The election race is grinding on, and many of us cannot wait for November 7. Sadly, our eagerness is not for the excitement of polling day, but for the relief of having it behind us.
The polls are close, and none of us knows what voters will deliver. But one thing is clear: we are unlikely to be offered an aspirational, long-term vision for New Zealand.
We should be grateful for what we have. We are a peaceful country at the bottom of a troubled world. By most measures, we enjoy stable politics and great opportunity. We produce food as well as anyone, and we could be self-sufficient if we ever needed to be.
We also have distance. What was once a liability is now an advantage. We are remote from many of the troubles afflicting other parts of the world.
Our international peers are variously drowning in debt, absorbed by war, grappling with immigration pressures or struggling to afford ageing populations. They battle despotic leaders, corruption and social unrest. Some have even produced a disaffected youth, convinced that the answer to failures in education is to burn down schools.
We often dwell on what is wrong with New Zealand. But what would happen if, instead, we built on what is good?
Since John Key and Bill English left the political stage, it feels like we’ve drifted.
Political thinking lacks consistency; policies are introduced, reversed and reintroduced, and the country goes nowhere. As parties search for points of difference, they seem to move further from common sense. As a result, many of us now disagree, even over questions that were once relatively settled: how schools and hospitals should be run, where new roads should be built, and how much public debt is too much.
That division is disruptive and costly. In recent years, governments have introduced charter schools, only for their successors to abolish them. They have since been reinstated with some success, yet current policy – or the policy of some parties – could see them abolished again.
About 70% of those recently surveyed believe the education system has improved markedly over the past three years. And yet, on the eve of a critical election, we hear of an opposition policy to move away from compulsory maths and English, and pass the changes back to a committee for review.
Elsewhere, we centralise healthcare, then decentralise it. We reorganise administration, change reporting lines and rename departments. Meanwhile, patients continue waiting.
We have spent enormous resources planning new roads, only for one government to cancel them and another, three years later, to reinstate them. Today, we hear of plans to stop them again. We abandon highways before completion, losing workforces and machinery that could have continued had the projects been retained.
What a waste.
The same applies to oil and gas exploration. One side says we need it; the other says stop it. Small wonder that investors, explorers and drillers withdraw and move on. Our political landscape is not reliable enough to sustain their investment.
Nothing in this campaign seeks to correct that madness. It has become a tit-for-tat election. Debates feature candidates whose every word is monitored – and sometimes celebrated – for the “gotcha” moments: throwaway lines designed to amuse, catch an opponent off guard, or create an embarrassing television clip. For the most part, it’s meaningless.
Because none of it is making the country better. There is little on offer to address the cost of living or deliver lasting improvements to healthcare, education or infrastructure over the long term.
If cost alone were not reason enough, this behaviour must stop. Cancelling or pausing major capital projects is one thing; disrupting the health outcomes of taxpayers, or the education of a young person with their future ahead of them, is quite another.
New Zealand needs, above all, a broad and enduring national vision. One that commands cross-party support, even as individual parties may refine the detail over time.
I would like to hear a politician set out such a vision, something that tells us what New Zealand could look like in, say, 20 years.
They might begin with big meaningful goals. Perhaps we could aim to double GDP per capita over that timeframe.
They might describe a country renowned for producing high-quality food with a comparatively low environmental impact. Perhaps we should set a target to double production over that same period, through innovation and productivity gains – strengthening our ability to feed a hungry world while improving our economy.
We might also talk about tourism. In a world where travellers want to escape the harsh realities of home, we can showcase what one commentator once called “the world in miniature”: not the world as it is today, but a world as it once was – one without war, religious hatred, illegal immigration or civil unrest.
For a country of our size, we have produced an unusually large number of technology successes. Xero, Wētā Workshop, Rocket Lab and, more recently, Halter all demonstrate what we can achieve. We often innovate and reach markets faster, and with less capital, than competitors elsewhere.
Imagine if those successes spawned many more technology companies. Imagine young people learning about innovation, design, markets and growth, then leaving established firms at the right moment to start their own businesses – employing more people, entering new markets and expanding the economy.
Most of us may not realise it, but we are world class in electricity generation, and particularly in renewable generation. Over the next 20 years, the world will need vastly more power for heating, transport, technology and artificial intelligence. We already have the knowledge, skills and technology to sell to the world. Imagine if we did much more of it, contributing to a more productive and sustainable global economy.
These are just a few, top of mind, examples. But here’s the important part. Once we decide what we want New Zealand to become, it changes how we think about the challenges we face.
At present, we tend to assess public services without clear standards or goals. We look at what we have and tinker: small improvements, small adjustments, against a status quo that will never deliver the progress we need.
Instead, let us change how we think about major services.
If we are to develop the people needed to lead excellent organisations in agriculture, tourism and technology, continuous improvement in education is vital. Maths, reading and science are more important for tomorrow’s economy than they were for yesterday’s.
Yet we measure educational performance against past results rather than future needs.
If we set goals for the future, those goals will determine the standards we pursue.
Imagine a target that every child leaving school held a qualification: a trade, a technology credential or a professional qualification; a certificate or a degree. Ideally, the focus would align with the country’s needs. Some will argue for the lowest common denominator. Why not aim for the highest?
Imagine a health system in which a patient sees a doctor and immediately proceeds to an X-ray or scan, that same day. Where results are immediately available, automatically generating the next appointment – physiotherapy, perhaps, or, if necessary, surgery within a fortnight. The technology to do much of this exists today. It is the system that gets in the way.
We must first decide what a successful health service should look like in 10 years, then begin redesigning it today. Anything less is tinkering at the edges of a failing system.
My point is simple: with aspirations of this kind – a vision, if you like – we could redesign what we do with a common destination in mind. Without one, we will continue to tinker with what we have rather than reinvent it in pursuit of what we want to become.
Nor need it stop there. Our aspirations could include home ownership. New Zealand’s ownership rate peaked at 77% in 1986, among the best in the OECD. Today it sits at about 66%, according to one of several surveys. Singapore, once far behind, now has a home-ownership rate of 90%. Why not set that as a 30-year target and begin making the policy choices needed to achieve it?
And so on. We could set aspirational goals for wage growth – perhaps real wage growth of 3% a year for 10 consecutive years from 2030 – or for crime, such as a 10% annual reduction.
Ambitious targets. Would they change the decisions we make today? Would they force us to reconsider how we organise government, allocate resources and measure success?
Of course they would.
Those aren’t left-wing or right-wing ambitions. They’re New Zealand ambitions. And they shouldn’t be abandoned every three years because somebody else wins an election.
A clear vision for the future changes how we approach today’s challenges. Rather than examining the detail of what we currently deliver and making incremental improvements, we would ask what we aspire to be, determine how to get there, and act accordingly.
New Zealand could be one of the great success stories of the next 20 years.
But first, we have to decide what we want to be.
And then we have to start behaving like we mean it.
This article first appeared in The New Zealand Herald, Saturday 24th October, 2026.