For more than a century New Zealanders have prided themselves on their “can do” mentality. Our “number eight wire” approach to problem solving is legendary. It derives from the ability settlers developed in the early days of colonisation to utilise number eight-gauge fencing wire to fix all manner of things for which parts were either unavailable or too expensive. It was an ingenuity and resourcefulness necessitated by the country’s geographic isolation.

Over time, it became an important part of our national make-up, signifying an approach to resolving issues that was both practical and innovative. New Zealanders became very confident of and content with their ability to deftly and efficiently resolve difficult problems this way.

So, it comes as a jolt to the national psyche when that “can do” approach is challenged. Such a challenge came recently from the chief executive of the Ports of Auckland when he told an Auckland audience that New Zealand was becoming known internationally as “No” Zealand “because you just say no to everything.” While he was talking about tourism and cruise ship visits particularly, his jarring warning can be applied to other areas as well.

Over the last twenty years or so there has been a decided shift away from the previous generally permissive approach to new business and social activities to a more specific emphasis on “permitted activities”. These activities have generally required resource consents under the Resource Management Act, often introducing new compliance costs and additional regulatory restraints on activities. In addition, ever increasing health and safety standards have imposed their own restraints.

Against that backdrop, it is easy to see how the “No” Zealand image can take hold in stark contrast to the innovative “can do”, nothing-is-a-problem approach we have been used to. And it is easy to see how the desire to light regulatory bonfires becomes so attractive.

Although some of the regulations put in place over the last couple of decades have been excessive and, in some cases, downright silly, most have been necessary to protect the environment, ensure good workplace practice and uphold safety. The answer to the “No” Zealand complaint is not therefore to get rid of all regulations – nor was the Ports of Auckland chief executive suggesting that – but to ensure that when regulations are put in place their focus is enabling activities to proceed, rather than preventing them.

In this regard, the regional government reforms announced by the government this week and foreshadowed in this column some weeks ago, assume an additional importance. Many of the regulations businesses complain about as constraints on their activity emanate from regional government and often appear more about preventing or restricting an activity than facilitating its development in an environmentally sustainable way.

As well as being a de facto amalgamation of territorial, district authorities and cities, the government’s reforms are also an opportunity to get rid of the regulatory inconsistencies and lack of common standards that apply at present. The aim should be to streamline current procedures and set clear and consistent standards governing future commercial and other activities in a region. If an entity complies with those standards, it should then be permitted to operate, without the need for costly licences and permits, which have often become no more than a revenue gathering device for the local council.

As the Ports of Auckland chief executive noted elsewhere in his remarks, there are now clear incipient signs of economic recovery – for example, container volumes handled at Auckland last month were the highest in nine years. Similar cautiously optimistic comments have also been made by several economic commentators in the last few weeks. This week’s OCR rate cut by the Reserve Bank is a further sign of recovery.

But the caveat they are all entering is that the recovery is still in its early stages and will take further effort to be sustained. A defter regulatory approach to new existing businesses therefore becomes more imperative, to lock in what gains there are at present.

Earlier this year the Prime Minister told a government-convened infrastructure summit that New Zealand was open for business again and was keen to engage with the international investment community. The “No” Zealand message is somewhat at variance with that call, but needs to be heeded, nonetheless.

If the government’s regional government reforms are accompanied by a more rational regulatory approach that focuses on encouraging commercial and other opportunities, rather than restricting them, the “No” Zealand message can be countered. And the Prime Minister’s call that New Zealand is open for international investment again will look more credible and achievable.

But beyond that, a more positive and pragmatic regulatory environment may reinvigorate our traditional “can do” optimism and energy. It has been to our national cost that that spirit was allowed to become dormant in recent years when conformity and compliance held sway.