KEY POINTS:
If Labour had lost the 2005 election, Michael Cullen would have gone out with his reputation intact.
But three years on, his record bulging Government surpluses - the upshot of golden economic weather and savage tax-hoarding has turned to deficits and with it the chorus of criticism is
growing. Don't read this as uniform negativity ...
"The Government's books are in good shape," said Don Brash, a director of ANZ National and former Reserve Bank governor.
"That provides a cushion in these difficult times but the level and effectiveness of Government spending is important."
The survey indicated that chief executives had clear views on Labour's signature policies. Survey participants ranked a number of the Labour government's policies on a scale of 1-5 (5 being most impressive).
Top of the list was KiwiSaver - Cullen's policy response to decades of poor savings by New Zealanders which have contributed to the country's bulging current account deficit as we plunder other nations' savings to underpin lifestyles we cannot really afford.
KiwiSaver was accorded an average ranking of 3.6 - marginally ahead of the ground-breaking China Free Trade Agreement whose parentage owed a considerable amount to the foresight of Helen Clark and former Trade Minister Jim Sutton with the aid of Phil Goff's finely-honed negotiating skills.
"It is a huge structural change [KiwiSaver] that will pay benefits in future years," said a leading exporter.
Though positive, the China FTA received mixed reviews: "It is great and needs to be acknowledged but we also need to note that as water and food issues become more acute, there will be plenty lining up to get preferential supply lines from New Zealand," said an investment banker.
The tainted milk scandal at Fonterra's San Lu operation threw up a caution: "The rules, regulations and quality checks in the FTA were not carefully thought through. There seems to be little in-depth comprehension of the Chinese way of working and cultural differences," said one manufacturer.
The New Zealand Superannuation Fund (3.3 average) also won a tick. The two policies were seen as integral to New Zealand's shift to a savings culture. There were mixed views whether National should tamper with either scheme if it became Government.
The emissions trading scheme - Labour's response to mitigating climate change effects - earned an average 1.8 rating. "The ETS is a shocker. Not because of the high-level philosophy [but] rather the design policy process and speed [it was] rushed through," said a power company chief.
On the tax front, Cullen earned applause (2.7) for getting the corporate rate down to 30 per cent in line with Australia. But on personal tax cuts the response was more "too little too late", rating a mere 2.0.
"Why take taxes off people, clip the ticket and then give some back with Working for Families," questioned Deloitte's Murray Jack. "Get tax rates down, reduce bureaucracy."
There were, of course, niggles.
In follow-up discussions with survey participants, Cullen's decision to interfere and stop the Canadian Pension Plans partial takeover for Auckland International Airport was cited. His intervention scuttled the bid to the financial detriment of the many airport shareholders who had already accepted the offer.
Seventy-one per cent of those surveyed want the next government to formally list "strategic assets" to lessen the chance of other prospective takeovers being politically ambushed. Sixty-five per cent also want regulatory responsibility legislation enacted but they were less clear on the need for an independent body to act as a gatekeeper in this area.
On the vital legacy issue, just 19 per cent of survey participants believed the Labour Government would leave behind - or carry forward - a good economic legacy.
"There's been an outstanding structural shift in savings. They've begun on tax ... They're excellent on trade," - oil company chief.
"On balance, over nine years we have had good conditions, KiwiSaver, current account surpluses are good, but our infrastructure has run down," - creative firm boss.
"Labour has ridden a consumer and credit-driven economic wave which was unsustainable on fundamentals, notwithstanding the current global crisis," - technology group chief.
But 73 per cent did not agree. "Running big surpluses and massive increases in government expenditure is not a legacy to be proud of when it has led to depopulation and poor levels of business," said the Employers and Manufacturers Association Northern's Alasdair Thompson.
Of real concern was the fact that New Zealand had slipped back on a number of key metrics: Standard of living, productivity growth, the quality of government spending, a lack of vision on New Zealand's potential on the world change, were cited.
Several participants said "on balance" Labour had wasted opportunities during the commodity boom to put the New Zealand economy on a more competitive footing.
Labour's much vaunted "economic transformation", which was singled out as a priority for its third term in government, was labelled by some as mere "spin"or "cliches". Asked if they believed the current Government believed in economic transformation and had facilitated it, the response was negative, with 79 per cent according a ranking of either 1 or 2 on a 1-5 scale where 1 indicated strong disagreement. The highest ranking - of 4 - was ticked by just four per cent of respondents.
"At issue is that the economy is still fundamentally unchanged," said NZX's Mark Weldon. "We're still dependent on agricultural export prices and there are no new champions."
"It's just empty rhetoric. Productivity and economic trend growth have declined, not risen," said the Business Roundtable's Roger Kerr.
Some respondents noted the Government had good intentions. "I think they believe in the need but had little concept of implementation," said Michael Barnett, chief executive of Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce.
At the crux of their concerns was government spending.
This was nominated by 40 per cent of respondents as the most important current issue, outweighing tax rates (28 per cent) and the traditional business bugbear: regulation (17 per cent).
In all, a thumping 88 per cent believed the level of Government spending was too high. Not only did they have concerns about its effectiveness, but they believed the next government needed to get spending under control to take the burden off the Reserve Bank and taxpayers.
The bureaucracy (45 per cent) and welfare (27 per cent) were nominated as key targets for the next government to tackle. A further 17 per cent believed Working for Families should also be subject to the pruning knife.
Just 43 per cent believed National's plan to use natural attrition to reduce public sector ranks was the right move.
Fifty-two per cent disagreed, saying more aggressive policy would be needed to cut numbers.
"I strong believe the commercial practice of cutting deep and quickly should prevail. Natural attrition will lead to no change and we can't afford to let this happen. There should be further salary and incentive structures in the government sector to attract commercially experienced people," said one power company boss.
An exporter, however, said this should be done in a "disciplined way. In the current economic climate we don't need more blood on the floor".
Others talked about the need to address the public sector mindset. They suggested the next Government could start by asking what services it really needed to provide and what services the private sector could manage more efficiently.
This may be anathema to Cullen's ethos, but could be a major plank in National's own legacy-building efforts if it gets its own crack at government.
