How Chinese capital could drive NZ's infrastructure
'We know that we have an infrastructure deficit. Everyone can feel it, especially in Auckland.
'But at the same time, for those of us working in the sector, we see the pipeline growing. We see government commitment, real movement, and more deals coming to market. That gives us confidence and opportunities to contribute.'
China's infrastructure journey offers useful lessons about what's possible when demand, planning, and funding align effectively. Liu outlines five key drivers that, in his view, have underpinned that success:
'First, decades of fast economic growth following China's reform and opening-up policy created huge demand for infrastructure.
'Second, there has been strong government commitment and long-term strategic planning, supported by efficient execution.
'Third is China's comprehensive industry system and skilled workforce. We have an integrated supply chain and a large pool of engineering talent and construction capacity.
'Fourth is our openness. China has consistently looked outward to adopt global technologies and best practices.
'And finally, dynamic funding solutions. We have a flexible and comprehensive financial system that enables sustainable infrastructure investment.'
It's the best time in the history of New Zealand's infrastructure. Bin Liu
While acknowledging that New Zealand and China operate in different contexts, Liu believes there are still valuable insights to draw from.
'It's not about copying models, but about learning what works and adapting it locally. That's where international collaboration can really add value. I believe there are opportunities for more Chinese expertise, capacity, technology and innovation to contribute to New Zealand's infrastructure.'
It's a message Liu has championed for some time. Back in 2019, ICBC helped facilitate a high-level delegation of public and private sector leaders from New Zealand's infrastructure industry to China, organised by Infrastructure New Zealand. The programme in Shanghai and Beijing aimed to deepen sector-to-sector understanding.
'The connections and trust built between the infrastructure sectors of both countries during that trip were invaluable,' recalls Liu.
'It helped shift perception and highlight the potential for collaboration. That momentum was disrupted by Covid, but with infrastructure needs intensifying it is the right time to rebuild and strengthen those ties.'
Bridging global capital and local ambition
Liu says a useful lens for understanding what is possible is to look at what ICBC New Zealand is already doing here.
'Our focus spans four key areas: infrastructure, such as roads, ports, airports, energy, power and telecommunications; people's welfare and development, including healthcare, aged care and education; businesses with trade and investment ties to China; and long-term asset development, particularly in property.'
He notes that the level of Chinese capital involvement varies across these sectors, but the opportunities are clear.
'ICBC Group has a presence in more than 49 countries, including flagship branches in major international financial centres,' Liu says.
'We can source funding from different financial markets using economic and efficient instruments. Overseas issuance and money market operations have become a very important part of ICBC New Zealand's funding mix, allowing us to support local infrastructure projects effectively.'
Liu believes that New Zealand's infrastructure landscape is poised for real progress.
'We are prepared to finance New Zealand's next generation of climate-resilient and community-focused infrastructure,' he says.
'We're not just banking for today, but for generations to come.'
ICBC is an advertising sponsor of the Herald's Infrastructure report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Government overcooked spending during pandemic, against official advice, harming economy
This year's is on how fiscal policy – taxing and spending – should be used to respond to economic shocks. Treasury's calculation of the size of the Covid response. Graph / Treasury Its main finding, learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, was that fiscal policy should be used sparingly, with the Reserve Bank taking the lead on managing the economic cycle using its monetary policy tools like the Official Cash Rate. 'Polite, but its conclusions are damning' – Willis The report lands in the midst of a protracted economic downturn, with both the Government and the Opposition pointing the finger at each other over who is responsible. The Government blames Labour for excessive, inflationary and unsustainable spending that prompted the Reserve Bank to plunge the economy into recession with high interest rates. Labour blames the Government for cutting spending and axing infrastructure projects. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated the Government's concerns about Labour's spending. 'Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,' Willis said. 'The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated her concerns. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis pointed in particular to Treasury's criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme. The report said the fund was established in May 2020 to 'support a timely economic response and public confidence'. However, it added that 'as the economy recovered, the then Government was advised against further stimulating, in favour of more targeted support'. Willis said the Government 'ignored' that advice, favouring 'undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand's previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis that many families are still suffering from'. Labour has been approached for comment. Just ahead of Budget 2022, the then Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the Government struck the right 'balance'. 'There were and are no costless decisions. Doing less would have seen unemployment grow, or put people's health at risk,' Robertson said. Treasury told Govt to ease up on spending Treasury outlined a history of its advice during the pandemic. It said that initially, it had encouraged the Government to spend money to support the economy through things like the wage subsidy. However in late '2020 and into 2021 ... Treasury started to move away from recommending broad-based fiscal stimulus to support the economy towards more targeted and moderate fiscal support'. After the 2020 election, Treasury said it informed Robertson that there was 'adequate' fiscal space to support the economic recovery and space for 'further temporary support if the economic or public health situation deteriorated'. However, officials also 'highlighted the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge'. By August 2021, the beginning of Auckland's long lockdown, Treasury warned that any support to businesses should 'take account of macroeconomic trade-offs'. By Budget 2022, Treasury said it was recommending 'against any further stimulus'. The briefing noted that five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, spending is still close to its pandemic-era peak and has only been partly offset by higher revenue. Higher debt-servicing costs are weighing on the Government's balance sheet and lower GDP has 'contributed to the deficit both directly, by leading to a smaller tax base and lower revenue than anticipated, and indirectly, as spending plans were based on revenue expectations that did not eventuate'. The Covid fund was closed in 2022, ending that era of stimulus and Budget 2023 ended up being more stimulatory than planned thanks to the Auckland Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Unlikely comparison between Labour Govt and Ruth Richardson The briefing made an unlikely comparison between the Labour Government of Dame Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins and the fiscal policy of National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson. Treasury noted that fiscal policy can be counter-cyclical, which means it tries to counter and blunt the business cycle by, for example, spending money during a downturn to stimulate an economy, or saving during an upswing to cool an overheating one; or fiscal policy can be pro-cyclical – this means exacerbating a business cycle by spending money when an economy is hot or cutting back when an economy is shrinking. Treasury noted that the responses to the Asian Financial Crisis and the GFC had been accidentally counter-cyclical thanks to pre-promised tax cuts, however, fiscal policy was 'pro-cyclical in the early 1990s and during 2021-2023″. It said in the 1990s, 'pressures on fiscal sustainability motivated fiscal consolidation even as the economy was in recession'. In the case of the Covid response, the Government thought it was engaged in a counter-cyclical response to a 'severe economic downturn', however 'from late 2020, the economy turned out to be much stronger than expected (perhaps, in part, caused by the strength of fiscal stimulus itself)'. 'Combined with expenditure that was enduring rather than temporary, this resulted in large fiscal deficits while the economy was overheating.' The current Government is facing similar criticism for being pro-cyclical. Much like the Governments of the 1990s, it is trying to pull back spending to rebuild the balance sheet at a time of economic weakness. The Government was criticised for spending Covid money on school lunches. Photo / Liam Clayton How much was spent? Of the 20% of GDP spent on the pandemic, about half was spent on direct pandemic economic and health initiatives. Thirty-five per cent was spent on wage subsidies 'and similar schemes during lockdowns' and a further 18% 'arose from health-system costs such as vaccination and contact tracing, along with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) costs'. The parties that now form the Government broadly agreed with this spending at the time – National, at some points, called for spending on wage subsidies to be even greater. The remainder of the response was 'made up of a wide range of initiatives with varied objectives', Treasury said. Some initiatives were 'aimed at more directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19 and others aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or achieving social or environmental objectives'. These included tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches. The then Opposition disagreed with much of this spending. Lessons for next time In a foreword to the report, Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie noted that increased use of fiscal support during shocks had 'contributed to public debt ratcheting up over time'. Rennie warned that if nothing changes, 'this leaves future generations with less financial capacity to respond to shocks'. The recommendations from the report note the Government needs to get better at saving money when the economy is booming to ensure there is fiscal space to support the economy when times are grim. When times are grim, the Government should allow the 'automatic stabilisers' to kick in, spending money on increased benefit payments. Managing the ups and downs of the economy should mostly be left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion reached in Treasury's draft report, published earlier. 'Monetary policy changes can be reversed more readily and can often be implemented faster. The Government's spending and taxation decisions should generally seek to optimise long-run value for money rather than moderating economic cycles,' Treasury said. This does not mean there is no role for the Government. If monetary policy is constrained or at extremes – as it was at points during the pandemic – Government spending can kick in. Or, if interest rates can fall further, the Government could restrain spending to 'help moderate booms that would otherwise result in interest rates or the exchange rate becoming extremely high'. Treasury also said fiscal policy could be used to ease some of the distributional impacts of monetary policy, which can be blunt. Monetary policy during the pandemic was largely responsible for the housing boom and bust.
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Man jailed for six years for $1.7m Covid fraud
An Auckland man has been sentenced to almost six years in jail over a $1.7 million Covid-19 fraud. Luke Daniel Rivers, also known as Mai Qu, pleaded guilty to 29 charges including wage subsidy and small business cashflow scheme fraud, and money laundering. The schemes were set up to help businesses through the disruption of Covid-19 lockdowns. Rivers was sentenced in the Auckland District Court. Ministry of Social Development (MSD) group general manager of client service delivery George van Ooyen said the fraud was premeditated, sophisticated and solely for personal financial gain. It involved the use of forged documents. "The volume of fake documents and the repeated nature of the conduct, point to a significant degree of premeditation and sophistication. "What he did is an abuse of the Covid-19 relief schemes, solely for personal financial gain. "The wage subsidy was a high trust scheme providing rapid payments up front for businesses to keep their employees in their jobs and provide some form of financial security." Inland Revenue (IRD) spokesperson Bernadette Newman said he used forged documents to get IRD numbers for people who had never been to New Zealand. "Rivers used his specialist knowledge as an accountant to game the system. And he used the identities of more than 200 other people to carry out his scheme - all to maximise the amount of funds he could apply for," she said. "He abused both the public trust in the accounting profession and his clients' trust in him to keep their information private. "His tax offending is effectively ongoing as he hasn't remedied his failure to file GST and income tax returns for his four companies." Van Ooyen said MSD was still working to uphold the integrity of the wage subsidy scheme. "We have active investigations ongoing. Court outcomes and debt recovery will continue beyond this." "As of today, 46 people have now been sentenced with a further 49 people still before the courts. "We've also made civil recovery decisions in relation to 52 businesses. More than 25,000 repayments have been made, totalling $830.4 million." Newman said IRD had prosecuted 14 people for fraud involving Covid supports. "Eleven cases are progressing through the court system, five cases where defendants are awaiting sentence, and a number of active investigations around other Covid-19 support fraud cases. "Increased funding this year means IR can do more audits and debt collection work, and investigations into specific sectors can continue."
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's tariff moves suggest Indian and US co-operation over China can no-longer be counted on
Until that point, his Administration had been angling to reduce India's trade barriers but said nothing about its two years of buying Russian oil at a wartime discount. Before the shock of Trump's announcement in April of sweeping global tariffs, the world's two largest democracies seemed to be enjoying the friendship that its leaders had forged. At a meeting with Trump at the White House in February, India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, described India's intention to become one of the world's most advanced economies, with the US as a partner. 'In the language of America, it's 'Make India Great Again' — Miga,' he said. 'When America and India work together, this Maga plus Miga becomes a 'mega partnership for prosperity.'' Trump smiled. Left unmentioned but lingering just out of sight was China, the only country with a population to rival India's and an economy to stand in its way. China is also far and away America's most important economic competitor. Together, the US and India were seen as ready to use each other to try to restrain China's might. Total trade between the US and India was roughly US$130 billion last year. India's top exports to America include pharmaceuticals, auto parts, electrical goods, and gemstones. Modi's confidence in enlisting the US in its economic rise was well grounded. US administrations have been courting India as a geopolitical ally for more than a quarter of a century, since India announced its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, it said, to China. And American dollars have poured into India as China's economy has matured and become more assertive. The Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine were the catalysts for a surge in investment. Multinational companies grew excited about doing business in India, to reduce the risk of exposure to China as it girds for a trade war with the US and possibly a real war with Taiwan. Manufacturing and professional services led the way. Wall Street followed, banking on the future growth of India, with its relatively young population and enviable political stability. But over the past week, Trump's escalating attacks on India have suddenly undermined this joint venture and sent reverberations throughout the business worlds of both countries. Today, an executive order by Trump said that India would face an extra 25% tariff starting on August 27 if it continued to buy oil from Russia. That levy on Indian goods imported into the US would come on top of a 25% tariff Trump announced last week, which is set to take effect tomorrow and on its own ranks as one of the highest rates in Asia. India's Foreign Ministry responded to Trump's executive order, reiterating that the country's motives for importing oil from Russia were tied to the energy needs of its 1.4 billion people. It was 'extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest,' the ministry's statement said. Indian officials had signalled over the weekend that they did not intend to stop buying Russian oil. With his tariff threats, Trump has thrown months of trade talks between both countries into question. Just a couple of weeks ago, negotiators and business leaders sounded upbeat. Even with some difficult details to be settled, the expectation was that India and the US mean too much to each other to let a global trade war tear them apart. US President Donald Trump with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, on February 13. With threats of tariffs up to 50%, Trump seems to be scrapping America's plan to turn India into a counterweight to China, declaring instead that it was a 'dead economy'. Photo / Eric Lee, The New York Times Modi was one of the first world leaders to visit Trump in Washington after he returned to the White House in January. The two men had long shared what was by all appearances a close relationship. As political leaders, both are regarded as strongmen. The US was earlier wary of Modi, who had been denied a visa to the US on the grounds that he played a role in the deadly anti-Muslim riots in 2002. But he was embraced when he became Prime Minister in 2014. Part of the calculation was based on security and the possible future of military alliances across Asia. Yet, India's attractive qualities as a partner in defence always hinged on the promise of its economy. Companies such as Apple have poured billions into India, which in 2023 eclipsed China in population, with eyes on India's domestic market and its capacity to export manufactured goods to the US and elsewhere. Those investments were supposed to be better than profitable; they were supposed to reduce or eliminate everyone's dependence on China to be the factory of the world. The 25% tariff alone, already much higher than those imposed on Asian competitors including Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea, would reduce the viability of such a trade. A 50% tariff would kill it. Yesterday, Trump took aim at two other industries that were explicitly being developed in India as an alternative to China. Pharmaceuticals, where India has world-beating advantages and sells more than US$10b a year to the US, is to face a special tariff that could eventually reach 250%, Trump said, to be announced 'within a week or so'. Eli Lilly, as one of many American corporations that have invested in India, for example, recently invested US$3b in an Indian factory. India makes nearly 40% of the generic drugs bought in the US. Trump's plan is to bring back manufacturing to the US, which is also the reason he has given for imposing another special tariff on semiconductors. Unfortunately for Indian and American companies, and some in East Asia too, everyone has been spending to make India competitive in this sector. Micron, based in Idaho, has taken advantage of Indian government subsidies to put US$2.5b into building chipmaking facilities in Modi's home state of Gujarat. High finance has also followed brick-and-mortar businesses. The Indian stock market has been on a bull run, finding enthusiastic new buyers among middle-class Indians. That made foreign investors eager for private deals. Stephen Schwarzman, chief executive of Blackstone, a New York investment firm, said this year that it was putting US$11b into Indian data centres to fuel the global artificial intelligence boom. A Mumbai-based investment professional, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said there was much more at stake in these investments than their dollar value. Bets like Blackstone's are about the future of business between India, China, and the US, he said, and bring expertise from one economy to another. India was benefitting from that. But now it looks like a vulnerability. The rupture of the relationship has generated huge uncertainty. Who wants to be responsible for making the next big bet? Some parts of the US-Indian equation look relatively secure. The trade in goods between the two countries has never been as important to their economic relationship as their trade in services and other people-to-people exchanges. Indians are just as present in American boardrooms as American-trained Indians are in Mumbai's corner offices. One aspect of this exchange, the proliferation of globally integrated, high-end offices in India — first in information technology and then across the professions — has remained a bright spot. Worth US$65b last year, it is more valuable than the total trade deficit in goods. China does not hold a candle to India's ability as a hub for office work other countries send its way. As frightening as the new tariffs are for many Indian factories, most American investors who have built stakes in India are not yet fleeing. They do, however, remember what happened in 2020, when India and China traded blows at their border and 24 soldiers were killed. Almost overnight, Chinese companies were forced to ditch their Indian investments at a loss. A war of words and tariffs is different, of course. However, Indian and American co-operation around China is no longer something that anyone can count on. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Alex Travelli Photographs by: Saumya Khandelwal, Eric Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
