the nads.
You missed the biggest 2. Cancelling iRex outright when better cost controls and investigation would have been more appropriate AND getting mercedes ferries for corolla prices next year instead of getting corolla ferries for mercedes prices in 5 years time (if we are lucky). Add in throwing the baby out with the bath water on dozens of other projects in government "because they employ contractors".
Instituting a policy of austerity during a time of recession, which has shown time and again to make recessions much, much worse. Because she doesn't understand basic economic theory.
Do you really believe that an arts or humanities degree teaches anyone to think critically, especially given that many university teachers are intolerant of thought that challenges their own thinking?
Moreover, why do you assume that electricians are incapable of critical thinking? I would have thought that critical thinking is important in most trades.
Let’s break this down: humanities degrees do teach critical thinking, not by spoon-feeding ideas, but by forcing students to analyse arguments, interpret complex systems, and challenge assumptions—something this very argument could benefit from. Dismissing entire fields of study because of a few intolerant professors is like saying electricians don’t matter because one guy botched a wiring job.
And no one’s suggesting electricians can’t think critically—that’s your own manufactured outrage. Yes, trades require problem-solving, but let’s not kid ourselves that troubleshooting a circuit is the same as managing a nation’s fiscal policy or navigating global economic pressures. Comparing the two is like arguing that fixing a leaky pipe qualifies someone to rewrite water policy. Different skill sets, different stakes. Let’s leave the false equivalencies at the door.
Dismissing Nicola Willis based on her BA in English and journalism qualification is both lazy and reductive. Leadership isn’t about the title of your degree—it’s about vision, communication, and the ability to navigate complex challenges. Humanities degrees foster critical thinking and persuasive communication, skills that are essential in politics and often sorely lacking in technically qualified but uninspiring leaders. Instead of fixating on credentials, perhaps focus on her policies and performance—because reducing political competence to a degree title reeks of shallow elitism.
Leadership isn’t about the title of your degree—it’s about vision, communication, and the ability to navigate complex challenges. Humanities degrees foster critical thinking and persuasive communication, skills that are essential in politics and often sorely lacking in technically qualified but uninspiring leaders.
Let's humour you for a minute - how well did she utilise those bolded skills when cancelling the ferries via 2 text messages? She is now budgeting the same amount if not more to get ferries, no ports, and less capability.
Leadership doesn’t guarantee perfection or immunity from missteps, but it is fundamentally about learning from them and adjusting course. While the ferry decision may have been mishandled in terms of communication and execution, it’s not proof of a lack of leadership skills—it’s an example of the challenges leaders face in complex systems where decisions have far-reaching consequences. Governance isn’t a mechanical task—it’s about managing competing priorities, balancing risks, and making judgment calls in ambiguous situations. Humanities degrees don’t promise flawless leadership, but they cultivate the capacity to analyse, adapt, and grow from errors—qualities just as essential in addressing such missteps moving forward.
Suggesting that someone should be flawless before stepping into the role of Minister of Finance ignores the reality of complex governance—no one enters office with a perfect playbook. What matters is whether the individual learns, grows, and mitigates the impact of their decisions going forward. The expectation of infallibility before taking a role is just another way to avoid having a meaningful discussion about leadership and accountability.
So Government really is just an apprenticeship scheme where people make flippant decisions that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but it's okay because it's not the private sector, we're a sovereign currency issuing nation and as long as they learn from their mistakes it's all good.
Jesus Christ.
Ah, the classic ‘government-as-apprenticeship’ hyperbole. Let’s not pretend private sector leaders are immune to costly mistakes or that governments are unique in facing complex, high-stakes decisions. The difference is that governments operate in a public accountability framework where the impacts of decisions are scrutinized in real time, and leaders are expected to adapt and course-correct under immense pressure. No one is saying mistakes are ‘all good,’ but demanding infallibility is unrealistic and counterproductive. Leadership isn’t about avoiding mistakes entirely—it’s about how those mistakes are managed, mitigated, and learned from to prevent repetition. If you expect perfection from leaders, you’re setting yourself up for perpetual disappointment.
We're not demanding infallibility at all. We're expecting our ministers to make decisions based on sound judgement/critical thought, not ideological/partisan reasons that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer.
Back to the Ferries, what part of that contract required a decision (cancellation or otherwise) made under immense time pressure? Care to elaborate on how that decision was just an "oopsie"? At a high level the decision could probably be summarized on a single A4 sheet with 2 columns of data.
For sure, leaders (private/public) are not perfect. But that lack of perfection typically stems from shifting goal posts i.e. unforeseen shifts in the data or an extra variable not taken into account.
You’re conflating two different issues: sound judgment and perfection. Sound judgment isn’t about avoiding mistakes entirely—it’s about weighing options based on the best information available and taking responsibility for the outcomes. Yes, the ferry decision may not have been made under immense time pressure, but let’s not pretend every decision a minister makes can be neatly summarized on a single A4 sheet. Governance involves balancing competing priorities, navigating political realities, and dealing with complex systems that rarely offer perfect clarity.
The fixation on a single decision ignores the broader context of leadership. Was it an ‘oopsie’? Perhaps not. But to demand that every decision be flawless, with no room for error, is not a standard we hold even the most seasoned private-sector leaders to. Unforeseen variables exist everywhere, and while it’s valid to critique the decision itself, oversimplifying governance as if it’s just a matter of columns on a spreadsheet is disingenuous at best
An oopsie that, if made in a private sector company, would likely be considered serious misconduct and likely result in termination. It's absolutely something private sector leaders would be held accountable to by their boards/shareholders.
It was a decision that demonstrated zero due diligence. Unless you can elaborate on how this was just a simple mistake in a highly complex "system"? The "complexity" was the shift in the business case by moving the proposed ferry terminal elsewhere adding significant costs for seismic works.
Are you suggesting that Nicola mistakenly ignored the cost implication of cancelling the ferries, ignored the business case(s), ignored the market value for these ferries and overlooked the opportunity for the Government to potentially lease or on sell for a profit once delivered?
Comparing public governance to private sector decision-making ignores a fundamental difference: private sector leaders answer to boards and shareholders, while public officials are accountable to an entire nation, often with competing priorities and political pressures that go far beyond a corporate P&L statement. Serious misconduct in the private sector might result in termination, but governments deal with accountability through public scrutiny, elections, and parliamentary processes—not firing ministers like CEOs.
As for the ferry decision, yes, if there was zero due diligence, that’s a valid critique. But governance operates in a space where decisions often involve incomplete data, conflicting advice, and evolving circumstances—things private sector boards rarely face on this scale. If the seismic cost shifts and relocation complexity were mishandled, that should be examined, but it’s not simply about ‘ignoring’ information. Leadership isn’t a binary of perfect decisions or incompetence; it’s about how these decisions are addressed and rectified moving forward. Let’s not oversimplify governance by pretending every decision operates under private sector conditions—it doesn’t
I disagree. What is this accountability that politicians have? That their party won't lead the next Government?
If Labour are elected next year, will Willis be out of a job? Nope, she will likely sit in opposition as a list MP and enjoy 3 years of grandstanding. Unless her caucus colleagues rank her near the bottom of the party list of course and she doesn't make the cut.
Sure, it’s not the same as getting fired in the private sector, but let’s not pretend losing the ability to govern isn’t a significant consequence. If her party loses the election, she’ll face public scrutiny, internal party dynamics, and the humiliation of opposition—not exactly a holiday.
And as for sitting as a list MP, it’s not a free ride. Political survival depends on maintaining relevance and support, both within her party and with the public. If her performance is deemed lackluster, her ranking will reflect that, and she could very well be shown the door. Political accountability might not look like a corporate sacking, but it’s far from consequence-free. If her performance doesn’t stack up, she might find herself ranked so low on the party list that even the interns forget her name at coffee runs.
Okay, and she's facing public scrutiny at the moment here on Interest.co. We're questioning her level of competency, it seems like you don't agree with us. Instead you've resorted to quite a bit of waffle about how politics is different and more brutal than the private sector.
I don't expect you to, but can you entertain 1 or 2 positive achievements that Willis is responsible for in the last 12 months? Extra points if you can elaborate on how her/National's input has (in isolation) contributed to that outcome, rather than riding an economic sine-wave.
Fair point—scrutiny is fair game, so let’s acknowledge a couple of positive contributions from Willis in the past 12 months, even if the broader picture remains up for debate.
First, her strong emphasis on fiscal discipline has helped frame the conversation around government spending. Willis has consistently pushed for cutting wasteful expenditures and prioritising spending in areas that drive productivity. This hasn’t just been rhetoric—her calls for restraint have influenced public expectations and put pressure on the government to justify where taxpayer dollars are going.
Second, Willis has been a strong advocate for addressing inflationary pressures by reducing the demand-side contributions caused by excessive government spending. While the broader economic environment plays a role, her efforts have brought attention to the importance of maintaining a balanced budget as a lever to control inflation. This emphasis has resonated with those concerned about long-term economic stability.
Now, are these achievements headline-grabbers or transformative changes? Not yet. But they are steps that show a clear focus on key economic issues. Ultimately, Willis’s legacy will depend on how she continues to address these challenges over time—but credit where it’s due for her role in shaping the current economic conversation.
Are you an OB lecturer Kir? Are soft skills important at that level? Yes, but for a Minister of Finance it's a nice to have where as deep domain and technical knowledge is non-negotiable. I would rather a brusque, curt gnarly old white guy than someone that filled a quota. There is a reason people like Brown in Auckland and Trump as being elected by voters who held their nose.
MBA classes of the future will look back at the years 2015 to 2025 to study the hubris of over-promoting technically weak candidates into demanding roles just because we needed to be inclusive. Would you use a plumber to do your house purchase conveyancing? No, so why would you have someone with a humanities degree have the most important finance role in the country?
Reducing leadership to a choice between ‘quota fillers’ and ‘technically strong’ candidates is a lazy argument that ignores the complexity of governance. Ministers aren’t lone operators—they rely on teams of technical experts while their job is to lead, communicate, and balance competing priorities. A humanities degree provides critical thinking and adaptability, which are just as vital as technical knowledge at that level. Comparing a plumber to a Minister of Finance is a false equivalence; governance is not about doing every task yourself but about leading those who can. If leadership failures exist, it’s a systemic issue, not proof that inclusivity is synonymous with incompetence
You keep repeating that governance and leadership are more about dealing with complexity and difficult choices rather than technical ability. That is true, but it relies on the fact that the leader climbed up through the business, they paid their dues on the front line and understand the business intricately. They may be the conductor now, but they know how to play an instrument. What I am referring to is the large moves into leadership and responsibility where there is no experience. Yes, there is Treasury and advisors but if they are making the decisions, why do we need a MoF? Look at the Finance Ministers in Australia and UK, no financial background and both are doing a poor job for different reasons.
Your argument assumes that the only path to effective leadership is ‘paying dues on the front line’—a tired trope that ignores how governance actually works. Ministers of Finance are not accountants or budget officers; their role is to lead, prioritize, and make decisions informed by experts. Expecting them to personally master every technical aspect of their portfolio misunderstands the purpose of political leadership.
The suggestion that someone must ‘know how to play an instrument’ to be an effective conductor ignores the fact that leadership is a fundamentally different skillset. A Finance Minister’s job is not to be the Treasury; it’s to set direction, weigh competing priorities, and take responsibility for outcomes. By your logic, anyone without a background in every specific field of their portfolio is doomed to fail—which would disqualify the majority of leaders in history. The issue isn’t background, but whether they demonstrate sound judgment and effective leadership in their role.
It's not a tired trope, it's reality.
Where are the CFO's with only humanities degrees? There are 1000's of listed companies around the globe & some larger than our GDP - show me a CFO without a finance degree of some description. Those in leadership have generally risen to the top in a domain, it's incredibly rare that a leader like Ralph Norris crosses from airlines to banking.
You are making Willis out to be a generational leadership talent who can cross portfolio's at her choosing. Well, having seen her policies, the results and watched her speak - she's not.
Where are the CFOs who realised they were/are on a short-term trip, thanks to the carbon pulse?
I know of perhaps half-a-dozen who had epiphanies and dropped out/altered their lives - but millions hang on the way you do, to a false narrative.
Ask why? And the only answer seems to be that which they were taught.
Which suggests that some parts of tertiary education are perhaps not as wide and questioning as they'd like to think...
That is a long winded excuse for poor analytical thinking. She made a knee-jerk reaction in order to be seen to be doing something and she cannot admit that she made a mistake. Poor leadership, total lack of accountability, and no financial ability.
She's terrible and has delivered absolutely nothing positive as the minister of finance - I can't see a single intelligent policy decision that she has championed, and somehow she managed to damage international relations on her first day without being the minister for that portfolio.
You don't have to defend everything a government does just because you're a fan of them - you can be critical.
Critiquing spreadsheets no one has seen and fixating on fiscal surprises without acknowledging the broader challenges of taking office under difficult circumstances seems more like nitpicking than fair analysis. Leadership isn’t about perfection—it’s about managing crises, adapting quickly, and delivering results over time. Let’s not pretend that every Minister of Finance has been flawless from day one. Willis has shown resilience and focus in tackling an uphill battle, and it’s worth giving her the chance to demonstrate how she can grow into the role rather than dismissing her outright
Since we are deep into OB and the qualities of effective leadership Kir, one of the most important attributes is credibility and as you can see - confidence in her ability is low. MoF is a difficult job and it's made all the more difficult if you lack the technical background.
Credibility is indeed crucial to leadership, but it’s not earned solely through technical qualifications—it’s built through actions, communication, and decision-making over time. Confidence in a Minister of Finance’s ability is not predetermined by their academic background but by their capacity to lead, synthesize expert advice, and deliver outcomes. If technical expertise were the only measure of success, we’d replace ministers with Treasury officials and call it a day—but governance demands more than technical skills.
Yes, MoF is a difficult job, but its complexity goes beyond numbers—it requires balancing social, political, and economic priorities in a way that no spreadsheet or degree alone can solve. Critiquing specific decisions is fair, but dismissing someone’s ability to lead because they don’t tick the box of ‘technical background’ ignores the broader skillset required to manage such a dynamic portfolio
It's not the MoFs job to balance social and political priorities, that belongs to the PM and Cabinet collectively. It's the MoF role to fund the budget and recommend and implement economic policy. As I noted earlier, you cannot just contract out of knowing the technical workings of an economy - otherwise you lack credibility.
Yes, in a bouyant economy I'm sure Willis would muddle through. But we are far from a bouyant economy and we need every bit of wisdom and experience we can find to get us out of this slump.
Your interpretation of the Minister of Finance’s role is oversimplified. While it’s true that the MoF recommends and implements economic policy, those recommendations cannot be made in a vacuum. Economic policy doesn’t exist in isolation—it directly impacts social and political priorities, and the MoF plays a key role in navigating those intersections. Credibility isn’t built solely on technical expertise; it’s earned through sound judgment, clear communication, and the ability to lead through uncertainty.
As for ‘contracting out technical expertise,’ that’s exactly how governance works: ministers lead, synthesise advice, and set direction with input from Treasury and other experts. Expecting them to master the entire technical machinery of the economy is unrealistic—it’s why technocrats support ministers in every functioning democracy.
Yes, we’re in challenging economic times, but wisdom isn’t exclusive to those with technical degrees. If anything, what we need now is leadership that can balance expertise with vision and adaptability. Willis will ultimately be judged on the outcomes she delivers—not whether she ticks every box on your credibility checklist
We'll have to agree to disagree, how do you synthesise advise if you have no experience or qualifications?
I would argue the Governor of the RBA is the role most comparable to MoF, all be it unelected. Signficant indirect reports, critical role for the nations financial well-being staff, significant leadership responsibility. No one with a humanities degree is making the short-list, ever.
Yeah but then why did the Finance Minister tell the public that the governments budget is just like a household budget? Absolutely some technocrat would have told her that is a load of absolute bollocks, yet she has decided that she knows better than the technocrats. And because she has not taken such advice, or does not have the technical knowledge to describe how governments finances operate, we all suffer. That's not leadership, as defined by yourself as she has not contracted out technical expertise, just told experts they are wrong, with no education or practical experience to back that up.
We do need people with vision and adaptability. Willis should have adapted the iRex project to be suitable for Nationals agenda. She should have had the wisdom (she definitely had the technical guidance) to know that the cancellation of the ferry contract would have cost the same as actually delivering the ferries. But she did it anyway, so you could argue, by your own definition, she exhibits poor leadership and is not suited to be a minister of anything.
If i was a betting man.... i would put money on you being either Chris Luxon or Nicola Willis......
Nobody in their right mind would so put up such as passionate defence of someone , who, blatantly made a huge mistake on the ferries ...
And regarding inflation, her and chris might claim credit for taming it, but most should go to Orr, who doubled interest rates....
Leadership is also about vision backed by the ability to communicate same to get people on board.
Good governance also requires a deep understanding of the business you are running - swot stuff but also a technical skill that you can contribute -it may be anything - ag science, law, finance, engineering etc etc and could include humanities if you are in govt running social welfare or defence.
I suggest that the vision is lacking but also the technical skill for a finance/economic role. Its all very well getting the numbers crunched for you but you still need to be able to understand the economic impacts of the decision - this appears to be sorely lacking
And the stakes are too high to hope that she grows into the role
Above all, leadership is about results. Leading a unit, division, regiment, company to deliver or exceed a plan or budget time and time again in all manner of environments and challenges. It is influencing, putting others ahead of yourself, humility, resilience and the ability to pick yourself up over and over.
As a wise lecturer once said to me "leadership is like beauty, hard to describe but you know it when you see it"
I don't see it in Willis. Not to say she wouldn't be an effective Minister of another portfolio, but I always thought Finance was not right for her and nothing has changed my mind.
While I somewhat agree, if you are making decisions that affect others and you do not have the theoretical or practical knowledge or experience to calculate what a good decisions is, or to understand the subject area, then you probably shouldn't be making that decision. Willis has made a series of economic and financial blunders, likely because she does not have the understanding to see them before they happen. I don't take my car to a hairdresser to get it fixed. We should not have a BA in English making financial and economic decisions based on ignorance and reckons.
I stated my views on Nationals economic plans in April last year:
Tried nothing and they're already out of ideas on the economy.
It doesn't appear much has changed in the interim unfortunately.
As per the last government they are so beholden to neoliberal idealism that they have surrendered all their political power to the Gods of the market in the hope of a miracle quick fix. Practically they've substantially resigned themselves to ceased being a government beyond the extent of keeping the busses running. Each successive government seems to be starting this process earlier as well.
"The disruptive innovation that immediately springs to mind is Artificial Intelligence. In New Zealand, however, the potential of AI would appear to lie in the human labour it replaces. "
A common, but not particularly accurate, view. But from a NZ Inc. point of view it is disastrous.
A.I. is like all software. For enduring revenues - never sell it.
Bill Gates - love him or hate him - figured this out early. He rebuffed numerous attempts from big players to sell Microsoft that would have made all the founders immensely rich. Meanwhile, players from all over the world were selling out for instant riches because they believed they could never compete.
But some countries with strong manufacturing bases kept their software companies and went in non-consumer directions. They are now huge companies supplying control & robotics systems that most people have never even heard of. And they contain a significant and growing A.I. component. Again, they never sold out.
See where I'm going? In short - NZ Inc needs to stop selling out. Licenses and royalties work too.
Without wanting to suggest I support the funding, somone did point out that the $4M identified was not broken down into specifics. The whalesong was merely a component of the whole amount.
It may well have been $10.00.
Or maybe they bought a sub to record live and in the natural habitat - in which case maybe $3.9M.
Just a thought.....
With all the increased productivity that National will be bringing on soon,
Wouldnt it be great with some big ferries that can bring all the increased output from the dairy farms and mines of the south island up to the factories on the north island
If knly someone had had the foresight and ordered a couple a few years ago.......
Luxy, how about some of this? If we can dominate high tech yachting, this should be within reach, ay?
Why Trump was really elected: Here it is from the a professor at the world's top university.
This video tops anything else I have seen or heard on the Trump phenomenon. It's got a completely different perspective which I believed has nailed it.
And I think it is relevant to New Zealand too. In fact, I think the message is universal. Those 'credentialed' with a university degree may be a big part of the problem. And those four-fifths of the population without a degree may feel that they now have no social recognition, respect and dignity. Thus the moral fabric of society is being ripped apart.
I guarantee that this will 'jolt' everybody who watches it and I've got a feeling that Chris Trotter may have already watched it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um017R5Kr3Ahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?
Great link and interesting fellow - but top and top? I think, given his comments, he'd shudder...
He misses hegemony, misses the Limits to Growth (impaction thereof) and I'm surprised he didn't reference Jared Diamond (I prefer Wright - Short History of Progress - but lesser elite circles) pointing out that the elite always irrupt in the last 100-years or so, biild their self-monuments, then the collpase happens. Every time.
Pyramids, Ankor Wat, Trump Towers - end times are indicated.
Very good. I particularly liked the last paragraph, reminds me of a chat I had with a friend's dad recently - we were debating the benefits of public transport. His opinion, "Why should I be forced to pay for it when I'm never going to use it?". Ok, well then bring in tolls, ie. User pays? "Oh no, not like that it's not the NZ way!"
At some stage in the past 40 yrs Kiwi/political will has became incredibly selfish and short sighted.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.