New Zealand In My Eyes

Posted: January 27th, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Business, Thinking Out Loud, Web/Tech | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

I love New Zealand.

I’ve lived here for about half my life. I was born in Washington DC, but moved before I can remember (and I’m not entitled to US citizenship). Since then, I’ve also lived in the Cook Islands, the Philippines, and Spain. I’m lucky in that I’ve seen enough of the world to know what makes New Zealand so great, and also what holds us back.

Whenever I’m overseas, I’ve always felt as though I’m a representative of the entire country. At the schools I’ve been to in other countries, I’ve always been the sole New Zealander (and these have been big schools). Everyone has known me as “the Kiwi”, and I’ve always been proud when called that.

Growing up as a representative of New Zealand – and being lucky enough to know what that means – has given me a truly huge respect for this country. Most of what people say is correct. We are a bloody inventive bunch. We’ve got values and a heart. We are friendly and happy. We have a stable and uncorrupt government, no matter who’s in power and what anyone says. And we’re lucky enough to have an abundance of the colours blue and green – some of the best and most beautiful natural resources in the world.

Going forward, it is of utmost importance to me that New Zealand not only remain relevant in the world, but emerges as a clear leader in the world.

It should be clear to everyone by now that the world is in a rough spot at the moment. Both Europe and America – long the leaders of the world – are clearly on unsustainable courses. Power is shifting. New leaders will emerge over the next decade. China is clearly one, but there is room for others.

I’m writing this post right now because: 1. New Zealand is heading in entirely the wrong direction and will decline in power and wealth over the next decades, and 2. I want New Zealand to be a wealthy world leader.

There are people far more experienced than me talking about these things. Sir Paul Callaghan explains why we’re going to become poorer and more irrelevant on our current course. Derek Handley shows us an alternative path, and inspires us to take action. Andy Hamilton tells us about the role of smart enterprises in a brighter New Zealand future.

New Zealand currently has two key sources of value that give us our place in the world: tourism and dairy. Let’s examine these going forward, drawing on the insights and statistics of Sir Paul Callaghan.

New Zealand has 1.3 million FTE (full-time equivalents, essentially the number of jobs available). We also have a per capita GDP of approximately $40,000. In order to maintain our current GDP of approx. $125billion, we need a GDP of $120,000 per job. Tourism in New Zealand produces around $80,000 per job. That’s two-thirds of the per-job GDP we need to sustain our current GDP, which means the more tourism we export, the poorer we become. We are immediately doomed if we at all try to increase tourism, which is what a large majority of people currently seem intent on doing.

Dairy, in contrast, produces $350,000 per job. Sir Paul Callaghan says it succinctly – “Without dairy, we would be desperately poor”. However, dairy is finite in capacity. We only have so much land to farm on, and we’re not too far off its capacity.

I’ll repeat: the current course that New Zealand is on will not allow us to even sustain our current GDP, let alone grow.

Countries like Singapore and Hong Kong didn’t grow through their natural resources (they don’t have any). And remember, thirty years ago New Zealand was providing aid to Singapore. Now they both have GDPs twice as large as ours. New Zealand will never become relevant in the world, as Singapore and Hong Kong are, if we continue to focus on growth through our natural resources.

Throughout New Zealand’s history, our key weakness has been our physical distance from the rest of the world. It costs huge amounts and takes a long time to export to other countries. It takes ages to travel anywhere. We’ve actually done remarkably well exporting dairy and tourism, considering this.

In the twenty-first century, New Zealand’s physical distance from the rest of the world became a competitive advantage. Well, it would have, if we’d pursued other sources of growth.

The Internet. You’ve heard it before. It breaks down physical barriers. That’s what it does best. No longer do we write physical letters, or need to travel across the world to see people. No longer do books and newspapers need to be printed and sent here. No longer is New Zealand restricted to growth through bringing people to the country or sending goods out.

The Internet is the biggest opportunity New Zealand has ever had, and ever will have. It allows us to achieve growth and sell products at absolutely no additional cost to what it costs other countries to produce. We can reach the rest of the world in milliseconds, compared to the previous days. Furthermore, our physical distance from the rest of the world becomes a competitive advantage to us because the smartest people in the world will want to come and live and work in a beautiful, pristine island.

And here New Zealand is building a national cycling track to encourage tourism, destroying areas of forestry to turn it into farming land, and then selling great chunks of our land to the Chinese.

The stars are aligned for us. Global power is shifting at the same time that the Internet gives us another path to growth. I refuse to let my country miss the biggest opportunity it will ever have. I refuse to let New Zealand become poor and irrelevant, when it could become a rich world leader.

This post marks my commitment to doing whatever I possibly can to create a rich and powerful New Zealand. This will be a core tenet of my life.

Watch Sir Paul Callaghan and Derek Handley’s talks. Follow Derek’s advice on what you can do right now. Think about the New Zealand that you want and how we might get there.

To finish, I’ll quote Derek, as he says it best:

“As we continue through the twenty-first century, New Zealand can choose to be an idle bystander, or it can choose to be a shaper of this century. The former path is a path to failure and irrelevance as a country – and those failures as a collective will cast a long black shadow over the Land of the Long White Cloud for many, many years to come”.


  • Malcolm Stayner

    Michael, good article and I agree with most points. Sadly, our ability to compete is hampered by a delay of up to 300 ms. This shouldn’t stop us, we just need to be aware of it. Personally, I think we still need to look to minerals also to boost our GDP.

  • Miguel Burgos

    Hey una pregunta, whats your degree??

    Interesting point of view michael

  • http://mmoorejones.com Michael Moore-Jones

    No tengo un titulo.

  • http://mmoorejones.com Michael Moore-Jones

    I agree with looking to minerals to some extent, but the problem is when we see it bringing huge wealth, we will get carried away. If we want to turn out distance from the world into a competitive advantage, and being the top talent into NZ, we need to continue to be a pristine island with our clean green image. We would need to be so careful to maintain that.

  • http://www.adelebarlow.com/?p=2080 What we want, what we need | Adele Barlow

    [...] have both that ‘I want to eat that’ and that ‘contains nutrients you need’ factor. I read Michael’s post on what New Zealand needs in order to prosper. I got the latest review of my HBR subscription in the [...]

  • http://twitter.com/andryrabiaza Andry Rabiaza

    It begins to be a long time ago that I read you and this piece is one of the best. Congrats.

    You point the core of the economic problem in our developed countries around the world. We have grown on a model when some regions of the world were insignificant.
    But now, South America and, even more, Asia have become one of the lung of the world. So, we need to adapt ourselves as you said for New Zealand. NZ has advantages and one identity. The question is how to use them to grow?

    I don’t know enough (I wish one day I will) NZ to say the answer. But for everyone, Internet is a key. However, is it possible to base a big part of the economic growth only on the net? I don’t think so. Other ways must be developed and the image of NZ (incredible and unique culture, environment friendly, high skilled population) shows us some in my opinion: producing high quality products using finest “Made in NZ”. At this moment, I’m thinking about Icebreaker for example.
    There must be other products but as I said, I don’t know NZ enough to tell.

    And developing tourism is not sustainable due to to the distance. NZ will remain an iconic destination but only iconic. Too far, to become popular.

  • http://mmoorejones.com Michael Moore-Jones

    Thank you Andry for continuing to read and comment! I always appreciate getting your thoughts and ideas in the comments.

    I’m not sure I agree with you about us not being able to base a large majority of our economic growth on the Internet. I think that it would be hard to do, yes – but possible.

    More likely for New Zealand is moving to economic growth through intellectual property. Some of that will be through the Internet, some of that will be through intellectual property for physical goods.

    For example, compare GoreTex and Icebreaker. GoreTex is an American company, although the IP was created in New Zealand. Icebreaker designs, manufactures, and distributes the products. It’s a lot of work. GoreTex simply sells the rights to their intellectual property. Much less work. And GoreTex is worth maybe ten times what Icebreaker is.

    So we have to move away from selling physical goods to selling intellectual property.

  • http://twitter.com/andryrabiaza Andry Rabiaza

    Right point. Maybe New Zealand must focus more on IP than designing, manufacturing and distributing.
    But you touch a core question about any business model: total integration (from R&D to distribution) vs outsourcing (only R&D, or only manufacturing or only distributing or both of them…). I think it depends of the products. Is the integration of manufacturing and/or distribution bring a plus to the final product or is it more profitable to give the work to other?Continuing your comparison GoreTex/Icebreaker. What makes Icebreaker a brand is it’s their attachment to New Zealand through NZ Merinos used in all their products. If they don’t use it, nobody will buy their goods. Me first. I never thought to buy one of their products if they had not this specificity. At this moment, I don’t see how to market and create a differentiation if they don’t produce and distribute the product themselves.For GoreTex, it’s different. Their technology is not attached to a country or a culture. And to be honest, I haven’t known it comes from NZ. So, like a screen for a phone, it can be produced everywhere and what’s make the products it’s its technology not the background around.So it depends of the product and I think NZ like France, my country, have an incredible culture that makes some products so attached to it. A kind of ambassador.But to be more efficient, and I agree with you on this, our developed country have to be more specialized on IP, Internet… because our workforce are in general, higher skilled than the one in the BRICS.