Google NZ

1. Official Entity Name and Registration: Alphabet Inc.’s principal subsidiary in New Zealand is Google New Zealand Limited, a New Zealand Limited Company (Company Number 1786635, NZBN 9429034243282). It was incorporated on 31 March 2006, originally under the name Google Technology (New Zealand) Limited until a name change in November 2006. (An earlier local entity, Google (New Zealand) Limited (Company #1513666), was registered in May 2004 and later removed from the companies register.)

2. Ownership and Shareholding: Google New Zealand Limited is wholly owned by Google’s overseas subsidiaries. The sole shareholder is Google International LLC (1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA, USA), holding 100% of the 100 shares. Google International LLC is an affiliate of Google’s global corporate structure, and the ultimate holding company is Alphabet Inc. (Google’s U.S.-based parent since 2015). This means Alphabet Inc. ultimately controls the New Zealand company through these subsidiary holdings.

3. Registered Addresses: The company’s registered office and address for service is Simpson Grierson, Level 27, 88 Shortland Street, Auckland, a major law firm. Simpson Grierson acts as Google’s local agent and host for legal registration purposes. Google New Zealand’s physical operational office is at PwC Tower, Level 27, 188 Quay Street, Auckland 1010, which is the hub for its New Zealand staff and business activities.

4. Local Offices and Staff: Google established a formal office presence in Auckland in the mid-2000s. As of recent years, the company has about 50 employees based in Auckland, focusing on sales, marketing, public affairs, and support functions. This Auckland office coordinates Google’s operations across New Zealand. (Google NZ’s office is co-located in a central Auckland high-rise, reflecting a relatively small local footprint commensurate with its support role, while technical infrastructure is managed overseas.)

5. Directors and Governance: Google New Zealand Limited’s board is composed of senior Google officials (mostly based abroad). Current directors (as of the latest filings) include Kenneth YI (California, USA), Fiona Mary BONES (New South Wales, Australia), and John Elliot HOWELL (NSW, Australia). The inclusion of Australia-based directors satisfies New Zealand’s requirement for a local or Australia-resident director. The board has previously included high-ranking Google executives such as Sukhinder Singh Cassidy (an early Google executive, President, Asia Pacific and Latin America Operations 2003-2009) and Kent Walker (President, Global Affairs 2021 – Present, Senior Vice President, Global Affairs 2018 – 2021, Senior Vice President and General Counsel 2010 – 2018, Vice President and General Counsel 2006 -2010) indicating that Google’s U.S. leadership kept direct oversight of the NZ entity. There are no New Zealand citizens on the board, underscoring that strategic control resides offshore.

6. Local Management: While the board handles compliance, day-to-day leadership in New Zealand is entrusted to a Country Director. Since 2017 this role has been held by Caroline Rainsford, who is Google’s Country Director for New Zealand. Rainsford oversees Google’s NZ strategy and operations and serves as the public face of Google in New Zealand. (She is a New Zealander with a marketing background in firms like The Warehouse Group and GE, hired by Google in 2017 during her maternity leave.) Before Rainsford, Google’s New Zealand operations were led by Tony Keusgen (Managing Director from 2012 to 2015), after which the NZ office reported into Google’s Australia leadership until Rainsford’s appointment. The Country Director does not sit on the board of Google NZ Ltd but is the key local executive for engagements with customers and officials.

7. Business Activities: Google New Zealand Limited’s primary purpose is to support Google’s business in New Zealand, rather than to act as an independent revenue-generating unit. According to company filings, 100% of Google NZ’s revenue comes from services provided to its parent or affiliated companies under inter-company agreements. In practice, the NZ entity provides sales and marketing support, public relations, and R&D services to Google’s Asia-Pacific operations. It facilitates advertising sales to New Zealand clients (many large NZ advertisers buy ads on Google and YouTube), though historically the actual advertising contracts were often booked with Google Asia Pacific. Google NZ also assists in deploying Google products (from Android to Google Cloud) in the NZ market, but does not itself operate consumer services – key platforms like Search, YouTube, and Android are provided to Kiwis by Google’s global entities.

8. Market Position: Alphabet’s services (via Google) have a dominant position in New Zealand’s digital landscape. Google Search is the overwhelmingly dominant search engine used by New Zealanders, and Google is the dominant online advertising platform in New Zealand. In 2016, for example, it was estimated that local businesses spent around NZ$67 million on Google advertising in one year, and Google’s share of the NZ digital ad market (search and video ads, largely via Google and YouTube) has only grown. YouTube (owned by Google) is one of the most popular online video platforms in NZ, and Android (developed by Google) is the most widely used mobile operating system among New Zealanders – giving Alphabet multiple channels of influence and revenue in the NZ market. However, these products are not separate legal entities in NZ. They fall under Google’s global operations, with Google NZ Ltd providing ancillary support.

9. Financial Performance: Google New Zealand’s financial statements historically showed relatively small revenues and often losses – a reflection of Google’s tax structuring rather than its actual economic footprint. For example, in the calendar year 2016 Google NZ reported revenue of NZ$12.6 million and a net loss of NZ$603,755, paying only about NZ$304,000 in income tax that year. These figures were a tiny fraction of Google’s actual ad revenue generated from New Zealand advertisers (most of which was booked offshore). Under public and government pressure, Google announced in 2018 that it would cease “offshoring” local NZ revenues to Singapore and instead report more revenue in-country. Following this change, Google NZ’s accounts for 2019 showed a significant jump in locally booked revenue (NZ$36.2 million) and a pre-tax profit of $10.6 million – the first profit after years of reported losses. However, that same year Google NZ also paid NZ$511 million to related companies overseas (likely in the form of license fees or cost of sales), highlighting that the bulk of NZ-derived income was still shifted abroad. In effect, Google NZ began declaring a greater portion of advertising revenue locally (to satisfy authorities), but it simultaneously increased payments to its affiliates, thereby limiting taxable profit in New Zealand.

10. Tax Contributions: The company’s tax payments in New Zealand have been minimal relative to its economic presence, which has been a point of contention. In 2017 (before the revenue booking change), Google NZ paid just $304,860 in corporate tax despite Google’s ubiquitous NZ user base and the country’s then-record online ad spend of $891 million. Even after restructuring, the tax on a $10.6m profit (2019) would be on the order of a few million dollars – still trivial next to the hundreds of millions in advertising money flowing from NZ to Google’s offshore entities. This tax structure, while legal, has drawn criticism. New Zealand’s Revenue Minister in 2018 welcomed Google’s decision to book more revenue locally as a “precedent” for multinationals paying their fair share. Yet, transparency remains an issue: the public cannot easily discern the true scale of Google’s NZ earnings, since only the curtailed local accounts are published. Alphabet’s other NZ-linked arms (such as Google Cloud, discussed below) also contribute to revenue but may not all be reflected in Google NZ’s financials.

11. Related Alphabet Operations: Alphabet Inc. does not have multiple separately-incorporated subsidiaries in New Zealand beyond Google New Zealand Ltd. Instead, various Alphabet business lines operate through that entity or through overseas entities. For example, Google Cloud (Alphabet’s cloud computing division) services NZ clients via the NZ company and directly via Google Asia Pacific. In 2022, Google announced it will build a dedicated Google Cloud region in New Zealand (with local data center infrastructure), joining an all-of-government cloud procurement program. This expansion suggests Google NZ will play a growing role in cloud services for both private sector and government customers. Other Alphabet ventures have had limited presence: X (Moonshot) projects occasionally chose NZ as a testbed (notably, Project Loon – internet balloons – ran a pilot in Canterbury in 2013), but these were operated by overseas teams with NZ government permission, not through a local subsidiary. YouTube and Android’s operations in NZ (such as content partnerships or Play Store sales) are handled by Google’s global entities, with revenue often funneled through Google’s Asia-Pacific headquarters. In summary, Google New Zealand Ltd serves as the central hub for Alphabet’s commercial and policy interests in NZ, even as many products themselves have no separate NZ company.

12. Company Leadership and Staffing Links: The New Zealand operation relies on a mix of local talent and expatriate oversight. Country Director Caroline Rainsford is a New Zealand national, and under her leadership the NZ office has engaged more with local initiatives (for instance, supporting Māori language technology). The technical staff in NZ is small; one notable role is that of Joseph Bailey, a Google NZ software engineer who in 2018 gave an affidavit in a NZ court case explaining Google’s inability to censor search results locally. For broader regional expertise, Google often brings in personnel from Australia or the U.S. – for example, global executives like Google’s Chief Privacy Officer or YouTube policy heads might visit or advise on NZ matters as needed. This integration means local decisions are heavily influenced by Google’s Asia-Pacific headquarters in Singapore/Sydney and the global headquarters in California.

13. Industry Affiliations: Google New Zealand is a member of various industry and business associations, which extends its influence and networking. Notably, Google is a member of NZTech (New Zealand Technology Industry Association), a large industry-funded lobby group that represents hundreds of tech companies (including multinationals like Google, Amazon, and Facebook). Through NZTech, Google executives interface with policymakers in group settings and contribute to industry submissions on legislation. Google NZ is also reportedly a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in NZ and similar bodies that advocate for U.S. businesses. These affiliations allow Google to collectively lobby for favorable policies (for example, arguing against over-regulation of the internet sector or for digital trade provisions). Additionally, Google NZ has worked alongside InternetNZ (the non-profit overseeing.nz domain and internet governance) and NetSafe (online safety NGO) on various initiatives, reflecting its integration into the local internet community.

14. Partnerships and Sponsorships: In New Zealand, Alphabet (via Google) has engaged in numerous partnerships, sponsorships, and community programs, often as part of its outreach and brand positioning. For instance, Google has partnered with major news publishers in NZ through the Google News Showcase program – a licensing scheme launched in 2021–22 where Google pays to feature content from NZ news outlets. By mid-2023, Google had signed 47 New Zealand publications (including Stuff, NZ Herald via NZME, TVNZ, RNZ, The Spinoff, etc.) to News Showcase, claiming to support local journalism. Google also sponsors tech education initiatives: its philanthropy arm Google.org gave grants to TupuToa (an internship program for Māori and Pacific Island students in tech) to boost diversity in the digital workforce. It has supported Computer Science education in schools (such as the CS4HS program for teachers) and digital upskilling workshops for small businesses. Through such sponsorships and grants, Google cultivates goodwill and a positive image as a contributor to New Zealand’s social and economic development. (Critics note that these well-publicized initiatives also serve to mitigate criticism of the company’s market dominance and tax practices.)

15. Government Contracting and Sponsorship: Google’s commercial relationships with government entities in NZ are another facet of its local profile. In 2020, Google Cloud secured an all-of-government agreement with New Zealand’s Department of Internal Affairs, making it an approved cloud services provider for government agencies. This allows government departments to procure Google’s cloud computing and workspace services under a pre-negotiated framework – a significant business win as public sector IT spend is considerable. In terms of sponsorship, Google has occasionally sponsored government or quasi-government events (for example, digital innovation forums). While Google is not generally a direct donor to political parties in NZ (there are no recorded political donations by Google NZ or Alphabet to parties or candidates), it does provide indirect support such as funding research projects that align with government priorities (e.g. research on AI for social good, online safety programs in schools in partnership with government agencies). These activities can ingratiate Google with officials and policymakers.

16. Regulatory and Government Links: Alphabet’s New Zealand operations have notable links with government through personnel moves and advisory roles. A prominent example is Ross Young, who served as Google New Zealand’s Government Affairs and Public Policy Manager. Young was previously a senior public servant – the Regulatory Affairs Manager at the Commerce Commission (NZ’s competition and telecom regulator) – before joining Google. His move from a watchdog role to representing Google is a case of the “revolving door” between government and big tech. At Google, Ross Young became the chief lobbyist interfacing with ministers and regulators. This connection meant Google had someone familiar with the inner workings of regulatory processes advocating on its behalf. (Young left Google in late 2021; such roles are now likely handled by Google’s Australia-based public policy team in conjunction with the NZ Country Director.) Additionally, Google’s law firm (Simpson Grierson) employs former government advisors and at least one ex-Minister as a consultant, providing Google NZ with well-connected legal counsel. While not formal Google staff, these relationships illustrate Alphabet’s access to government networks.

17. Transparency and Reporting: In New Zealand, there is currently no mandatory lobbyist register or disclosure requirement for private meetings with officials. Consequently, much of Google’s engagement with government occurs out of public view. However, some interactions come to light through Official Information Act (OIA) releases or parliamentary questions. For example, OIA-obtained data revealed that in a recent year New Zealand government agencies spent about NZ$1.75 million on Google advertising and services (plus additional amounts in USD) – indicating regular business dealings between Google and the state. Google NZ’s submissions to parliamentary committees (e.g. on digital economy strategy or media regulation) are occasionally published, but the company generally keeps its political communications low-profile. It tends to participate through industry bodies (submitting jointly via NZTech or the NZ Telecommunications Forum) or via written statements rather than aggressive public lobbying. This opacity means that the full extent of Google’s lobbying – such as how it persuades ministers on issues like digital taxation or content regulation – is not fully documented in the public domain.

18. Controversies in New Zealand: Alphabet/Google’s NZ presence has been marked by several controversies, reflecting tensions between the company’s global policies and NZ laws/values:

• Legal Compliance and Suppression Orders: Google has been criticized for refusing to fully comply with New Zealand court orders. A notable instance was during a 2018 murder trial retrial (the Zarn Tarapata case): a NZ judge issued an interim suppression order to remove online content from the first trial, and local media complied, but Google NZ told the court it “has no ability to comply” because the search results are controlled by Google’s U.S. entity. Google effectively argued that New Zealand law cannot compel the U.S.-based search engine – a stance seen as defying NZ sovereignty. Lawyers accused Google of “thumbing its nose” at NZ courts by leaving suppressed information accessible via search. This clash exposed a structural issue: Google NZ Ltd asserts it doesn’t run Google Search (Google LLC does), thereby sidestepping legal responsibility. Such incidents have raised ire among the judiciary and government.

• Name Suppression Breach (Grace Millane case): In December 2018, Google’s systems breached a high-profile suppression order by emailing out the name of the accused in the British backpacker Grace Millane’s murder, while NZ media were barred from naming him. The Justice Minister, Andrew Little, was furious that Google’s automated “Trending” email identified the defendant. Google’s NZ government affairs head Ross Young initially responded in a way the Minister found unsatisfactory (a “terse” email), leading to public accusations that Google was flouting NZ law. Under pressure, Google apologized and suspended its Google Trends email alerts in New Zealand pending better safeguards. This episode highlighted Google’s global product policies colliding with local legal norms and was a catalyst for government discussions on regulating big tech.

• Tax and Profit-Shifting Controversy: Google (with Facebook) became a poster child in NZ for multinational tax avoidance. Persistent reporting by journalists (e.g. the NZ Herald’s investigations) and comments by officials labeled Google’s prior practice of booking nearly all NZ ad revenue in Singapore as not in the spirit of the law. The government’s introduction of the Multinational Anti-Avoidance law in 2018 (and musings about a Digital Services Tax) was directly aimed at companies like Google. While Google NZ’s agreed change to book revenue locally (from 2019) quieted some criticism, many observers still view Google’s NZ tax contributions as disproportionately low. The issue remains a touchpoint in Alphabet’s reputation – as one law commentator quipped, “If it’s not murder, it’s tax” that occupies Google’s local legal team.

• Privacy and Data Handling: Alphabet has largely avoided NZ-specific privacy scandals in the last decade, but historically there was the Street View Wi-Fi data collection incident (2010) where Google’s cars unintentionally gathered personal Wi-Fi data. The NZ Privacy Commissioner found Google in breach of NZ privacy law for that, and Google issued an apology and deleted the data. More recently, NZ’s privacy regulators have kept an eye on Google’s data practices (like how Google uses NZ users’ data for ad targeting). In 2020, when NZ updated its Privacy Act, Google and other big tech firms assured compliance, but questions linger about cross-border data flows. No major enforcement action has been taken against Google under NZ’s new privacy regime, but the company’s global privacy controversies (e.g. user location tracking without consent) have their echoes in NZ public discourse.

• YouTube and Harmful Content: The Christchurch mosque terrorist attack in 2019 put a spotlight on YouTube’s role in hosting extremist content. While the attacker livestreamed on Facebook, there were concerns he had been radicalized in part via online platforms like YouTube. New Zealand authorities pressed YouTube (and other Alphabet platforms) to crack down on violent and extremist videos. Alphabet joined the Christchurch Call (the NZ-France led initiative against online extremism) and claimed to be improving monitoring. Nonetheless, civil society in NZ has criticized YouTube’s algorithm for promoting disinformation or divisive content. In response, Google NZ participates in forums on online safety and cites the launch of the Aotearoa NZ Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms as progress – though many see that code as a weak, voluntary measure (addressed below).

19. Government Relations and Lobbying: Google’s approach to government relations in New Zealand has combined cooperation with quiet lobbying. Internally, Google NZ’s policy team (previously led by Ross Young in Wellington) works to influence policy from an early stage, often by submitting on government consultation papers or offering expert assistance. For example, during the development of NZ’s Digital Economy strategy and AI frameworks, Google hosted events and contributed its views on innovation. Lobbying efforts also manifest through industry coalitions – such as Google joining other tech giants to collectively push back on proposed regulations. A prime example is how **Google, along with Facebook, Amazon, TikTok, and others, crafted a self-regulatory Online Safety Code in 2022 instead of having government-imposed rules. This code was announced by industry groups (NZTech and NetSafe) and presented to ministers as a proactive step, implicitly lobbying the government to hold off on legislation since the industry was “taking action.” Critics like Mandy Henk of Tohatoha NZ slammed this as “a weak attempt to preempt regulation” by an industry fearful of stricter laws. Google’s deft lobbying can be seen in other areas too: when Australia pursued forcing Google to pay news publishers via law, Google in NZ voluntarily rolled out News Showcase deals with NZ publishers, which both helped local media and possibly forestalled any push for an Australian-style code in NZ. Google’s influence operations generally eschew overt confrontation; instead, the company often works behind closed doors with officials, highlighting Google’s contributions to the NZ economy and offering policy solutions that align with its business interests.

20. Revolving Doors and Influence Networks: The interplay of Alphabet’s NZ staff and the public sector highlights some conflicts of interest and “revolving door” dynamics. Hiring someone like Ross Young (straight from the Commerce Commission) gave Google immediate credibility and contacts in Wellington’s policy circles. It also raised eyebrows – a regulator who oversaw telecom and media competition shifting to a role defending a powerful tech monopoly. Moreover, Google’s habit of seconding or assigning its executives to assist governments (for example, Google employees have sat on advisory boards internationally; in NZ Google offered technical advice on contact tracing tech during COVID) means its influence can be embedded in policymaking processes. On the flip side, New Zealand politicians have occasionally transitioned to roles that interact with big tech: after leaving Parliament, former PM John Key did consulting work for Palo Alto Networks and joined the board of Facebook NZ’s lobbying firm – indicating the tech sector’s attractiveness to ex-officials, though Google NZ itself has not hired any ex-MPs directly. These networks can create an echo chamber of influence where Google’s views are well-represented in corridors of power.

21. Lobbying Campaigns and Policy Outcomes: Alphabet’s lobbying in NZ over the past decade can be linked to specific policy outcomes:

• Taxation: Google’s lobbying around tax was relatively subtle – it did not publicly fight the government’s 2018 Multinational Tax legislation, likely to avoid reputational damage. Instead, by agreeing to voluntarily change its billing structure ahead of a potential Digital Services Tax, Google earned goodwill and perhaps helped dissuade the government from immediately implementing a separate digital tax. (NZ ultimately put a DST on hold pending the OECD global tax deal, a decision tech lobbyists favored.)

• Content Regulation: Following the Christchurch massacre, NZ officials considered harsher regulation on social media. Google, in concert with other tech firms, responded with the Aotearoa Online Safety Code in 2022 as a self-regulatory measure. The government has so far not created a new internet regulator or passed an “Online Harms Act,” which suggests the industry’s voluntary code (and the Christchurch Call international cooperation) have been used to show that formal regulation might be unnecessary. This outcome aligns with Google’s lobbying stance of preferring self-regulation over legislation.

• Media and Copyright: In the debate over whether NZ should emulate Australia’s news media bargaining law (forcing payment from Google/Facebook to NZ news companies), Google’s proactive deals under News Showcase, plus likely private lobbying of ministers about the benefits of a collaborative approach, have so far prevented any compulsory regime. NZ’s government has instead taken a wait-and-see approach, which is a favorable result for Google (avoiding binding arbitration and potential precedents).

• Antitrust and Competition: New Zealand has not launched a market study into digital advertising or online platforms to the extent Australia has. It is plausible that lobbying via the tech industry and diplomatic channels (pointing to existing competition law and voluntary initiatives) helped stave off a Commerce Commission inquiry into Google’s market power. However, pressure is mounting globally, and NZ may follow suit in future.

• Data and Privacy: When NZ updated privacy laws, Google submitted feedback (likely via BusinessNZ or industry groups) to ensure provisions were in line with international norms. The final Privacy Act 2020 included exceptions for “usual business uses” of data and avoided targeting specific adtech practices – a relief for Google. Additionally, on cross-border data flows, NZ opted to pursue agreements like the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules rather than impose data localization that could hinder Google Cloud – again aligning with lobbying from industry for a light-touch regime.

22. Financial Interests and Economic Influence: Alphabet’s economic footprint in NZ gives it leverage. New Zealand businesses rely heavily on Google’s services, from small enterprises using Google Ads to reach customers, to major corporations and government using Google Cloud and Workspace. This dependency means Google’s views often get a sympathetic ear when it warns that certain regulations could “hurt the digital economy” or restrict Kiwi businesses’ access to cutting-edge technology. Google’s investments in infrastructure – for example, partnering on a new trans-Tasman subsea internet cable to improve connectivity for NZ – also bolster its argument that it contributes to NZ’s development. The company can hint that overly burdensome rules might discourage future investments or prompt Google to limit certain offerings in NZ. Such implicit economic carrots and sticks are a form of influence. Additionally, Google’s dominance in online advertising directly affects the viability of NZ’s media and content industries, effectively giving Google a seat at the table in policy discussions about media funding and misinformation. The company’s financial clout was demonstrated during the pandemic when advertisers pulled back from traditional media but not as much from Google – contributing to a crisis for local news. Google then offered grants and training to newsrooms, enhancing its image as a benefactor even as its ad model disrupted the industry. In short, Alphabet’s financial interests (advertising revenue, cloud contracts, etc.) align with maintaining an open internet environment with minimal new taxes or regulations in NZ, and the company’s lobbying reflects those goals.

23. Integrity Concerns and “Integrity-Washing”: Observers have raised ethical concerns that Alphabet/Google engages in “integrity-washing” – projecting an image of corporate responsibility and local benevolence to mask opaque influence. For example, Google touts its funding of digital literacy programs and Māori language support, but these positive efforts can also curry favor with officials and communities, potentially blunting criticisms. The self-regulatory Online Safety Code is a prime case: Google and peers launched it with fanfare about protecting users and even gained praise from some quarters (the World Economic Forum lauded it in 2023 as innovative). Yet the code is administered by an industry body (NZTech) and lacks independent enforcement, leading critics to argue it was more about avoiding accountability than increasing it. The lack of transparency in how the code was developed (behind closed doors by the tech giants) and how signatories will be held to account exemplifies the opacity in Alphabet’s approach. Furthermore, Google’s disclosure of lobbying or political activities in NZ is minimal – it does not publish reports on its engagement with NZ government, and NZ’s weak lobbying disclosure laws enable this secrecy. This contrasts with Google’s public commitments to transparency in other contexts. The risk is that Google’s significant behind-the-scenes influence escapes public scrutiny, and policies end up shaped by corporate interest rather than the public interest.

24. Regulatory Capture Risks: Alphabet’s close involvement with policymakers raises the question of regulatory capture – where regulators come to act in the interest of the industry they oversee. In New Zealand, regulators and ministries often seek input from the tech industry when crafting rules for fear of unintended consequences in fast-moving markets. Google has leveraged this by positioning itself as an essential expert. For instance, when the government was considering how to police harmful content online, Google’s participation in workshops and its funding of NetSafe (which is partially government-funded to handle online safety) meant that the solutions considered were amenable to Google’s preferences (e.g. education and user tools over heavy-handed law). While NZ’s government has not ceded all control – it did, for example, warn Google it could legislate if the voluntary measures failed – there is a noticeable pattern of delay or dilution in regulations that big tech strongly opposes. Some analysts attribute this to the effective lobbying and integration of companies like Alphabet into policy development processes. Additionally, the government’s reliance on Google’s services (for cloud, for public communication campaigns using YouTube, etc.) creates a form of institutional capture where the state becomes a client of the company it might otherwise regulate strictly.

25. Public Discourse and Influence on Democracy: Alphabet’s influence in New Zealand extends beyond formal policy into the realm of public discourse. Google’s platforms are primary channels by which New Zealanders access information, news, and political content. Thus, Google’s algorithms indirectly influence what news people read (Google News and search rankings) and what political videos they watch (YouTube recommendations). There have been instances of concern, such as the spread of misinformation on YouTube around elections or public health, which can affect democratic debate. Alphabet’s response has been to showcase its efforts to tweak algorithms and elevate authoritative content, but these measures are self-governed. Meanwhile, through partnerships like Google News Showcase, Google now has financial arrangements with many NZ news outlets, which some media critics say could compromise media independence (news companies might hesitate to criticize Google while receiving funding from it). So, Alphabet’s influence is multi-faceted: it shapes the information ecosystem and also directly interacts with the machinery of government and civil society. This dual role intensifies its power – the company can influence people’s opinions (via its platforms) at the same time as it influences lawmakers (via lobbying). For an informed democracy, this concentration of influence is challenging, especially when it’s not fully transparent.

26. Accountability and Transparency Efforts: Recognizing global concerns, Alphabet has made some gestures toward transparency in NZ – for instance, Google publishes an online Transparency Report including data on NZ government requests and some information on political ads (if any run via its platforms). But these are global reports with limited detail specific to NZ. There is no NZ-specific corporate transparency report. In 2023, facing public pressure, the major tech firms (Google included) agreed to regular reporting under the NZ Safety Code on how they handle harmful content. The first such reports were released in late 2022, but an independent review in 2024 noted the need for clearer metrics and external oversight. Policymakers like MP Dr. Deborah Russell have called for a mandatory lobbying register to cover influence by companies like Google, arguing that sunlight is needed on who is influencing public policy. Should NZ implement such measures, Alphabet’s behind-scenes operations might come into sharper relief. For now, much of what we know comes from investigative journalism and one-off disclosures rather than systematic transparency by Alphabet itself.

27. Overall Assessment of Alphabet’s Influence: Over the past decade, Alphabet Inc. (through Google and its affiliated brands) has grown from a provider of popular internet services into a powerful stakeholder in New Zealand’s economy and policy sphere. Its influence is evident in how central Google’s services are to NZ life, and in the cautious approach regulators have often taken toward “Big Tech.” Alphabet’s influence in NZ can be characterized as largely hidden but significant: it prefers to operate through informal channels, industry groups, and voluntary frameworks, which has generally been effective in steering outcomes in its favor. The company has adeptly managed its public image – emphasizing contributions like innovation, small business tools, and community grants – to build political capital (a strategy of “integrity-washing” when done cynically). There are genuine areas of cooperation between Alphabet and the NZ government (for example, jointly addressing online extremism, or deploying earthquake alert technology in Android phones for public safety), showing that Alphabet can be a constructive partner. However, the asymmetry of power and information – a global tech behemoth versus a small nation’s institutions – means New Zealand’s ability to independently regulate or challenge Alphabet’s practices is constrained. In many respects, Alphabet has achieved a degree of regulatory capture-lite: the government hasn’t handed Google the keys, but it often opts for Google-endorsed solutions and soft-touch oversight. Moving forward, the challenge will be ensuring that Alphabet’s undoubted benefits to New Zealand (digital services, investment, jobs) do not come at the expense of the country’s legal authority, fiscal base, or the integrity of its public discourse. Increased transparency, stronger oversight of lobbying, and assertive assertion of New Zealand’s regulatory sovereignty may be needed to balance Alphabet’s influence with the public interest.

Sources

[1] Google New Zealand Limited – Company Profile, CompaniesNZ (New Zealand Companies Register data), https://www.companiesnz.com/company/1786635/google-new-zealand-limited

[2] Google New Zealand Limited (previously Google Technology NZ Ltd) – Company Extract, CompaniesNZ, https://www.companiesnz.com/company/1786635/google-new-zealand-limited (showing incorporation on 31 Mar 2006 and former name until Nov 2006)

[3] Google (New Zealand) Limited – NZ Companies Register Entry (Removed), CompanyHub, Company No. 1513666, registered 17 May 2004 (removed) – NZBN 9429035391784

[4] Google New Zealand Ltd – Shareholding and Ownership Structure, CompaniesNZ, https://www.companiesnz.com/company/1786635/google-new-zealand-limited (100 shares, 100% owned by Google International LLC; ultimate holding Alphabet Inc.)

[5] Google New Zealand Ltd – Registered Office Address, CompaniesNZ, https://www.companiesnz.com/company/1786635/google-new-zealand-limited (Simpson Grierson, 88 Shortland St, Auckland)

[6] Google New Zealand Ltd – Office Address (Google Cloud Contracting Entity List), Google Cloud, https://cloud.google.com/terms/google-entity (PwC Tower, Level 27, 188 Quay St, Auckland, New Zealand 1010)

[7] Katie Warren, “A day in the life of Google’s New Zealand country director, a single mother who oversees more than 1,800 employees and flies to Australia once a month,” Business Insider (June 29, 2021) – Profile of Caroline Rainsford (oversees ~50 Google employees in Auckland) https://www.businessinsider.com/google-new-zealand-executive-career-daily-routine-2021-6

[8] Caroline Rainsford profile, TUANZ / University of Auckland alumni story, 2017 – (Caroline Rainsford assumed role of Country Director for Google NZ in 2017)

[9] “Tony Keusgen – Managing Director, Google New Zealand (2012–2015),” MMA Global bio, https://www.mmaglobal.com/speakers/tony-keusgen (confirms tenure as Google NZ MD)

[10] Anusha Bradley, “Google NZ pays $300k in tax, posts another $600k loss”, RNZ News (7 Aug 2017) – Financials for 2016: NZ$12.59m revenue, $603k loss, $304k tax, dominance in ad market. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/336650/google-nz-pays-300k-in-tax-posts-another-600k-loss

[11] Matt Nippert, “Google to cease ‘offshoring’ local revenue”, NZ Herald (21 Feb 2018) – Google told Parliament it will stop funneling NZ revenues to Singapore, welcomed by Minister Stuart Nash. NZ Herald (paywalled, summary via excerpt) https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/google-to-cease-offshoring-local-revenue/KD36SXE7FEXMZ45LMQKT6NHYDA/

[12] John Bowie, “Google’s Ross-on-the-Spot: The Lawyer Front Footing Google’s NZ Work”, LawFuel (10 July 2019) – Profile of Ross Young (ex-Commerce Commission regulatory chief) joining Google ; discusses Google’s handling of name suppression breach and tax structure changes. https://www.lawfuel.com/googles-ross-on-the-spot-the-lawyer-front-footing-googles-nz-work/

[13] Paul McBeth, “Google NZ books more business locally, pays $511m to sister companies”, BusinessDesk (10 Jun 2020) – Reports 2019 results: $36.2m revenue, $10.6m pre-tax profit, and $511m in inter-company payments. (Excerpt via BusinessDesk).

[14] “Google ‘thumbs its nose’ at New Zealand courts – lawyer”, NZ Herald (12 Jan 2019) – Article detailing Google’s refusal to take down content per NZ court orders, quoting Google NZ’s affidavit that it has “no ability” to comply and criticism of Google as defying NZ law. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/google-thumbs-its-nose-at-new-zealand-courts-lawyer/HM6IDHX46JK3BQI2I6PWRIAPO4/

[15] “Google accused of ‘flipping the bird’ at New Zealand laws after suppression breach”, The Guardian (5 Jan 2019) – Coverage of Google’s breach of name suppression in the Grace Millane case and Minister Andrew Little’s reactions. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/06/google-accused-of-flipping-the-bird-at-new-zealand-laws-after-suppression-breach

[16] Reuters News, “Google suspends NZ trending emails after criticism over murder case name,” Reuters (January 2019) – Noting Google halted its Trends notification in NZ following the government’s complaint. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-crime-google-idUSKCN1OX0PA

[17] Lucy Craymer, “Tech giants to self-regulate in reducing harmful content in New Zealand”, Reuters (25 Jul 2022) – Announcement of NZ industry Code of Practice for Online Safety signed by Meta, Google, TikTok, etc., critics say it dodges government regulation. https://www.reuters.com/technology/tech-giants-self-regulate-reducing-harmful-content-new-zealand-2022-07-25/

[18] Paul Sawers, “Big Tech’s push to self-regulate harmful content in New Zealand is ‘weak attempt to preempt regulation’, critics say”, TechCrunch (25 Jul 2022) – Discusses the industry-led Online Safety Code in NZ, notes NZTech is a lobby group including Google and includes quotes calling the code a weak preemptive move. https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/25/big-techs-push-to-self-regulate-harmful-content-in-new-zealand-is-weak-attempt-to-preempt-regulation-critics-say/

[19] “Aotearoa New Zealand Code of Practice for Online Safety and Harms – Industry release”, NZTech / NetSafe (25 July 2022) – Official announcement of the code’s signing. (See Reuters [17] and TechCrunch [18] for analysis.)

[20] Tess McClure, “Google co-founder Larry Page is a New Zealand resident, government says”, The Guardian (6 Aug 2021) – Confirms Larry Page was granted NZ residency under the investor visa, notes debate over wealthy elites and border exemptions. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/06/google-co-founder-larry-page-is-a-new-zealand-resident-government-says

[21] “Google billionaire Larry Page granted New Zealand residency”, CNBC / Associated Press (6 Aug 2021) – Report on Larry Page’s NZ residency approval, highlighting concerns about buying access. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/06/google-billionaire-larry-page-has-granted-new-zealand-residency.html

[22] Official Information Act response, NZ Govt (2022) – Data on government departments’ spending on advertising and services, showing Google New Zealand Ltd received ~$1.75m NZD from agencies. (Retrieved via FYI.org.nz OIA request).

[23] NZ Privacy Commissioner – Media release (2010): “Google and Wi-Fi Information Collection” – Found Google’s Street View cars collected WiFi data in NZ, deemed a violation of privacy (Google apologized). https://privacy.org.nz/news-and-publications/statements-media-releases/google-and-wi-fi-information-collection/

[24] Ministry of Justice – Christchurch Call progress updates (2019–2022) – Documents New Zealand’s work with Google/YouTube and others on countering extremist content online. (Govt. publication, various dates.)

[25] “Global tech companies meet first commitment under the NZ Code”, NZTech release (20 Dec 2022) – Notes Google, Meta, etc. published their first transparency reports under the code and appointed an interim oversight director. https://thecode.org.nz/news/ (The Code news updates)

[26] Rob O’Neill, “Google Cloud to build first New Zealand cloud region”, Reseller News (9 Aug 2022) – Details Google’s plan for a local cloud region and note it’s joining all-of-government cloud procurement. https://www.reseller.co.nz/article/1296042/google-cloud-to-build-first-new-zealand-cloud-region/

[27] Vocus NZ, “Google and Vocus partner to extend Hawaiki cable to New Zealand”, DataCenter Dynamics (2023) – Announcement of Google investing in NZ’s international internet infrastructure. (Demonstrates Google’s growing infrastructure presence.)

[28] NZ Parliament Hansard – Debate on Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosion) Bill (2018) – Minister Stuart Nash remarks on Google’s cooperation, hoping others follow. (Hansard records, 21 Feb 2018.)

[29] NZ Election Commission – Donations Returns (2017–2023) – No donations from Google or Alphabet entities are listed in registered party disclosures. (Public records via Elections NZ.)

[30] Jonathan Milne, “Political donations: people power no match for big business”, Newsroom (2023) – Analysis of NZ political donations, noting absence of direct Big Tech money but influence via other means. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/political-donations-people-power-no-match-for-big-business

Spot anything in this entry that is wrong? Please either leave a comment at the end or email, in confidence: bryce@democracyproject.nz