You all know The New Zealand Initiative as a great little think tank for a great little country. You might not know that we are also a membership organisation: our work is supported by our members. 

Last week we held our annual members’ retreat in Auckland, bringing together our members, represented by the chairs and managing directors of many of the country’s top companies, to discuss the state of play in their particular industry sectors; to speak candidly with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Leader of the Opposition; and to discuss the Initiative’s proposed two-year research plan.

The meetings are held under Chatham House rules so that our members can take their business hats off and provide their individual perspectives. What I can report is that Andrew Little was impressive; 2017 will be a rather more interesting contest than was 2014. Discussions between the members and guests were very productive. 

We presented our members with our new report, The Case for Economic Growth, before proposing research into the areas we believe are currently most important for ensuring continued growth. In addition to a few reports on diverse and important topics ranging from earthquake regulation to special economic zones and effects of regulation on the digital economy, we proposed a research plan touching on three key areas.

Our series of prior reports showed what restrictive land use policy has done to housing costs; those policies have also made our cities less efficient. Why do cities choose poor policies? We worry that local government financing has made growth costly for cities despite its being beneficial for the country as a whole. We will look more closely at the role of local government and at its financing to find ways of aligning cities’ interests with those of the country. 

Second, while economic growth in New Zealand has been widely shared, perceptions of increased inequality fuel resentment of growth and build support for poor policies. Further, real poverty remains a serious issue. Has National’s shift to an investment approach to poverty relief yielded the benefits we have hoped for? And, can private philanthropy provide important lessons?

Third, we need to know how better to encourage schools to engage in more experimentation to find out what works – to reward success and deal with failure. Local school autonomy gives us the chance to do it properly, so long as the overarching framework is right.

Members encouraged us also to study regulatory costs more broadly. If we took anything from the meeting, it is that while the government has kept spending growth under control, the regulatory estate could use some attention.

If your company is not yet a member, consider joining. In addition to helping support our research, you will get the chance to join us at next year’s retreat.