18 February 2026
Ref: DOIA-REQ-0026686
and DOIA-REQ-0026644
Sam Brown
[FYI request #33448 email]
[email address]
Dear Sam
I refer to your request on 6 January 2026 to the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Ltd,
requesting the following under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act):
1. Any analysis, business cases, or advice regarding CIP's potential role in supporting
community-owned, locally operated, or smaller-scale telecommunications infrastructure
providers in rural areas, including whether such support has been considered, proposed, or
declined.
2. Any assessment of capital access barriers facing rural telecommunications infrastructure
operators, including analysis of whether: - Commercial banks adequately serve
infrastructure financing needs in rural telecommunications - Specialised or illiquid assets
(such as telecommunications towers, point-to-point links, or rural network equipment)
create financing barriers that prevent otherwise viable operators from accessing growth
capital - Crown infrastructure financing could address market failures where commercial
lenders decline to finance rural telecommunications due to asset liquidity concerns rather
than business viability concerns
3. Any advice to Ministers or shareholding Ministers regarding CIP's strategic direction for rural
connectivity infrastructure, specifically: - Whether CIP's mandate includes supporting non-
incumbent, community-based, or regionally focused connectivity providers - Whether
government strategy assumes satel ite services adequately address rural connectivity needs,
rendering terrestrial infrastructure investment unnecessary - What role, if any, CIP envisions
for supporting locally operated alternatives to satel ite or incumbent-operated services
4. Any assessment of competitive dynamics where wel -capitalised providers (including satel ite
operators with substantial backing) compete against capital-constrained local operators
who cannot access equivalent financing despite potentially offering superior local service,
resilience benefits, or community economic outcomes.
5. Any analysis of whether Crown investment or financing support for community
telecommunications infrastructure would align with: - Regional economic development
objectives - Infrastructure resilience and redundancy goals - Retention of technical capability
and employment in regions - Competition and consumer choice objectives
6. Any advice on mechanisms through which community infrastructure providers could access
Crown financing, co-investment, or credit enhancement, or alternatively, documented
reasons why such mechanisms are not considered appropriate or necessary.
Context: There appears to be a structural financing gap where rural telecommunications
infrastructure providers cannot access commercial capital due to asset il iquidity concerns, while
government has reduced/removed direct infrastructure funding. I am seeking to understand
whether Crown entities have assessed this gap and what strategy, if any, exists to support
community infrastructure providers in rural connectivity markets.
On 28 January 2026, a letter was sent to you to advise that your request had been transferred to the
Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The information to which your request relates
is not held by National Infrastructure Funding and Financing (NIFF) and is held by MBIE who are better
placed to respond to your request.
On 8 January 2026, you made a request to Treasury requesting the fol owing under the Act:
1. Any fiscal analysis, cost projections, or advice to Ministers comparing long-term Crown
expenditure under different rural connectivity approaches, including:
- Ongoing service subsidies (e.g., satel ite internet subsidies paid annually or per-connection)
- One-time infrastructure capital investment (e.g., terrestrial network deployment)
- Net present value calculations over 10, 20, and 30-year timeframes for different connectivity
models
2. Any assessment of total Crown fiscal exposure for rural connectivity, including:
- Direct subsidies or payments to connectivity providers
- Tax expenditures or indirect support mechanisms
- Contingent liabilities or ongoing commitments
- Whether current approaches create long-term fiscal dependencies versus time-limited
investments
3. Any analysis of economic multiplier effects or regional economic impacts comparing:
- Infrastructure investment that creates construction employment and retains technical
capability in New Zealand
- Service subsidies paid to providers with limited New Zealand employment or local economic
benefit
- Impact on regional GDP, skil s retention, and business capability development
4. Any advice to Ministers regarding whether current rural connectivity funding approaches
represent value for money when assessed over infrastructure lifecycle timeframes rather than
single budget cycles.
5. Any assessment of fiscal risks associated with policy approaches that may result in:
- Dependence on single provider for essential connectivity services
- Reduced competition, limiting Crown's negotiating position for future service arrangements
- Need for increased future expenditure if initial policy approach proves inadequate or
unsustainable
I understand that some advice may be withheld under s9(2)(f)(iv) (free and frank advice), but
request that factual analysis, cost projections, and comparative assessments be released as
these serve clear public interest in understanding value for money in public expenditure.
Context: I am seeking to understand whether long-term fiscal implications of different rural
2
connectivity approaches have been rigorously assessed, particularly whether ongoing service
subsidies versus infrastructure investment have been compared on a lifecycle cost basis.
On 28 January 2026, a letter was sent to you to advise that your request had been transferred from
Treasury to MBIE, as the information to which your request relates is not held by Treasury and is held by
MBIE who are better placed to respond to your request.
Both these requests were acknowledged by MBIE on 28 January 2026 and separate reference numbers
for these requests were allocated accordingly. Subsequent communications with you refined the
timeframe of both requests to be from 1 January 2022 to 28 January 2026.
Upon reviewing these requests, I can advise that the documents that fal within the scope of these
requests overlap in relation to briefings to Ministers on this topic. We have therefore decided to
combine our response to both of these requests.
I am writing to advise that the timeframe for responding to both of your requests is being extended by
30 working days, in accordance with section 15A of the Official Information Act 1982. The new due date
for ourcombined response is 1 April 2026.
The reason for the extension is that consultations necessary to make a decision on your request are
such that a proper response cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request or this response, or if you require any further
assistance, please contact
[email address].
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of our decision to extend the
time limit. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz
or freephone 0800 802 602.
Yours sincerely
Michelle Wessing
Head of the Office of the Deputy Secretary
Building, Resources and Markets
3
