The New Zealand Initiative

April 3rd, 2012 at 4:20 pm by David Farrar

I’m off to a function at 5.30 pm to launch the new thinktank, which is a merger of the New Zealand Institute and the New Zealand Business Roundtable.

It will be called the New Zealand Initiative, and will focus on raising debate on public policy and contributing ideas to achieve a more prosperous future for New Zealand.

I think the merger is a chance to get past the brands of the former organisations, and have more debates on public policy which focuses on the issues, rather than get fixated on who is saying what.

Roger Kerr was always going to be a very hard act to follow, but I’m delighted with the announcement of the inaugural executive director as Dr Oliver Hartwich. I know Oliver from his work as the Centre for Independent Studies and he not only has a first class mind and research credentials, but is also an excellent presenter and communicator. I am sure he will also manage to upset as many people here, as he has in other countries :-)

The Business Roundtable was both a think-tank and a lobby group, while the was just a think-tank. By the look of it, the new New Zealand Initiative will be primarily a think-tank, rather than a hybrid. I think this is a good thing, as I believe the attributes you need from a lobby group is quite different to what you need from a think-tank. To some degree, think-tanks are the wholesalers, and lobby groups the retailers. This merger also opens up an opportunity for a new lobby group to push for good policies on behalf of taxpayers.

UPDATE: Big whoops. This was embargoed until 6 pm. I missed seeing it – totally my fault. Apologies to anyone affected – it was accidental.

Tags: , , ,

41 Responses to “The New Zealand Initiative”

  1. YesWeDid (1,058 comments) says:

    Why don’t they call the organisation what it is – a right wing lobby group?

    Why do organisations use these fuzzy soft sell names, are they scared of actually saying what they believe?

    ‘The New Zealand Institute’ what the hell is that? It could be anything.

    [DPF: I know this is hard for your tiny brain to comprehend, but the NZ Institute was not a right wing lobby group. In fact it was the group that made the case for a massive state investment of $1.5b into fibre to the home.

    But thank you for proving my point about how some people are unable to actually debate issues on their merits, and instead just character assassinate the brand]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Keith Ng (22 comments) says:

    Oh hey, I remember him: http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/angry-fisk-of-rightwing-thinktank/

    So… BRT wants to “rebrand” by buying up the empty shell that is the NZI, then it immediately installs a complete ideologue from a CATO-style thinktank to be it’s ED? What’s the point here? Who do they think they’re kidding? It’s *exactly* the same brand as the BRT.

    [DPF: I’d wait to see its output before I brand it]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. YesWeDid (1,058 comments) says:

    Hey Keith; can’t your tiny brain get around the idea that if you take the same people saying the same things but rebrand the organisation then its all totally different?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    Hi DPF,

    Will the New Zealand Initiative be releasing a full list of it’s donors?

    [DPF: I’m not on the Board but the NZBR used to publish a list of all its members, and my expectation is that NZI will do the same. As far as I know they have members, not donors]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    With the overwhelming number of socialist outputs in this country spreading utter nonsense its funny that one alternate voice cause the lefty backs to get up…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Keith Ng (22 comments) says:

    Sure, David. I don’t want to judge a book by its cover, publisher, author, subject matter or previous editions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dmz (21 comments) says:

    Unlike these tiny-brained greenies, I for one look forward to seeing the completely different aspect that the rebranding will bring us, much like breeding a chihuahua and a bull mastiff results in the magnificent breed known as the Chibhuastiff. I confidently expect a violent and unexpected swing to the left, advocating increased investment in public transport and renewable energy.

    I also look forward to the entirely open and transparent meetings of the new organisation being screened in bright, vivid, pornalicious 3D TV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    Maybe they’ve moved on from 3D porn and will be advocating NZ invest in even more advanced technology, like cold fusion, time travel or teleportation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Falafulu Fisi (2,142 comments) says:

    The very existence of lobbyists from businesses is the result of government interventions in the economy. The means of production is owned privately and the fucking government has no legitimate role in interfering. Business lobbyists is a modern day thing for the very reason that the Govt is interfering in every aspects of businesses, from minimum wage to worker’s rights? Fucking workers’ rights? Umm! When a business goes under, the workers don’t suffer , the owner does because he/she bears all the risks. He/she lose everything.

    I remembered watching a commentary from business journalist, John Stossel (Fox News), when he said, the lobbyists who hang around Washington to lobby Congress in their favour is a result of more regulations from the Govt. He said, that Microsoft didn’t have a group of lobbyists in Washington in the 80s simply because the Govt didn’t have their eyes on Microsoft. Once they start regulating productive entities as Microsoft, then Bill Gates had no choice but to fund his own lobby group based in Washington to raise his concerns (including other entrepreneurs like him) about Govt dictatorial in regulating his business, because he doesn’t put a gun to the heads of his customers. They’re free to go, and free to come.

    However, state-worshipers’ like Keith Ng, likes to tell business owners’ what he (& Govt) thinks of what they can or can’t do. If the Govt is out of the way from regulating businesses, then there wouldn’t be any lobbyists to lobby lawmakers. Sure there will be lobbyists for private industries, but that is a different matter, since that’s how a free-markets is supposed to work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    @FF
    Indeed.
    I wonder if mikenmild, Keith Ng, and YWD know where money actually comes from. And/or if they’ve workedin the real world and have had any responsibility beyond the orbit of their keyboards and espressos.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Daigotsu (473 comments) says:

    It saddens me that the BRT needs to “move past its brand”

    The BRT was a fucking excellent institution that like everybody else with a plan for prosperity for NZ was slammed cruelly by left wing demagoues and slanderers

    They fought back for a long time but this acceptance of the smears represents a surrender

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Best wishes to the NZI!
    First item on their agenda should be to lobby to get Working for Families axed. That is by far the most wasteful area of government spending, and it has *barely been touched*.
    I agree with The Scorned, FF and Daigotsu. The left-wing has the luxury of completely dominating the media, and there are ***countless*** left-wing groups out there. Yet as soon as the right puts one together (like this one), the squawking starts.
    Leftwingers would be well-advised to read this really good article –
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100127372/in-every-area-of-our-public-life-the-left-is-losing-the-argument/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. DJP6-25 (1,399 comments) says:

    It looks like a good idea. I wish them every success.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Keith Ng and Mikenmild have never actually had to run a business or have employees so their commenting on this topic makes it all the much funnier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Keith Ng (22 comments) says:

    Uh… I run a data visualisation business. How do you guys think I pay the rent? With government largess?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hj (7,485 comments) says:

    The current planning system is an outdated straitjacket on economic growth, contends Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich of Policy Exchange
    http://www.oliver-marc-hartwich.com/publications/wasteland

    Dr Hartwich:
    “To begin with, “consensus” is a term which is alien to science. It is a
    concept from sociology which describes only that a general agreement
    has been reached, a process of collective decision-making, if you will. In
    science, however, such a process could never be understood as a means
    of establishing “truth”, for it would not only require the individual sci-
    entist to submit himself to a majority view, but it would make that con-
    sensually achieved view virtually unassailable.Thus, establishing a scientific consensus is incompatible with the way that science has evolved,
    from the Age of Reason to Karl Popper’s theory of critical rationalism.
    One would be well advised then to treat the talk about a “climate
    change consensus” as what it is: not as a scientific consensus about climate
    change but at most as a political agreement to act and speak as if the major
    questions surrounding climate change had already been answered. In
    reality, however, there are very few things on which the majority climate
    scientists would readily agree.8
    Dealing with those issues on which there is agreement is very simple,
    for they are few. First, the average global temperature has risen by
    approximately 0.7 degrees centigrade since 1860. Second, an ever
    increasing world population has an influence on the climate through
    increased energy and land use. Everything else in the climate change
    debate is highly controversial. Has the climate of the past millennium
    always been colder than today or not? How much of an effect on the cli-
    mate does atmospheric carbon dioxide have? Do rising carbon dioxide
    concentrations lead us to a point of no return? Or are there self-regulat-
    ing mechanisms which will slow, halt, or even reverse the process? For
    each question one finds much disagreement among climatologists. Such
    disagreement should be welcomed, for it is what science is all about. Far
    from any clear-cut consensus then, there is a debate amongst experts
    about the various aspects of climate change. Puzzling, then, that most of
    what we hear in the public domain gives the impression that the case is
    quite the opposite.
    etc

    http://www.oliver-marc-hartwich.com/publications/science-vs-superstition—the-case-for-a-new-scientific-enlightenment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (7,485 comments) says:

    “A new independent, non-partisan public policy think tank was launched today by Business Roundtable chair Roger Partridge and New Zealand Institute chair Tony Carter, following the merger of the two organisations on 1 April.

    The new think tank has been named The New Zealand Initiative. It will build on the legacies of its two founding organisations and will focus on raising debate on public policy and contributing bold, rigorously-researched ideas to achieve a more prosperous future for New Zealand.

    Roger Partridge and Tony Carter, who will co-chair the new organisation, also today announced the appointment of Dr Oliver Hartwich as executive director.

    http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/

    In political science, nonpartisan denotes an election, event, organization or person in which there is no formally declared association with a political party affiliation. The Merrian-Webster dictionary’s definition of “nonpartisan” is:

    “Not partisan; free from party affiliation, bias, or designation.”[1]

    Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party.”
    …………………….
    That’s the problem with our personality based political system, we need to know about the memes behind the personalities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    That’s an interesting comment, quite reasonable on the face of it, until the punch line:
    ‘Far from any clear-cut consensus then, there is a debate amongst experts about the various aspects of climate change. Puzzling, then, that most of what we hear in the public domain gives the impression that the case is quite the opposite.’

    Actually it is notions of media ‘balance’ that tends to give a false impression that there is a scientific debate of the key argument of climate change when there is not. Hartwich turns that around. For example, see: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Falafulu Fisi (2,142 comments) says:

    Keith Ng, that’s great, but why fuck’en adopt an anti-business attitude then? The business lobbyists are not asking Govt handouts. They simply want the Govt to back-out. Let them (businesses) carry on with what they’re good at and that is to be productive. That’s the reason for the lobby, because the Govt is capitulating to the wishes of the unproductive in the society (Greenies, lefties) by over-legislating businesses. Businesses find it hard to operate in such environment. Who suffers? The business owners, not the workers.

    Anyway, what’s your visualization business is about? I can give you some free tips on certain advanced numerical algorithms used in visualizations? Without the aid of numerical algorithms then any form of visualizations is pretty useless. Check out SOM (self-organized-map), which is a dimensional reduction technique, that’s popular in some business visualization systems’ today. SOM maps higher dimensions (3 or more variables) into a lower 2 dimension (2 variables), which is easy to visualize (ie, 2 variables as x and y coordinates – graph). You can find many open source APIs on the net for SOM. There are also more dimensional reduction techniques in addition to SOM, that you can use. Anything that’s more than 3 dimensions (ie, more than x, y, z ) can’t be visualized but that’s when SOM and other similar techniques come in. If you want to know more about those other techniques, then indicate back here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. barry (1,191 comments) says:

    One of the chellenges for a place like NZ with 4.5 million people is that anyone who is asked/picked/etc for a body like this will be compromised. This will happen because they will know or be associated with other leaders – such as obviously politicians, business leaders, legal leaders, etc. And this will curb their freedom to really think outside the square – especially since any future job they get will depend on all those people they know or have access to.
    My comment is based on the belief that this group wants to be a think tank only.

    Its much like the supreme court problem – the place is just too small for people to be really free from influence or association – to wit the judges and the lawyers who appear before them.

    The moment anyone in this NZ Initiative is found to be also on/in a lobby group – then it buggered. I find it difficult to believe that the roundtable will be able to shrug of its lobby group background.

    Alternately – if they really are going to be a lobby group – then they should say so up front.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    barry
    It is possible that the staff of the NZ Initiative believe that they are working for an independent think-tank. Good luck to them, but somehow I don’t think anyone will accord them the benefit of that doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. hj (7,485 comments) says:

    There’s quite a difference between Dr Hartwich’s veiws and this:
    http://www.nzinstitute.org/Images/uploads/Ports__Harbours_Asia-Oceania_Regional_Forum-paper_for_10_Feb_2011.pdf

    or (in other words) you can’t be non-partisan on climate change and or limits to growth as they represent basic paradigms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    FWIW, I read some of the NZ Institute’s initial publications and thought they were useful and considered (which is not the same as saying I agreed with them). On the other hand, the NZBR hadn’t seemed relevant or effective for a very long time. It’d be easy to blame the late Roger Kerr but my sense was that the Board/membership simply wanted the world to bend to their will and couldn’t concieve of alternative perspectives or approaches.

    The problem might be that there’s not enough think tanks. There’s few in Australia but there’s at least more (personally, I think per capita, http://www.percapita.org.au/, are doing interesting and influential work). Assuming the NZ Initiative position themselves on the right, then there’s space for left-leaning bodies (and centrist ones too). Perhaps I’m overlooking organisations already active but I’m not talking about single issue organisations, I mean organisations that are research-oriented and independent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    ‘organisations that are research-oriented and independent’
    Universities?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. hj (7,485 comments) says:

    I think what we may be seeing here is a meme push into politics (think tanks being part of the political system) just like Laila Harre strengthening the left-wing scrum in the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wikiriwhis business (4,255 comments) says:

    Another think tank to enslave Kiwi’s

    This whole ACC furore and Judith Collins is simply a smoke screen to take attention away from the treasonous Crafer farm sales to the Chinese. The Nat/Lab coalition is trying to look separate while they commit treason together . National never revoked Labour taking away the treason laws in 1989. The coalition could never have gotten away with this level of treason before 89. Necks would have been hung. Although more than likely, home detention, as exampled in Doug Graham’s case!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Paul Williams (880 comments) says:

    mikenmild, yes although universities/researchers are necessarily diverse in their views and effort which is different from a think tank established for a specific purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Keith Ng (22 comments) says:

    FF, you should read the link I posted above. My beef isn’t that he’s “pro-business”, but that he’s religiously “pro-business”. In that particular instance, he didn’t care about understanding the real world at all. Actual, productive businesses – real capitalists – invested in technology for commercial gains, and were successful. But instead of talking about the real success, he tries to tell a parable about porn made it all happen, and that schools are going to be revolutionised – and he was talking entirely out of his arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    Gosh, it’s terrible that we have this think tank saying these terrible things. Surely we need some balance in the debate. After all, the other side only has TV1, TV3, the Unions, The New Zealand Herald, The Dominion Post, Radio Live, the Labour Party, the Green Party, half of the National Party, the Iwi, and every environmental group in the country supporting more government, more bullshit, more poverty, more corruption, more crony capitalism, more tax, more lies, more bureaucracy, more planning, more resource management, and more descent into third world backwater glorified retirement home status. It really isn’t fair that the New Zealand Initiative is allowed to exist under these circumstances!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Alan Wilkinson (2,026 comments) says:

    The NZ Institute was a waste of space under Skilling and produced as much nonsense as Maxim. Since then it doesn’t seem to have done much at all.

    It looks as though Hartwich is a good replacement for Roger Kerr. I think they should concentrate on getting decent economics courses taught in schools because until we replace the current generation of financially and numerically illiterate journalists there is not much chance of intelligent economic debate and policies in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    Do you have specific criticism of the current secondary economics curriculum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    Do you have specific criticism of the current secondary economics curriculum?

    From memory Tony Falkenstein did (see a tiny bit here about getting business into the secondary curriculum: http://www.businessabc.co.nz/tony-falkenstein.html) but I don’t really have the time right this second to research the comments he has made in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    Stephen – that’s great – but might that be more about teaching entrepreneurship or business skills?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Falafulu Fisi (2,142 comments) says:

    Mike, easy. They should teach, perhaps starting with the fact that Govt doesn’t create jobs. Govt less interference in the economy is the only way to prosperity. You see dumb journalists, trying to ask stupid questions to politicians such as : you’ve been in government for more than 3 years and you promised in the election that you were going to create 50,000 new jobs in 2 years time but that hasn’t materialized. Such question is simply dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “My beef isn’t that he’s “pro-business”, but that he’s religiously “pro-business”.”

    Which is a meaningless statement.

    A better way of putting it would be that he is consistent, while you are not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “mikenmild, yes although universities/researchers are necessarily diverse in their views and effort which is different from a think tank established for a specific purpose.”

    Mike is not opposed to think tanks, just those that are pro-market. If this was a left wing organisation pushing state nationalisation and totalitarian social control, Mike would be happy. But rather than be honest about this he hides behind the usual whining.

    I wonder how much time he has spent in the academic world. If he thinks that Universities are truly “independent” then he is an ignorant fool.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. stephen (3,981 comments) says:

    Mike – I have no idea. It’d be interesting to see what Falkenstein had said on the matter of curriculums in the past I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (13,284 comments) says:

    Lee
    Is there a particular source of your bitterness? Is the world not treating you how you deserve?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hj (7,485 comments) says:

    BlairM (1,632) Says:
    April 4th, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Gosh, it’s terrible that we have this think tank saying these terrible things. Surely we need some balance in the debate. After all, the other side only has TV1, TV3, the Unions, The New Zealand Herald, The Dominion Post, Radio Live, the Labour Party, the Green Party, half of the National Party, the Iwi, and every environmental group in the country supporting more government, more bullshit, more poverty, more corruption, more crony capitalism, more tax, more lies, more bureaucracy, more planning, more resource management, and more descent into third world backwater glorified retirement home status. It really isn’t fair that the New Zealand Initiative is allowed to exist under these circumstances!
    ……
    This is how they do it in Houston:

    “Unlike the 8F group, which was small, private, and informal, the Chamber has a large budget, professional staff, and ‘a structure and membership that prevent undue reliance on the skills of any one individual’ .” It draws its leaders from the chief executive officers of the largest and most influential corporations in the city . It draws its membership and participants for its dozens of planning committees from the private, public, and academic sectors . It is a much more public and obvious form of business-oriented planning than that of the 8F group . Its philosophy, however, is the same, to `protect a massive investment, stimulate even greater ones, and, in the process, build Houston to their own specifications, with as little interference from the
    public, and as much help from city hall, as possible’
    .” They do so through frequent inter-changes of Chamber personnel with city hall, social contacts and informal meetings, co-optation of potential opponents, propaganda dissemination, provision of research findings and plans to policy makers, and intensive lobbying .
    Its agenda was the one that was put into effect . It was supported by professionals throughout the city, whether in the media, the public sector, or the corporations . The Chamber successfully encouraged a conception that its objectives were identical with those of the public interest . On a day to day basis, until the election in 1980 of Mayor Whitmire, there was no political body in Houston that came close to matching the power of the Chamber in areas where the Chamber sought to have influence . 30 Except for two poorly planned referenda, one on zoning in 1962 and one on mass transit in 1983, both of which were defeated by voters, the primary elements of the policy agenda of the Chamber have been adopted in Houston for over a generation .
    The implications for urban policy formation in Houston are clear . As long as planning and policy-making in Houston remained initiated by private
    sector groups and therefore removed from public debate and discussion and as long as electoral politics in Houston remained a low-conflict, consen-
    sus style politics dependent on elite support, then most people in the city, and especially those outside the private halls of power, had little access to
    planning and policy decisions affecting them and the City- 31

    Costs of Boomtown Growth
    While Houston has experienced dramatic growth since the 1920s and especially since World War II, there have been serious side effects which, given the continuous growth, laissez-faire ideology, and business domination of public policy, have gone largely ignored and unattended . Urban problems have tended to be seen as private problems .
    Many of Houston’s problems result from or are complicated by the laissez-faire ideology which, one report concluded, `has restricted the growth of city government and has kept Houston essentially a low- service city’ . 32 Because the Department of Public Works, for example, lacks adequate resources to address serious street and traffic problems, local street installation and repair have been a private matter . In Houston the rules governing the installation or reconstruction of local streets are fairly straightforward and essentially put the decision-making burden on nongovernmental actors . Thus, DPW officials assume that persons who want street improvements can get them, and those who do not have improved streets must not want them .33

    http://www.angelfire.com/…/Fisher-Urban%20Policy%20in%20Houston.pd..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Alan Wilkinson (2,026 comments) says:

    mikenmild: “Do you have specific criticism of the current secondary economics curriculum?”

    For a start, far too few students take it and it is not integrated into other important subjects like maths and social studies. And of course few teachers are qualified to teach it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,495 comments) says:

    Keith – You’re against somebody being religiously pro business? What does that even mean? I’d rather have somebody guiding a business thinktank that believed in it than somebody whos wishy washy about it or would pander to leftists such as yourself.

    How many employees do you have Keith in your business?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote