The Bay of Islands receives a large number of cruise ships every year – and we have to have the amenities in place to ensure we provide a quality experience for our visitors.
The Bay of Islands receives a large number of cruise ships every year – and we have to have the amenities in place to ensure we provide a quality experience for our visitors.
There is an old phrase that still holds true: the economic horse pulls the social cart.
Prosperity funds hospitals, schools, infrastructure, police and the social services New Zealanders rely on.
Without growth and increasing our wealth, we cannot afford to pay for the things we all need.
OurGDP per capita is much less than countries such as Australia, which is one of the reasons they have “more”.
But there is a second reality that policymakers and industry alike must now confront: growth without social licence eventually slows, fragments or stalls.
Across sectors such as tourism, forestry, mining and investment, the debate in New Zealand is no longer about whether we grow - we have to – it is about whether we grow in ways our communities actively support.
That distinction is becoming economically and politically decisive. Without community support our growth projects will stall or, worse, fail.
Tourism illustrates the tension clearly. New Zealand rightly wants more high-value visitors and greater regional dispersal.
Regions such as Northland, Auckland, Queenstown, Rotorua and Christchurch are actively positioning themselves to welcome visitors, not resist them.
But success creates real and immediate infrastructure pressure.
Public toilets, waste systems, carparks, walkways, viewing platforms and waterfront facilities – the everyday “tourism hardscapes” – are used by visitors and locals, yet the funding burden often falls disproportionately on ratepayers.
The Bay of Islands receives a large number of cruise ships every year – and we have to have the amenities in place to ensure we provide a quality experience for our visitors.
Who pays for that? It should not all fall on ratepayers.
We love tourists and welcome them, but this is a funding alignment issue.
Visitors already contribute significantly through GST and the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy (IVL).
However, the core challenge is really about how that funding is allocated back to communities experiencing peak visitor demand.
Visitors use infrastructure intensively during peak periods. Councils fund infrastructure primarily through rates. Tourism growth is encouraged nationally.
Whangārei's Maritime Festival at the Town Basin attracts thousands of visitors
Photo / Whangārei Maritime Festival
Infrastructure costs are absorbed locally. When infrastructure strain is visible, but reinvestment is not, social licence begins to erode.
And once that happens, resistance to growth, which we need, becomes more likely.
New Zealand is not alone in facing this issue. Small, high-amenity destinations around the world are actively redesigning how they manage visitor pressure and encourage dispersal.
Venice, Barcelona, Austrian towns and other destinations have adopted similar approaches – from visitor levies to accommodation levies and tighter regulation of short-term rentals – all based on the same principle: user-pays and transparent reinvestment.
Here, we need to relook at tools such as accommodation levies, share of GST collected – and ensure funds collected go to the regions and projects to reinvest in the infrastructure needed to create a fantastic experience – and not at the cost to ratepayers.
New Zealand already applies user-pays logic in transport through toll roads and targeted infrastructure funding. Applying similar principles to tourism would simply align policy with use. If we do that, we strengthen social licence by ensuring visitor impact is actively managed and visibly funded.
The same social licence issue applies to other key economic sectors.
Forestry remains a vital export industry, yet extreme weather has heightened scrutiny around land use and environmental management. The sector’s long-term stability depends not only on productivity, but on maintaining public confidence.
Mining and critical minerals present a similar dynamic.
We need mining for rare minerals to power medical devices, electric vehicles and iPhones, but we need community support to do it. Other mining – like sand mining in the waters of Bream Bay – does not have community support, there is no social licence and the community (from all walks of life) has clearly expressed that.
Our dairy industry – one of our biggest industries and one we as a nation depend upon – is also under scrutiny, as the impact on our land and rivers has been significant. Social licence is at issue here.
Even foreign direct investment is increasingly judged through a social licence lens, with communities expecting tangible benefits, employment opportunities and long-term commitment – not just capital inflows.
Across all sectors, the message is consistent: economic activity must continue strongly for us to pay for all the things we need as a nation, but it must demonstrate shared value, not just private return.
New Zealand’s long-term prosperity depends on attracting visitors, capital, talent and new industries in an increasingly competitive global environment. But legitimacy is becoming a core economic advantage. Regions with visible reinvestment retain public trust.
Yes, the economic horse still pulls the social cart.
But if communities feel overburdened, underfunded or excluded from the benefits of growth, they will inevitably question the direction and pace of that horse. Smart policy does not ignore this tension. It addresses it early.
In a small country like New Zealand, where community sentiment travels fast and regional infrastructure pressures are highly visible, maintaining social licence may be one of the most important economic strategies we have.
