And so it was good to see Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis reminding investors that we’re not such a bad place to plant a few billion. Some of those billionaires’ funds may well have been represented in the room and Willis’ comment that “stability is our middle name” was a timely play to the international audience, despite the fact that those of us resident in this fair land may well feel anything but stable at present.

Luxon’s sweet spot is in rooms like these and his excellent speech reflected his credentials. He hit all the right buttons. Inflation under control. Check. Unemployment peaking. Check. Tourism expenditure is up and manufacturing activity is growing again. Business confidence is on the way back. It’s all good stuff.

He talked about aspirations for the country and, like Willis, played well to the instability elsewhere. His comment that the “weight of global economic activity shifting from the Atlantic to the Pacific meant that New Zealand has never been closer to the action” was pointed and timely. He correctly referenced that we are right in the middle of the booming Indo-Pacific with direct connections to Asia and North America. Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown would rightly add the massive populace of South America, which shouldn’t be overlooked.

He drew parallels with Ireland, Singapore and Denmark, stating that as they had prospered by tapping into larger markets and building stronger international connections, so too should we.

And he’s right. There’s plenty to be positive about. But in this audience, he has to be. He’s peddling public-private partnerships for infrastructure investment. Things like roads, hospitals, power generation and housing. They’re the things we would normally do ourselves as we can afford it. But our country’s changed economic fortunes as a result of the policies of the past few years, including our massively increased debt burden, means it’ll be slow going if we try to go it alone.

So, bringing in investment from outside government, albeit investment that looks for a financial return rather than just a society good, makes some sense. That investment doesn’t have to come solely from overseas either. Some of our own large investment funds are being forced to look overseas for opportunities because of our inability to serve up the projects they crave locally.

Some, like KiwiSaver operator Simplicity, are generating their own. They’ve taken to build-to-rent housing to fill the investment pipeline while doing good for society. They’re delivering higher-quality properties at a lower cost because they’re not trying to flick them on completion. And because they’re not waiting for buyers, they can build irrespective of the state of the property market. As Founder Sam Stubbs said to me on the eve of the summit, you can take a totally different approach to investment if you are holding on to the investment asset for 100 years. It’s a message worth adopting.

Stubbs and others will tell you that we don’t really need to go overseas for the money. With almost 20 years behind them, the KiwiSaver funds are now of such a scale that they provide a genuine funding alternative, if only the Government was prepared to structure investment opportunities to suit their needs.

Sometimes the answers to your problems are right under your nose. And while the Government is right to go after new international investment, it may well be that the easiest opportunity to grow our pie is with the people we already deal with. The KiwiSaver funds are one opportunity. But there are others.

I watched Trump negotiate with Volodymyr Zelenskyy over US support for Ukraine. What was fascinating is that it wasn’t a one-sided deal. The old adage of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” came to mind. In return for supporting the war effort, Trump has pushed for access for American companies to Ukraine’s mineral reserves. He has emphasised that such investments would serve both economic and security interests for the US.

It strikes me that our Government has the opportunity to play a similar card more often than they ever do.

Many of us will recall that, every few years we see the Government negotiating with Aussie conglomerate Rio Tinto, over the continued supply of cheap power to keep the aluminium smelter in Southland running. The negotiations usually include a veiled threat that, without a deal, the smelter will close and Southland’s largest employer will leave town.

As a result, it appears that we get forced into doing a deal, without the usual and in this case appropriate “quid pro quo”.

Trump’s approach made me wonder. Why don’t we tell the Aussies that, sure they can have another power deal, but we want a shareholding in the plant and a share of the production profits?

Earlier this year we saw the Kinleith paper mill at Tokoroa threatened with closure and ultimately announcing the discontinuation of paper production. Operators Oji Fibre Solutions stated that paper production at the mill had become unprofitable due to high power prices, among other things.

It followed something similar last year resulting in the closure of two Winstone pulp mills, again citing unsustainable wholesale power prices. Again, is there an opportunity to do better deals on power, if our country can somehow benefit from the proceeds of running such businesses? It’s worth a try.

Despite the fact that we’ve been in an economic slump for the last year, that hasn’t impacted the banking sector. Over the past couple of weeks, the big banks have been reporting their 2024 profits. As usual, the financial results are massive and a record $7.22 billion is the collective profit. While some celebrate the robustness of the banking sector, others are screaming that the results, particularly those attributed to the overseas-owned operators, are excessive.

Despite their relatively comfortable existence, in parallel with their results season we’ve again seen the big banks attempting to push back on the 2019 decision by the Reserve Bank which requires them to gradually increase the ratios of capital they carry over the next few years. That requirement is about ensuring that banks are better capitalised and thus safer in the event of a substantial economic correction or downturn.

But someone in the negotiating room needs to say, “what’s in it for us”? If you want to have less capital tied up, why would we agree to that without something back in return? I know, how about a greater share of those profits rolling into the coffers of NZ Inc? And I don’t mean an easy-to-avoid tax take. Perhaps an annual dividend or alternatively an issue of shares that would see the country benefit from the growing sector. I’m sure we wouldn’t object to the profits so much, if we shared in a slice of them.

As we change our thinking to that of a country that is open for business, a nation that seeks to bring in capital and participate in transactions there will be other places to look. As the mining sector shows an interest in us once more, perhaps we should summon up the courage to ask if we can have more than a licence. A shareholding. A stake in the game.

And so, with a plan for growth, and the need for investment to support the plan, it seems that there are plenty of places to go for funding, ideas and a share of the action.

After years of looking inward, we should be celebrating the fact that our leaders have a plan for growth. And we should be proud that people from international markets want to come to this spectacular but small country to hear our story. But let’s not overlook that sometimes, a part of the answer is right in front of you.

We have more to sell than we might think. Let’s hope we can be bold enough to maximise the opportunity.