Recent publications show a varied perception of evolving quality of life in New Zealand.
Act New Zealand leader David Seymour is often quoted as saying "we have never had it so good", while John Highton (Opinion ODT 27.10.25) suggested we might be losing our identity by drifting away from our traditional values towards an internationally amorphous "norm".
What evidence supports these views? What merit is there for growth and development at all costs versus growth while maintaining traditional values?
New Zealand’s achievements in science and medicine are impressive. Geographic isolation and low population density have both benefits and challenges.
Having lived previously in the United States, high pressure, lucrative jobs lost their lustre when we saw their effect on the quality of life of many colleagues and their families.
Many South African professionals were accepting jobs in the US and Australia at far greater salaries than were offered in New Zealand.
My family chose to make New Zealand our permanent home about 50 years ago. Our decision was heavily influenced by our New Zealander neighbours in Cape Town — father an insurance executive from Wellington, mother a dental nurse and farmer’s daughter from Eketahuna and their three daughters.
Favouring a lifestyle in an egalitarian environment, we appreciated their description of life in New Zealand. Our choice became clear. I considered myself well-settled when I owned a trailer and chainsaw.
Average life expectancy, incomes, telecommunications and range of possible medical treatments have undoubtedly increased dramatically during the past 50 years.
Shopping and hospitality choices have expanded, overseas travel is relatively cheaper and the road toll has decreased significantly with a better, safer roading system.
At the other extreme, we now have beggars in our streets, families living in poverty and students graduating with crippling debts.
Cost of living increases result in full-time work on minimum wage often being inadequate to sustain a family; two jobs are often necessary.
Jobs are scarce. Salaries have risen far more slowly for lower-income "hard-working Kiwis" than for many corporate professional groups. How do we compare gains with losses?
New Zealand pioneered the development of socialised healthcare and was a world leader in childcare and public health medicine. We have slipped far down the world rankings in these areas.
At present, our measles immunisation rates are too low for herd immunity. The persisting high incidence of rheumatic fever and very existence of food poverty is disgraceful. Favouring tobacco companies over smoking reduction is inexcusable.
In a recent OECD survey, our healthcare rated surprisingly well, except for access and equity. Care is more easily accessible for some than others, particularly those who are privately insured.
Ethnic minorities and the poor, despite greater and more urgent needs, still have demonstrable difficulty accessing care.
Poor housing, mental health issues, drug addiction, crime and incarceration have remained stubbornly high among minority groups. Our occupational safety record is poor.
Homelessness is an increasingly challenging problem. New housing projects are being undertaken, but budgets needed are often far beyond those of many buyers.
Good state housing is scarce, with many established projects abandoned because of cost overruns or administrative inefficiencies. Both too many young people and retirees realise that they may never own their own home, a previous given for the average New Zealand family.
Paradoxically, landlords are given tax concessions.
Mitigation against climate change is devalued by our current government, well knowing that the eventual tragic outcomes will be felt disproportionately by the poor living in less desirable, often flood-prone and increasingly uninsurable areas.
Public transport is poorly developed and expensive.
Polluted rivers have made swimming hazardous.
Toxin-generating open-cast mines change the landscape of previously pristine rural areas. Our clean green image has become tarnished.
AI is a modern reality which needs to be integrated or rationed thoughtfully to ensure benefits are shared by all.
The shedding of many jobs to AI must not be carried disproportionately by the poor and less-educated.
I have loved being in New Zealand and am happily retired after a privileged academic career. It is true that "many of us have never had it so good".
But unfortunately, this seems to have been at the expense of the poor, with many in the middle class increasingly haemorrhaging down to the hardship group.
Do young New Zealanders visualise the "ideal Kiwi" as sartorially attired with a superior expression flaunting their helicopter, beachfront mansion and jetski; or do they see someone with a Number 8 wire "can-do" mentality at the beach with fishing-rod, trailer and chainsaw?
Are those of us who have done well in New Zealand prepared to share the benefits of our wonderful Godzone so that all New Zealanders are able to smell the roses, reassured that they have been adequately rewarded for their work?
Is traditional New Zealand kindness still valued?
• Gil Barbezat is an emeritus professor of medicine.
