Published in the National Business review of 23 Jan 2004

What are we prepared to sacrifice in order to get a higher standard of living in New Zealand? The depressing answer would seem to be: not much, if anything.
The pre New Year UMR poll showed a very high level of contentment with the ways things are. " New Zealanders are basking in the golden weather of national optimism, topping off a three year high in the country's mood", the Sunday StarTimes reported.
In Singapore - a country sometimes hailed as model of planned development - the father of the nation, Lee Kuan Yew, made a bargain with the people: do as you are told and I will make you prosperous.
In Holland, the Dutch realised that few people would choose to learn Dutch, and therefore if they were to trade effectively they had to learn other languages.
It's compulsory to learn at least one foreign language.
I don't say that New Zealanders should give up some of their civil liberties or be made to learn another language.
My point is to ask what sacrifices we are prepared to make in order to be more prosperous.
Have we really agreed that the rewards of sustained growth are not worth the effort? I don't recall being given that choice in any election recently.
But the evidence of our acceptance that this is as good as it gets is certainly there:

• We can't or won't live within our means as a country. New Zealand hasn't paid its way in the world since 1973, and we borrow the savings of others to finance our lifestyle. Sometimes we borrow from our children's future to finance the present. Both techniques foster the illusion that we are better off than we are in reality.
• We won't save enough for our own retirement. And we won't support compulsory savings on our behalf either. The Winston Peters sponsored referendum on compulsory retirement savings was rejected by a huge majority. Yet survey after survey show that many of us are not saving enough. Some are not saving anything at all, and will instead be relying solely on the state pension.
• We won't make any significant changes in our welfare system, the single biggest item in the government's budget. The Treasury notes that the number of non-superannuitants on benefits is still rising and the government is planning to spend more on income support in the next budget.
• We treat migrants badly. When we export our own well trained people and replace them with migrants we are bringing in people for whom New Zealand is a more attractive place than their own country. Typically their cultures and attitudes are not ours, but when we attack, blame or criticize them for not "fitting in" we risk losing them and their skills. Then we have lost twice: once by exporting our own people, and a second time by alienating their replacements.

Two examples of the consequences of our lack of prosperity as a nation arose during the holiday period.
Newspaper headlines said "flying doctors" were heading to Australia for money and better conditions.
And Dr Peter Fisher, the Southland psychiatrist who sanctioned the release of mental patient Mark Burton who killed his mother shortly afterwards was sacked over the death of a suicidal patient at a hospital in Cumbria, England.
It emerged that Dr Fisher had not completed his training as a psychiatrist before taking up his position in Invercargill.
Ian Powell of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists noted that
" the biggest losers are patients who run the risks associated with reduced continuity of care, less well trained doctors and reduced access to quality services."
The case for prosperity is simple: it's a higher standard of living for everyone, and more incentive for our children to stay (or return) here.
Prosperity makes choices easier. We can have good hospitals and still punt a bit of getting that cup back.
We can pay doctors more to go to Kaitaia hospital and still afford to foster indigenous arts and culture.
And we don't risk a descent into the politics of envy.
Politicians won't find pitting one group against another on the basis of race, privilege or special status so tempting when there's enough for everyone to have something.
It is truism to say that there isn't a single problem in New Zealand that wouldn't be more easily solved if we had more money.
The more frightening corollary is that our problems will be harder to solve, and our choices made more difficult, the less money we have as a nation.
The more attractive other countries appear to be to our best and brightest, the more incentive there will be to go there, and stay there, a cycle which will only compound our difficulties.
I am unashamed about arguing for higher rates of economic growth, for turning up the blow torch of reform, and for challenging New Zealanders to debate how we can restore our nation to the front rank of nations.