Govt backs Green plan for a second internet cable

I’m cautiously optimistic of news that the government-owned company Research and Educational Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd (REANNZ) has signed a $65 million anchor tenancy contract with Hawaiki Cable Ltd for its proposed new second internet cable.

We announced in December 2012 our plan to fund a much-needed second internet cable. The Green Party plans to take a $100 million cornerstone investment in a second fibre optic cable system to guarantee its timely construction and that it stays in New Zealand control. National have taken a slightly different approach – one which leaves the issue of price competition up in the air – but they have finally come around to the need for a second cable.

Our current reliance on a single provider for our internet means higher prices, data caps, and less innovation. This stifles the full economic potential of the ICT sector. In time, capacity will become an issue too, potentially undermining the Government’s $1.5 billion investment in ultra-fast broadband.

The Government can further help the ICT sector through new procurement initiatives.

We will ensure government agencies consider the wider economic benefits to New Zealand of supporting the local ICT industry when buying software. We’ll require the use of open standards and give a strong preference for the use of open source software which can deliver cheaper, more secure systems, and empower smaller New Zealand providers to bid for the work.

The ICT sector is a key component of our vision for a smart green economy. ICT jobs are well paid, the sector can grow rapidly, and, unlike mining and dairying, continued growth won’t come at the cost of our environment.

19 thoughts on “Govt backs Green plan for a second internet cable

  1. BJ,

    You really dont understand the underlying problem at all.

    We don’t have to do much to manage to manufacture our own rugs, wool clothing and blankets, furniture, whiteware and make the products competitive here. Which is all it takes for us to be able to employ people.

    Who are the “we” that are going to manage to manufacture? As I said before, no-one will invest money into a sure to loose venture making furniture, rugs, wool clothing, blankets and white-ware)

    You personally willing to sink money into a venture? If the answer is no then why should and other member of the “we” clan?

    You say you “understand” the problems, I say you don’t have an inkling. Ever produced a business plan to create a start-up company? Got finance, created designs bought plant, rented space, bought raw materials, employed staff, created sale-able finished goods inventory, marketed the product line, persuaded customers to purchase, etc., etc., etc. ALL before receiving a dime in income?

    Challenge you to do a business plan for a woolen blanket operation and see just what the problems are.

    Just a reminder that the much fabled NZL whiteqware industry did not survive and is now owned by the Chinese.

    For a street savey New Yorker like yourself a dose of reality on todays manufacturing may just be an eye opener.

    All of New Yorks subway cars are designed and supplied by Kawaksaki (Japan) and Alstrom (France) and are actually built at the Lapa works in São Paulo (Brazil).

    So street savey and uber smart New Yorkers realise that local manufacture cannot compete with the capacity and technology of the bigger companies.

    Might just be a message in there.

  2. Nobody is ignorant of the PROBLEMS Gerrit, the problem is people can’t see beyond them here in NZ.

    The larger problems that not having internal manufacturing capacity creates for us are exactly the ones that Ricardo warned of when he was explaining comparative advantage in the first place.

    Do we need government assistance to manufacture stuff here? Yes. There isn’t any doubt at all that this is going to be the case for a range of manufactured goods… but I have no problem with that idea. The point is NOT to make all the goods we want and use and make them profitably, but to make some of everything and support a few things sufficiently to make them profitable.

    The first place to start is the CO2 tax, which advantages companies that get their power from our hydro and don’t have to ship things long distances.

    Then we can examine the things that are fundamental to our society. We don’t have to do much to manage to manufacture our own rugs, wool clothing and blankets, furniture, whiteware and make the products competitive here. Which is all it takes for us to be able to employ people.

    Other things we MIGHT do have other requirements. Mining Gold is not a big issue, just a strange one from my point of view, for there is really not a shortage of physical gold for manufacture.

  3. BJ,

    If you want an electronics industry it is certainly a better one if gold can be used. But then you knew that, no? Surely you did. Ever used a printed circuit board? Notice the gold?

    Guess the growth in the IT sector that Gareth Hughes is rabbiting on about is coding and programming only? You want to build computers, servers, routers, phones, GPS locators and other IT devices you better have a reliable supply of gold.

    However if you think the answers is coding and programming, you would be hard pressed to match the price for computer coding coming out of India or old eastern block countries like Poland.

    Am all for manufacturing locally but you have to have people to invest the money. If you have been reading the discussion earlier between Kerry and myself, you would have noticed the mention of a few barriers in the way.

    Mainly the small size of the NZL market, the huge costs to export so as to make local production competitive and SUSTAINABLE.

    I buy all my machine tooling consumables, (end mills, cutter inserts, drills, taps, etc.) directly out of Singapore. No NZL manufacturer (or even a local stockist) could compete with the pricing and quality (A $160 plus GST carbide end mill in NZL purchased and shipped from Singapore for $40 including freight – quality German tooling, no rubbish).

    So who would invest money in five axis grinders to make machine tooling locally? Would you mortgage your house?

    Am not arguing that NZL should not manufacture locally, just trying to make people aware of the problems.

  4. Gerrit – Mining Gold? How is that producing something that the average New Zealander buys, uses and works with again?

    You know when I’ve talked about this before I haven’t been bashful that the government has to have a role in ensuring that NZ has a manufacturing sector. I am adamant that “manufacturing milk powder” doesn’t qualify, and does not assist us with whiteware imports, railcar imports, tool imports, furniture imports, clothing imports and a whole raft of other things that we COULD make here but do not.

    Because we can buy the same products from overseas for somewhat less and our people have a long and inaccurate memory of having tried to create an “independent” NZ economy and failing, because we never declared independence from the bankers. Basically Gerrit, NZ has gone a long way down the road to becoming a third world economy with us as the peons farming other people’s land and renting other people’s houses.

    That’s a really bad thing, but we’re starting at the top as a “successful” third world economy. So some people think things are looking up and Key looks like he is leading us to “success”.

    Is this the right thing to be doing ? Or not?

    You can stop carping about the lack of details any time. I won’t mind. The details will wind up getting adjusted when the plan is implemented in any case. Being too tied into the NZ process of arguing incessantly before doing nothing at all isn’t particularly helpful.

  5. “That is the policy but where are the details? What incentives for a start up? What incentives for minimising risk management? Nut and bolt incentives I can take to a bank manager or seed fund provider? Big difference between leadership concept and nut and bolt reality”.

    Don’t think any party has details, but history has proven that private enterprise is pretty shit at new enterprises and running essential infrastructure.

    All our big successful export businesses, in fact almost all our large successful productive enterprises, started, and continue with a large dollop of State support. Fletchers being a prime example. We have just about totaled the rest of our economy to support dairying, for one.

    Maybe we need to stop the ease of becoming more wealthy simply by owning non productive assets. E.G. Capital gains taxes.

    “Greens are anti mining of gold”.

    Gold mining in Waihi has cost, and will cost us, more in cleanup costs than it ever earned.

    “Do I need to raise anti mining of ironsand?”

    I’m not, but I am against exporting raw ironsand.

    “By rail casting machine I don’t mean for wagons but the actual rails the trains run on. All imported but complete able to be cast in NZL. Provided off course Bluescope can get locally mined coking coal!!”.

    I have not met many Greens who are opposed to All mining. Steel is a locally produced biodegradable material. Sending bulk coal to China, for power supply, is ecologically unsustainable and short sighted.

    “My exports have dried up simply due to the high dollar however we also have a banking system that clips the ticket for any foreign transaction at both ends. A NZL$200 purchase ends up costing my customer Eur$250 simply due to banking charges. Tried Paypal but they only forward the money owing from overseas when it suit them, not when they receive it from the customer (rotters)”.

    Banking now takes 28% of GDP. They do not contribute value in the same proportion. The highest business interest rates, that I know of, on earth, does not help exporters, or startups.
    12% was the lowest I could get without a mortgage. My US competition 3% and the Chinese, 0% plus Government subsidy. The RBA again.

    Not to mention that our trade deficit is entirely due to interest and profits going offshore. Same as it was before the EU. We have simply transferred the finance deficit from UK to China and the USA. Real trade has nearly always been positive.

    New Zealand’s “wealthy” do not take commercial risks.

    “That is why they remain wealthy, quickest way to loose money is to start a business”. “What incentives would the Greens place in front of the wealthy to take greater risks in business?”

    Stop subsidising housing, land and other existing assets, with tax breaks. Stop letting them make up for their lack of investment, in business, by selling them State started businesses at fire sale prices. E.G. Make them work at staying wealthy.

    I would also like to see a Government venture fund. Singapore has Temasek. Incubators at Universities. Maybe like the TV program where you have to pitch business ideas at a critical panel. The failure rate is high. With venture capital, it is something like 7 fail, 2 break even and one makes up for all the others. because Government can spread the risk over many more companies venture funds like Temasek generally do well.

    “Guy with the slasher mowers was well aware of having only one product line, however no capital to develop and market others. The typical scenario for any start up”.
    I know that one all to well from personal experience.

    “Naturally I declined, I like being a free holder. I simply stopped spending, cut my costs (including Sky TV :-) medical insurance ($750 per month for two over 60 year olds – young people beware, they will force you out of any private scheme when you need it most)”.

    That is why State provision of insurance, such as our welfare system, works best.

    “Boat builders were generally hit by flagging sales in all market sectors, shifting to Thailand was a bad move to keep a business afloat. Corporate I used to work for exported most manufacturing to Malaysia until an un-amswered phone call on Monday morning made them realise that the whole Malyasian operation had shut down, the management and staff all moved to their own factory over a weekend to produce the same products in opposition to the parent company, using stolen formulations and manufacturing processes”.

    New Zealand could have had a thriving boat building industry, but Government decisions have killed it each time. Starting with Muldoon. We used to take hundreds of small to medium fibreglass boats to Oz. The week after the boat tax, we took the molds to Oz. lately I have watched contracts disappear as the dollar rose.
    The America’s cup could have been a good investment. High end contracts increased after the showcase of top end NZ boat-building, but the Aussies, with Government support, have picked it off us.

  6. Kerry,

    Thanks for the reasoned reply,

    You obviously missed the bit in Green policy about leadership in high value sustainable technologies and energy.

    That is the policy but where are the details? What incentives for a start up? What incentives for minimising risk management? Nut and bolt incentives I can take to a bank manager or seed fund provider? Big difference between leadership concept and nut and bolt reality.

    Greens are anti mining of gold.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11164544

    or

    http://sunlive.co.nz/news/23490-placards-raised-against-waihi-mine.html

    Do I need to raise anti mining of ironsand?

    By rail casting machine I don’t mean for wagons but the actual rails the trains run on. All imported but complete able to be cast in NZL. Provided off course Bluescope can get locally mined coking coal!!.

    My exports have dried up simply due to the high dollar however we also have a banking system that clips the ticket for any foreign transaction at both ends. A NZL$200 purchase ends up costing my customer Eur$250 simply due to banking charges. Tried Paypal but they only forward the money owing from overseas when it suit them, not when they receive it from the customer (rotters).

    New Zealand’s “wealthy” do not take commercial risks.

    That is why they remain wealthy, quickest way to loose money is to start a business. What incentives would the Greens place in front of the wealthy to take greater risks in business?

    Guy with the slasher mowers was well aware of having only one product line, however no capital to develop and market others. The typical scenario for any start up.

    Interestingly enough had a bad December, January and February but forward sales were good for March April, June and onwards. Bank would let me have an overdraft to tide me over but I would need to remortgage the house to get the business overdraft.

    Naturally I declined, I like being a free holder. I simply stopped spending, cut my costs (including Sky TV :-) medical insurance ($750 per month for two over 60 year olds – young people beware, they will force you out of any private scheme when you need it most).

    Boat builders were generally hit by flagging sales in all market sectors, shifting to Thailand was a bad move to keep a business afloat. Corporate I used to work for exported most manufacturing to Malaysia until an un-amswered phone call on Monday morning made them realise that the whole Malyasian operation had shut down, the management and staff all moved to their own factory over a weekend to produce the same products in opposition to the parent company, using stolen formulations and manufacturing processes.

    The joy of doing business in the east.

  7. Gerrit.

    I remember very well an Australian boat builder I did some work for, gloating that he had shifted his factory to Thailand and dropped his labour costs by a huge amount. Almost in the same sentence he was complaining about the lack of sales.

    The obvious connection, that Thai boat builders, on $US20 a day, do not buy 2.5 million dollar boats, just did not occur to him.
    Not to mention that the Australians who still had money were rightly suspicious, of a business that put cost cutting ahead of quality.

  8. “Putting money into a manufacturing product line that can be imported cheaper is a far too risky for private enterprise and a dead end road”.

    Which, for a start is why we need the State to support New Zealand. enterprise,as successful economies do, as they did so successfully with Fonterra.

    “Yet the Greens put every road block in creation to stop industry”.

    You obviously missed the bit in Green policy about leadership in high value sustainable technologies and energy.

    “Lets start a list, no mining”,

    Where do the Greens ban mining. No mining off coal and hydrocarbons which are going to accelerate AGW and cost our grandchildren way more than any gain.

    “no recovery of high value fallen logs”,

    A short term gain with high future costs in forest sustainability.

    Because our total reliance on boom and bust commodities works so well. Remember timber, (which only works in reality because of the State plantings, with printed money), last century) deer farming, goats, etc etc.

    “higher fuel taxes”,
    Isn’t National already doing that?
    Our preferred tax and dividend is economically neutral.

    “higher minimum wages”,
    All the evidence shows that higher minimum wages, boost businesses and jobs.
    The biggest obstacle for local business in New Zealand is their customers have no money. Henry Ford had it right. Even now the US States with the highest minimum wages have the healthiest economies and business.
    I could deal with all the other stuff, but National taking billions out of the economy to give to their cronies was the last straw.

    Employees are also customers.

    “higher compliance codes”,

    Because leaky homes, runaway banks and crooked business who take short cuts, are so good for us. Australasia weathered the GFC at least in part because of Keating’s regulation of the Ozzie banks, and Cullens debt reduction. Fortunately, Labour was in power for the previous 9 years or we would now look like Ireland.

    “introduction of emission charges, no new roading (transport) infrastructure except for rail along a narrow corridor”,

    Trucks are a very expensive and inefficient form of long haul transport. Only the subsidies from rates and road user charges, from the rest of us, hides its true costs.
    An effective rail and shipping system is much cheaper in the long term.
    Energy imports are a huge part of New Zealand’s costs..
    Personally I think we should simply remove all the hidden subsidies from trucking and allow those firms to supply train sets, paying user charges as they “theoretically’ do for roads. I think you will find that trucks will be used only for short haul, where alternative energy transport is viable, when they have to pay their true cost.

    “So what will” National “do to encourage industry. Some hollow phrases in the policy manifesto and relying on natural disasters and unusually high prices for one commodity “is not enough”.

    Fixed it for you.

    “Stump up some real game changing policies”.
    Yes. We do, but short sighted and short term, boom and bust, thinking opposes almost every one of them.

    “Tax breaks to locate google here?”
    Because business tax breaks worked so well for Ireland?
    “When they pay no tax to give a break on?” Exactly.

    “What will the Greens do to encourage BlueScope Steel to purchase a rail casting line at Glenbrook?”
    Wouldn’t have given the rail wagon contract to China for one. A contract which over time is costing New Zealand way more than it saves, but National are not capable off looking at more than one set of accounts at a time.

    Drop the dollar to help New Zealand exporters and local business for one. I wish we would get rid of the RBA, which hits business in the pocket as soon as they start to stand up.
    But, too many people have a religious belief in it for that to be politically possible..

    “Come on lets have some real policies with bite and enthusiasm that the “free market” you so despise can be encouraged by?”

    We already have, paying your customers enough to buy New Zealand made goods, investment in real education, research, and industry paradigms which do not rely on unsustainable production, planned obsolescence, races to the bottom, and being the most unregulated and cheapest..

    “commercial risks like you are asking the rest “poor little NZL” commercial operators to do”.

    New Zealand’s “wealthy” do not take commercial risks. They prefer to simply gamble on pushing up the price of existing assets, buying up companies that the State have started successfully or ripping off employees and customers.

    “A little reality story for you: Years ago I had a major customer who made slasher mowers for farmers to hook up behind the tractor for topping pastures. Made 400 per year for three years running then went bust. Reason, the machines lasted near 20 years and he reached saturation of the NZL market”. He had a choice, either sink in more money to expand the product lines on offer to NZL customers, diversify current product range into into export markets or shut up shop and sell the assets. He did the later and I cant blame him. Ever tried to borrow money for business ventures? Good luck getting a borrowing rate that allows some risk taking”.

    Business interest rates higher than any offshore competitors, and a stupidly overvalued dollar due to the daft, long past its use by date, reserve bank act are huge road blocks to new Zealand businesses.
    Came up against those road blocks myself.
    Apart from the known business risk of only having one product.
    It took me several goes with many different things before mine worked. Unfortunately, very few New Zealanders have the capital available to do that. I ran out just when it started working.
    A consequence of our low wage, high cost economy.
    The middle class, highly skilled, I suspect you were one, with the seed money to become entrepreneurs, no longer exist

    Then, of course, there is the detrimental environmental and resource use consequences, of business models that rely upon planned obsolescence, ever increasing use of resources, and energy..

  9. BJ,

    Couple of points in reply to your comment.

    actually making our own stuff is way too hard for poor little New Zealand.

    Putting money into a manufacturing product line that can be imported cheaper is a far too risky for private enterprise and a dead end road. Your condescending attitude about “poor little NZL” does not help. However it is good to see that the Greens are willing to contribute your money (as a party members will be asked to fund the $100M for the 30% share in internet cable company) into a private company so the party members will be exposed to commercial risks like you are asking the rest “poor little NZL” commercial operators to do.

    A little reality story for you: Years ago I had a major customer who made slasher mowers for farmers to hook up behind the tractor for topping pastures. Made 400 per year for three years running then went bust. Reason, the machines lasted near 20 years and he reached saturation of the NZL market. He had a choice, either sink in more money to expand the product lines on offer to NZL customers, diversify current product range into into export markets or shut up shop and sell the assets. He did the later and I cant blame him. Ever tried to borrow money for business ventures? Good luck getting a borrowing rate that allows some risk taking.

    Surprisingly enough, Gareth Hughes or any other Greens communications team member has refute the claim that the Greens would contribute $100M to the Pacific Internet Cable Company. Meaning it is true that the Greens are exposing the members to financial obligations. Cool, lets hope the shareholding do better then the Windflow Technologies shareholders have done.

    is apparent in the sarcasm of stupid Nationalistas who seem to have come to visit again.

    If it wasn’t for the irregular visits of “Nationalistas”, there would be no need to keep frogblog alive. Seen how many people visit and leave comments? SFA.

    Government ENCOURAGEMENT of industries is needed, and all too often that need is unmet.

    Yet the Greens put every road block in creation to stop industry. Lets start a list, no mining, no recovery of high value fallen logs, higher fuel taxes, higher minimum wages, higher compliance codes, introduction of emission charges, no new roading (transport) infrastructure except for rail along a narrow corridor, etc, etc, etc,. So what will the Greens do to encourage industry. Some hollow phrases in the policy manifesto is not enough. Stump up some real game changing policies. Tax breaks to locate google here? When they pay no tax to give a break on? What will the Greens do to encourage BlueScope Steel to purchase a rail casting line at Glenbrook? Come on lets have some real policies with bite and enthusiasm that the “free market” you so despise can be encouraged by?

    free-market fundamentalist f***wits.

    Your love of labeling people is continuing, cant raise a counterpoint to end up name calling and pidgeon holing.

    No wonder people don’t visit frogblog for debate.

  10. What we are actually working hard at is trying to get this nation to move back to having first world economy.

    Key et.al. are getting voter support for transforming us into a moderately successful THIRD world economy… actually making our own stuff is way too hard for poor little New Zealand.

    Nor is the money coming from assets we are going to have to buy back or simply nationalize, in future. That may be the source in the near term but in the long term it is ALWAYS the taxpayer who pays. Just as the taxpayer is going to have to pay for getting the assets back. Eventually is going to HAVE to pay that price.

    Boundless admiration for the free market that has failed so signally in so MANY respects, is apparent in the sarcasm of stupid Nationalistas who seem to have come to visit again.

    The pragmatism of Greens is apparent… if the market can work to get the cable (long term infrastructure) built with the assistance of a 30% stake, that’s good. Getting a google node replicated here would be good too. Government ENCOURAGEMENT of industries is needed, and all too often that need is unmet.

    The cable is far different though, from the notion of selling off the power companies. We don’t have to have internet to feed ourselves, keep ourselves warm and keep our lights on.

    We BUILT the power infrastructure with PUBLIC funds. It was intended when built, to be ours and our children’s and that concept is all just too hard for free-market fundamentalist f***wits. Lowering taxes so that the free market can provide us with trickle-down benefits does not work. At least not for the folks who are on the receiving end of the golden shower that is provided for them by the economic rent collectors.

  11. SPC,

    Aren’t you glad then that the present government sold of 49 percent of the power company shares so that a future government can purchase a 30% share (which is NOT corner stone investment) in a $300M fibre optic cable?

    Is it not ironic that the Greens, being vehemently opposed to selling 49% in power company assets, now want to dig into those receipted funds to purchase a minority share holding in the Pacific internet cable. Surely being true to their faith, they would want 100% ownership? Is Gareth Hughes here being a closet right winger quite happy with a PPP arrangement?

    Bearing in mind that the tax payer funded the creation and construction of those partly sold off power companies and thus had their pockets stripped of cash in the first place.

    So in a round about way the tax payer is still being stripped. Even if the Greens fund their minority shareholding from the Future Investment Fund.

    But luckily the Greens are going to buy a stake from their own coffers, not the tax payers. And as such is that not against the principle of the Greens party? Private ownership of capital assets?.

  12. Gerrit, are you ignorant of the fact that National claims to have a future investment fund – one not sourced in tax revenues but by selling off power company shares? Your raising of tax and annual budget funding is an obvious red herring.

    I simply said a better use for that future investment fund would be for economic benefit and not tar seal politics.

    The money from petrol tax for road funding goes through an established allocation process not via tar seal politics determined arbitrarily by central government for campaign purposes.

    That is turning the future investment fund into a vehicle for the party in government that makes the “card” spending of Labour in 2005 look like petty cash.

  13. SPC,

    That “set aside” money has to come from the tax payer, why raise it if it is not needed?

    National electoral bridges or Labours laptops in schools or Greens badly promoted and confused funding model for another internet cable, one thing is for sure, it is the tax payer that has to stump up for the electoral bribes.

    Be nice if the politicians kept their hands out of ever decreasing and emptier tax payers pockets.

    One day we may have a political party that produces a balanced budget that bears in mind the considerable strain that the limited number of tax payers are experiencing.

    So while we rightfully mock (as the Greens simply don’t have $100M to contribute) Gareth Hughes for being willing to contribute $100M from Greens party coffers , he is inadvertently on the right track.

    Those (Greens) who want the new internet cable can pay for it.

    Before you get on your high horse and say what about those bridges? Well we pay for those by the over 50% tax on our fuel purchases. As we do for all the “tarseal” public infrastructure.

    However the internet cable is not “public infrastructure” that the state needs to provide. The market (or DotCom) will provide.

    Another issue not picked up on is that Gareth Hughes is promoting a PPP model for the internet cable.

    With the Greens aversion to PPP

    “As has been shown again and again internationally, PPPs are more expensive than normal public funding. A PPP is essentially a high-interest loan that taxpayers repay over 25 years, which is much more expensive than funding the project out of normal government revenue.

    https://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-hiding-true-cost-transmission-gully-public-private-partnership

    Why is a tarseal road PPP not desirable but an optical road is?

    Double standards or the Greens getting pragmatic?

    Maybe Gareth Hughes not following the Greens anti PPP party line?

  14. Gerrit, the government has money set aside for future economic benefit investment. So tax is unrelated to this issue.

    What is the better infrastructure investment choice? “Tar seal” electorate politics bridges or …

  15. SPC,

    National would simply retain the money in the Future Investment Fund and then spend it on 20 more bridges in government selected electorates just before the 2017 election.

    National would be far more likely to NOT tax the ever suffering tax payer so much and not even need to collect the $100M. Letting privare enterprise fill the needs of the market.

    Was the internet party founder not going to stump up for a new cable?

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/5/3605174/kim-dotcom-mega-new-zealand-pacific-fibre

    So come 20th September all will be sweet and the Greens wont have to hold sausage sizzles to raise the $100M they will personally contribute for a new cable.

    DotCom will provide!!! Plus free broadband accounts for all!!!

    Nirvana is will be here (as long as the results on the 20th of September go the lefts way and DotCom is not in a USA courtroom).

  16. National would simply retain the money in the Future Investment Fund and then spend it on 20 more bridges in government selected electorates just before the 2017 election.

  17. Wow! Great initiative!

    I would suggest the Greens invest the rest of their own money in the green industries they crow about – generation via wind and sun etc.

  18. wow,

    the Green party has $100M in cash, or assets to convert into cash, for investment purposes?

    or is this another Gareth Hughes slip up and he means the Greens will invest $100M of TAX PAYERS money.

    He really does need “Clint” back from the Labour party comms team does he not?

  19. I have to say that I am impressed with the Green Party’s willingness to put its money where it’s mouth is. The statement that:-
    “The Green Party plans to take a $100 million cornerstone investment in a second fibre optic cable system to guarantee its timely construction and that it stays in New Zealand control.”
    Is an example to all of how the entrepreneurial spirit can survive, even in a political party.

    I must say that I would have thought Party funds might be better spent on the election, but I’m not on the Executive, so have no say in the matter.

    We’ll done Green Party, an excellent use of your money and a great day for competitive values in the market.

Comments are closed.