This is very good news from Ministry for Primary Industries Nathan Guy.
“The company will act as a bridging investor for regional water infrastructure projects, helping kick-start projects that would not otherwise get off the ground. The Government has set aside $80 million in Budget 2013 for this purpose,” says Mr Guy.
All members of the establishment board have been appointed to the new Board of Crown Irrigation Investments Limited.
The Board will be chaired by Alison Paterson, with members Don Huse (Deputy Chair), Debbie Birch, Lindsay Crossen, Chris Kelly, Graeme Sutton, and Michael Webb.
“Crown Irrigation will invest where it is considered necessary to get a project underway. It will be a minority and targeted investor.
“This is another important step towards unlocking the massive opportunities that water storage and irrigation can create for New Zealand.
“There is potential for another 420,000 hectares of irrigated land to be available for a variety of uses over time. Research from NZIER suggests exports could be boosted by $4 billion a year by 2026, which would support thousands of new jobs.
“More consistent river flows in summer will also have real benefits for the environment, with improved habitats for fish and birdlife.
“After the extreme drought that most of the country suffered earlier this year, the need for better water storage is obvious,” says Mr Guy.
CII’s role is not to enable uneconomic schemes to go ahead.
It will provide bridging finance in the early stages of a scheme’s development to enable it to get off the ground.
The money will be repaid as initial shareholders increase their investment or new ones join the scheme.
yet another positive move from this fantastic Govt .. may they continue for decades
LikeLike
Yet another circumvention of capital markets by a government that supposedly believes in a market driven approach. Only when it suits, it appears. Why should the government provide bridging finance when there are providers?
LikeLike
In that circumstance there would not be a call on CII is how I read things. If there is a commercial provider able to seed these projects then they will do that.
LikeLike
No doubt a commercial provider. would take the risk, in some situations, Roger. My question related to situations where there are no commercial providers who are willing to take the risk and asks “when no commercial provider will take the risk, why should the government take the risk?” Ele asked the same question in a post a few days ago, regarding Landcorp farms and storm damage.
LikeLike
Let me understand you critic, where comercial providers ‘are’ willing to take the risk then the government should not get involved?
So why do we still own 2 x TV and a Radio broadcaster, Power companies, Coal corp or an Airline, then we move on to local authorities running buses, airports, ports, transport, lines companies, roading contractors, street maintenance companies, Water delivery systems.
You can not be far from education vouchers and charter schools, where there is life there is hope.
LikeLike
All I’m after is a bit of consistency Gravedodger, so the merits of various positions can be argued. The thing I find most frustrating about the National party and their supporters is their inconsistency, followed closely by their steadfast refusal to acknowledge it.
LikeLike