From Job Losses to Job Creation: Rethinking New Zealand’s Future of Work: First Edition

The stories we tell about work matter. If the dominant narrative is one of decline, with factories shutting, construction slowing, and redundancies piling up, then both businesses and workers hesitate. Employers delay investment. Workers hunker down, fearful of making career transitions. Policymakers focus on cushioning losses instead of preparing for the future. 

But if the narrative balances realism about job losses with optimism about job creation, confidence grows. People and firms alike are more willing to invest in skills, in technology, and in innovation. 

History offers reminders. After the Global Financial Crisis, New Zealand lost thousands of jobs in construction and manufacturing. But the same decade saw the rise of agritech, screen production, digital services, and renewable energy initiatives. Job losses in one sector did not equate to permanent economic decline, provided that pathways existed for workers to move into emerging industries. 

Right now, that reframing is urgent. With unemployment climbing to 4.5 percent and underutilisation at 10.6 percent in mid-2025, meaning more than 310,000 people either unemployed, underemployed, or not seeking work, the risks of despair and disengagement are real. 

The challenge is to start asking a different set of questions. What are the jobs of the future? Which countries are creating them successfully? And what is New Zealand doing to prepare its people? To begin answering these, we look abroad.

Singapore, like New Zealand, is a small, trade-dependent economy. Yet it has approached the challenge of job creation with a level of clarity and coordination that New Zealand has not. While we often debate how to soften the blow of redundancies, Singapore has been steadily building a national system for preparing its people for the jobs of tomorrow. 

In 2015, Singapore launched SkillsFuture, a national initiative designed to make lifelong learning a defining feature of the workforce. The programme is about more than topping up skills when industries change. It is about building a culture where individuals pursue mastery in their chosen field, continuously adding to their expertise throughout their careers. 

Every Singaporean is given credits they can use for approved training courses. These credits are renewed at intervals, reinforcing the expectation that learning never stops. The SkillsFuture Council, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, drives coordination across government, industry, and unions to make sure training is relevant to the economy’s needs. 

The underlying philosophy is simple: skills are not just for young people entering the workforce, but for every worker, at every stage of life. 

One of Singapore’s most innovative responses to job disruption is its Career Conversion Programmes (CCPs). These help employers reskill mid-career workers, either when hiring them into new roles or when redeploying existing staff into growth areas. 

This is particularly relevant to New Zealand. Our recent job losses have been concentrated in construction, manufacturing, and retail, industries with large numbers of workers in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. Without intervention, many risk being shut out of the workforce for years. Singapore treats this as a solvable problem, funding pathways for mid-career workers to pivot into expanding industries.

Singapore is also explicit about which jobs are most in demand. A 2025 analysis by recruitment agency Trust Recruit shows a clear picture of where opportunity is growing. 

Transportation and logistics: 67 percent net employment outlook, with roles such as AI-powered warehouse managers, supply chain analysts, freight forwarding coordinators, and last-mile delivery specialists. Healthcare and life sciences: 27 percent employment outlook, with roles such as geriatric and home care nurses, mental health professionals, biotech researchers, and healthcare data analysts. Information technology: 28 percent net outlook, with roles such as cybersecurity experts, cloud computing engineers, AI and data science specialists, and full-stack developers. Emerging trends include demand in sustainability and ESG, UX and UI design, robotics and automation, and AI governance. 

Crucially, Singapore does not just name the sectors. It identifies the specific roles within them, and the skills workers need to be competitive. Workers know that gaining certifications in data analytics, sustainability, or UX design will lead to tangible opportunities. Employers have a clearer view of where to recruit and where to train. 

Singapore’s approach rests on three interconnected pillars. First, it coordinates nationally. SkillsFuture brings together government, business, and unions to avoid fragmented initiatives. Second, it prioritises mid-career reskilling. CCPs ensure workers displaced from shrinking sectors have real chances to transition into growth industries. Third, it provides clear signals. Reports like Trust Recruit’s analysis give workers and employers visibility on the jobs of the future. 

The result is a workforce that, while still facing disruption, has more structured support to adapt. Even when global companies such as Meta have cut jobs in Singapore, the conversation quickly shifts to where workers can be redeployed, rather than focusing solely on the losses. 

For New Zealand, the lesson is clear. It is not enough to acknowledge that automation, climate change, or demographic shifts will create new jobs. We must also articulate what those jobs are, invest in training pathways, and support workers in the middle of their careers, not just those just starting out. 

The New Zealand government is not blind to these challenges. Multiple strategies are in place: the Employment Action Plan, MBIE’s Developing Talent programme, and the flagship Going for Growth plan launched in 2025. Together, they attempt to position the country for future prosperity. 

The Employment Action Plan (August 2024) acknowledges New Zealand’s weak productivity growth, high skills mismatches, and persistent inequalities in labour market outcomes. It also warns that young people disconnected from work risk remaining on benefits for decades, with forecasts suggesting an unemployed teenager could spend 24 years on welfare. These are sobering signals. 

MBIE’s Developing Talent agenda emphasises improving education outcomes, attendance, and literacy, but again the focus is heavily on schooling. While necessary, this emphasis risks leaving today’s adult workforce behind at precisely the moment when mid-career reskilling is most urgent. 

The Going for Growth plan (February 2025) is more ambitious, setting a target to double exports by 2034, reform vocational education, streamline regulation, and invest in science, technology, and infrastructure. It promises to establish Invest New Zealand as a one-stop shop for foreign investment and to reform immigration settings to attract skilled migrants. Importantly, it also outlines reforms to the science and technology system, including creating new Public Research Organisations to focus on advanced technologies, bio-economy, and earth sciences, and ending the 30-year ban on gene technology. 

These are significant moves, but gaps remain. The strategies are clearer on attracting investment and reforming regulation than on preparing New Zealanders themselves for the jobs those reforms might create. 

New Zealand does not lack ambition. The Going for Growth strategy, the Employment Action Plan, and MBIE’s Developing Talent agenda all point to an economy that aspires to be more productive, innovative, and globally connected. The targets are bold: double exports by 2034, unlock billions through free trade agreements, reform research institutes, embrace AI and gene technology, and invest billions in infrastructure. 

The challenge is not in the vision but in the execution. In sector after sector, New Zealand has strategies for trade, investment, regulation, and innovation, but no equally detailed strategy for the workforce that will make those ambitions real. 

Consider the space industry. The government wants to double its size by 2030 and inspire the next generation with a Prime Minister’s Space Prize. Yet there is no national training pipeline for aerospace engineers, avionics technicians, or space compliance specialists. Without one, growth will depend on importing expertise from overseas. 

Or take the gene technology reforms. Ending a 30-year ban is bold, and the potential for new cancer treatments, disease-resistant crops, and environmental innovations is enormous. But where will the lab technicians, regulatory specialists, and bioethics experts come from? Without a coordinated training plan, opportunities may bypass New Zealanders. 

Infrastructure is another example. The Fast-track Approvals Act promises 55,000 homes, 180 kilometres of transport routes, and 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy. These projects will create thousands of jobs. Yet New Zealand is already grappling with shortages of builders, engineers, project managers, and renewable energy technicians. Without investment in workforce pipelines, projects will be delayed or reliant on migrant labour. 

The same applies to exports. Doubling the value of exports requires more than trade agreements. It requires skilled supply chain analysts, logistics coordinators, agritech specialists, and tourism professionals. But workforce strategies for these sectors remain patchy and disconnected. 

This is the gap between ambition and reality. The government’s strategies identify where growth might come from, but they do not articulate how ordinary New Zealanders will be trained and supported to seize those opportunities. 

By contrast, Singapore does not stop at identifying sectors. Its SkillsFuture programme builds lifelong learning into the fabric of the workforce. Its Career Conversion Programmes fund mid-career workers to transition into growth roles. Its jobs-in-demand reports provide transparency about which roles are needed and which skills are valuable. 

Singapore’s lesson is that ambition must be matched by alignment. Industry policy and workforce policy cannot sit in separate silos. One without the other produces frustration. Trade agreements without skilled exporters, infrastructure plans without builders, and innovation strategies without technicians all risk creating headlines without outcomes. 

New Zealand has long relied on migration to fill gaps. From nurses and doctors to IT specialists and construction workers, our economy has depended on bringing in skills from abroad. Migration will always play a role, but over-reliance leaves us vulnerable. When Australia offers higher wages, or when global demand spikes in critical sectors, New Zealand struggles to compete. Building stronger domestic pipelines is not just an economic necessity but a matter of sovereignty. 

The gap, then, is not just between ambition and execution, but between ambition and inclusion. If New Zealand does not align its workforce strategies with its growth strategies, the benefits of growth will flow to capital and foreign talent rather than to New Zealand workers. The country risks an economy that grows on paper while leaving too many of its people behind. 

If New Zealand is serious about turning job losses into job creation, then we need to start asking harder questions about the future of work. It is not enough to simply acknowledge that exports, foreign investment, infrastructure, and innovation are vital. We need to think carefully about where the job opportunities will actually be, and start preparing our people for them now. 

For decades, our default response to skill shortages has been to rely on immigration. Migrant workers will always play an important role, but over-reliance makes us vulnerable. When Australia or Canada offer higher wages, we struggle to compete. When global demand for skills spikes, we are left exposed. Building stronger domestic pipelines of talent is essential if New Zealand is to thrive in the long run. 

The challenge is to connect ambition with workforce readiness. We must identify the sectors most likely to generate jobs, map the roles within them, and create training pathways that New Zealanders can access. That means stronger vocational education, targeted mid-career reskilling, and a national conversation that treats job creation with the same urgency we give to trade agreements or infrastructure projects. 

This blog is just the starting point. Over the coming months, we will publish a series examining the future of jobs in New Zealand. Each article will focus on a specific sector, from infrastructure and renewable energy to biotechnology, AI, space, and exports, and compare how other countries are preparing their workforces for similar challenges. 

I would also like to extend an invitation to my LinkedIn network. Let’s start having real conversations about the future of jobs in this country. If you are working in one of these industries, I would love to hear your perspective on where the skill shortages are most acute, what training pathways are working, and what gaps remain. These are not abstract policy debates. They are real-world challenges that affect our businesses, our communities, and our people. 

New Zealand has no shortage of ambition. The strategies to grow exports, attract investment, reform regulation, and embrace innovation are in place. What we need now is the same level of focus on the workforce that will make those ambitions possible. Preparing New Zealanders for the jobs of tomorrow cannot wait. The time to start is now.