The port of Rotterdam is the largest seaport in Europe and a key transit point for trade with the US, particularly oil products. Photo / Getty Images
The port of Rotterdam is the largest seaport in Europe and a key transit point for trade with the US, particularly oil products. Photo / Getty Images
Opinion by Roger Partridge
Roger Partridge is chair and a senior fellow at The New Zealand Initiative
THE FACTS
Rotterdam’s port moves 460 million tonnes of cargo annually with minimal human involvement.
Dutch workers produce 51% more output per unit of input than New Zealanders, working 300 fewer hours.
The Netherlands reduced its regulatory burden by 25% in four years using the Standard Cost Model.
Rotterdam’s port moves 460 million tonnes of cargo each year. That is roughly equivalent to shifting the entire population of Earth 60 times over. With barely a human hand involved.
This staggering fact was brought home during The New Zealand Initiative’s recent expedition to the Netherlands. The delegationof 42 top business leaders witnessed first-hand how one of the world’s most flood-prone nations became one of its most prosperous societies.
Dutch prosperity is no accident. A quarter of the Netherlands lies below sea level. This simple geographic fact has shaped a national mindset. Adaptation is not optional. It demands foresight, co-operation and resilience. When your future depends on keeping the sea at bay, you do not waste time on ideological distractions. You focus on what works.
The stark numbers tell the story. Dutch workers produce 51% more output per unit of input than Kiwis. They achieve this while working 300 fewer hours annually than us. We are not losing because we lack effort. We are losing because we lack systems.
But which systems matter most? Twenty years ago, the Netherlands faced a familiar problem: death by a thousand regulatory cuts. But unlike most nations that merely complain about red tape, they decided to weigh it.
Their Standard Cost Model turned regulatory burden from abstract irritation into hard mathematics. Hours spent on compliance, multiplied by wages, multiplied by affected businesses. Every form had a price tag.
The Dutch Advisory Board on Regulatory Burden pushes back hard – blocking 60% of proposed rules in the name of efficiency. Photo / Getty Images
The result? A 25% reduction in administrative burden within four years. That’s €4 billion ($7.73b) liberated annually for productive use.
The Dutch then created an independent Advisory Board on Regulatory Burden with genuine authority. Last year, it advised against 60% of proposed regulations. No diplomatic niceties. Just ruthless defence of economic efficiency.
This mindset extends well beyond spreadsheets. The Dutch regulate for real risks, not imagined ones. Canal boats come without compulsory lifejackets.
Dutch workers outperform Kiwis by 51% with 300 fewer hours a year – proof it’s systems, not sweat, that drive success. Photo / Getty Images
It is a society built on trust in personal responsibility, not bureaucratic liability management. In a country where we barely saw a road cone, it was hard not to reflect on New Zealand’s orange cone epidemic – symbols of a safety-is-everything culture that often puts theatre ahead of real risk.
We now rank dead last for administrative burdens. Yet some still query the need for the regulatory hygiene-checks proposed in the Regulatory Standards Bill.
The contrast extends beyond regulatory discipline. At Wageningen University & Research, we witnessed “Food Valley” – a world-leading hub where science and industry collaborate to commercialise agricultural innovation.
The origins of this cluster lie in a pragmatic merger, initiated in the early 2000s, between the university and public research institutes in response to revive agriscience amid falling enrolments.
While Government supported the consolidation, what followed was not bureaucratic central planning but a thriving, industry-facing ecosystem. Secure property rights, stable regulations and institutional independence enabled private investment and collaboration to flourish.
At Wageningen, the delegation also witnessed what rational agricultural policy actually looks like. While Auckland Council sanctifies “highly productive soils” on urban fringes – blocking houses where families might live, Dutch horticulture builds upwards. Multi-storey greenhouses produce more tomatoes per square metre than we could dream of achieving with our protected paddocks.
New Zealand has plunged from second to 20th in regulatory quality – now ranking dead last for administrative burdens, yet reform still meets resistance. Photo / Mansons TCLM
This is not ideology masquerading as environmental protection. It is technology solving real problems in a place where land is scarce. The Dutch feed Europe from a country smaller than Canterbury.
The Maeslantkering storm surge barrier embodies Dutch thinking perfectly. Two curved gates, each the length of the Eiffel Tower, capable of sealing Rotterdam from the North Sea. It has closed twice since 1997.
Some might question the economics. The Dutch remember the 1953 floods that killed 2551 people. When you live below sea level, you do not gamble with the North Sea. This is rational risk management, not monument building.
That distinction matters. The Dutch invest in infrastructure that generates measurable returns. They do not build cycleways where nobody cycles or rail lines where buses would suffice. The Dutch learned in the 1970s that protected infrastructure could transform habits – but they have always built for use, not virtue. Every euro must justify itself.
The foundations matter. In 2013, 47 parties – government, business, unions – signed an Energy Agreement. Twelve years later, those commitments still guide infrastructure investment. This was consensus, not coercion.
This created something powerful: predictability. Dutch firms invest knowing the rules will not change with the political winds. Workers train knowing their industries will not be regulated into oblivion. Infrastructure gets built based on cost-benefit analysis, not electoral calculations.
Compare that with us. We have perfected the art of delay and indecision. Where the Dutch say yes unless there is good reason to refuse, we wrap opportunity in precaution – and then shift the rules halfway through.
Investors in New Zealand face not just red tape, but policy whiplash: reversals, overcorrections, and reviews that never end. What began as caution has become unpredictability. The result? Higher capital costs, fewer investments and an economy working harder each year to fall further behind.
The Dutch built their prosperity not through grand government schemes, but through stable institutions. Not through heavy-handed intervention, but by enabling business to thrive. Not by doing more, but by doing less – competently.
