Media Enquiries: 04 2820302 (24hr)

Your Money, Your Voice

Championing Value For Money From Every Tax Dollar

How much will this election cost you?

We've had a great response to our full-page newspaper ads which ran across the country yesterday.

Final_print.jpg

The figures are based on our election policy costing "Bribe-O-Meter" which is based on the parties’ own estimated costs of their policies and they have been tracked and verified by our own independent economists. The total figures per household assume that each party spends what it has promised, and does not take into account possible changes arising from negotiations to form a government.  As you can see, the NZ Frist figure, when paired with Labour is lower than the National and New Zealand First total because, in some cases, Labour is also promising to spend the same amounts in the same areas as New Zealand First.

We've just started our online advertising campaign (Ad-roll YouTube, Stuff.co.nz and Facebook ads) to help spread the message.  If you agree that taxpayer rights are important to be protected at this election, chip-in to our online advertising fund at www.taxpayers.org.nz/bribe_o_meter_donate.

Thanks to the thousands of supporters who have chiped-in to make this work possible.  To help spread the word, click here.

Barrie Saunders appointed to Taxpayers' Union Board

Barrie_Saunders_(thumbnail).jpgWell known former Wellington lobbyist and former journalist, Barrie Saunders, has been appointed to the board of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Barrie retired from the government relations consultancy, Saunders Unsworth, in March 2015, after 25 years as a government relations consultant.  The company specialises in the management of public policy issues on behalf of its clients, which are predominantly business organisations and corporates.  

As a government relations consultant, he worked for corporates, groups of corporates and industry organisations including: fishing, used vehicle imports, pharmaceutical advertising, meat, pipfruit, timber, institutes of technology and polytechnic and the New Zealand Business Roundtable, a free market think tank.  Barrie was the executive chairman of the 14 member Port CEO Group, a virtual organisation from 2002 to 2015.   

He was President of the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce  2000-2002 inclusive, is now a life member of the Chamber.  Chairman of CBL, the Chambers investment company 2003/9.  He was a trustee of the Wellington City Mission 1999/2006 and a member of the Housing NZ Board 1994-97.  In 2011 he was appointed a director of TVNZ and completed his second term on April 2017. 

Prior to establishing his government relations business in 1990, Barrie worked as a journalist (radio and TV in New Zealand, Australia and the UK), and the National Business Review, of which was the founding editor in 1970.  He later worked in public relations.  He was press secretary to the Labour Party Leader Bill Rowling (1976-79), Public Relations Manager for the Manufacturers Federation (1979-83) and Public Relations Manager for the NZ Meat Producers Board 1983-86.  He was the Board’s North American Director based in New York from 1986 to the end of 1989.    

A print quality, royalty-free, photo of Barrie is available here

Bribe-O-Meter Update: Adding Up the Cost of Potential Government Coalitions

Mac_Mckenna_photo.jpgIn the final Bribe-O-Meter update before the election, the Taxpayers’ Union has put together the combined manifesto costings for a range of potential coalitions. These figures will allow voters to gain a better understanding of the fiscal implications of a potential Government over the next three-year parliamentary term.
 
This week we have put together all the likely coalition options so that voters have a better idea of what their vote might cost taxpayers. While the coalition totals account for crossovers in policy (so there is no double counting), the figures assume that each party spends what it has promised. It does not take into account possible changes arising from negotiations to form a government.

A National-ACT coalition has promised the lowest new spending, combining for a total of $5.9 billion, or $3,441 per household. National has promised $8.3 billion, and ACT a net-reduction in spending of $2.4 billion over three years.


ACT, National and the Maori Party have promised a combined $18.1 billion, or $10,501 per household. However, 67 percent of this total spending is from the Maori Party alone.
 
A Labour-Green coalition has promised $35.2 billion in new and unique spending, equivalent to $20,397 per household. There is considerable crossover in Labour-Green policies, which has been accounted for.
 
National and New Zealand First have promised a total of $35.8 billion, or $20,788 per household. 77 percent of this spending is from New Zealand First.
 
Labour and New Zealand First have promised $49.6 billion, or $28,744 per household. The Labour-New Zealand First total is made up of 46 percent of Labour Party spending, and 54 percent New Zealand First.
 
A Labour-Green-New Zealand First coalition has promised $61.7 billion, or $35,787 per household. This comprises 37 percent Labour Party spending, 20 percent Green Party spending and 43 percent New Zealand First.

Final_newspaper_bribe-o-meter_ad_(full_page).jpg

Cost of party coalition combinations 

  • National/ACT: $5.9 billion, $3,441 per household.
  • National/ACT/Maori: $18.1 billion, $10,501 per household. 
  • Labour/Green: $35.2 billion, $20,397 per household. 
  • National/NZ First: $35.8 billion, $20,788 per household. 
  • Labour/NZ First: $49.6 billion, $28,744 per household. 
  • Labour/Green/NZ First: $61.7 billion, $35,787 per household.

Note that the coalition totals account for crossovers in policy (so they do not necessarily match the sum of the individual party figures listed above).

Transparency Rating

As part of the Bribe-O-Meter, our economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent party has been National. The least transparent is NZ First, closely  followed by the Māori Party.

Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter

Key findings (as at 9am 18 September):

  • National has promised $8.3 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,821 per household. Transparency rating: 5/5
  • Labour has promised $23.0 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $13,353 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • The Green Party has promised $14.9 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $8,645 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • NZ First has promised $27.5 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $15,967 per household. Transparency rating: 0/5
  • ACT has promised $2.4 billion in savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $1,381 in savings per household. Transparency rating: 3/5
  • The Māori Party has promised $12.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,060 per household. Transparency rating: 1/5
  • The Opportunities Party has promised $13.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,939 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5 

Bribe-O-Meter running red hot (Week 9)

Another week of expensive election promises typifies the penultimate weekly Bribe-O-Meter update. The Green Party and TOP are this week’s big movers, each with over $3 billion in new spending announced in the past seven days. Other m

overs include New Zealand First (a further $1.5 billion) and the National Party ($500 million). The Labour Party are up just $100 million, now with total spending of $22.9 billion over the next three years.

The Green Party has promised to pay the forestry sector an aggregate $630 million per year by 2020, as well as a $990 million universal payment to all working-age New Zealanders, or $250 per person. These two new spending proposals will be funded from a charge on pollution. In addition, the Green Party will establish a Climate Commission at an estimated operating cost of $6 million per year. This brings total Green Party spending over the next parliamentary term to $13.3 billion, which is equivalent to $7,703 per person.

TOP has proposed to hand out $1 billion in unspecified subsidies for fruit and vegetables, to be funded from a 20 percent tax on all junk food. The sum of TOP’s new spending is now $13.7 billion over three years or $7,939 per household.

 
New Zealand First has pledged to increase SuperGold Card entitlements by $800 to $1,000 per person per year. With a growing super-annuitant population, currently about 650,000 people, this policy will cost the Crown more than $500 million per year. New Zealand First spending now totals $27.5 billion over the next three years or $15,967 per household.
 
The National Party has proposed a $74 million per year boost in subsidies for first-home buyers, $180 million in additional funding for elective surgeries over three years, and $57 million toward a specialist mental health facility in Christchurch. National has now promised $8.2 billion, or $4,736 per household, over the next parliamentary term.

Transparency Rating

As part of the Bribe-O-Meter, our economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent party has been National. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Māori Party. 

Transparancy_Score_v3.png

Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter

Key Findings (As of 9am 12 September):

  • National has promised $8.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,736 per household.Transparency rating: 5/5
  • Labour has promised $22.9 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $13,287 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • The Green Party has promised $13.3 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,703 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • NZ First has promised $27.5 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $15,967 per household. Transparency rating: 0/5
  • ACT has promised $2.4 billion in savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $1,407 in savings per household. Transparency rating: 3/5
  • The Māori Party has promised $12.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,060 per household. Transparency rating: 1/5
  • The Opportunities Party has promised $13.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,939 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5

Bribe-O-Meter Update: ACT this weeks biggest spender

bribe-o-meter week 8For the first time ever, the ACT Party is the biggest spender in this week's update of the election Bribe-O-Meter. ACT’s big jump is on the back of its education policy, costing $3 billion over the next parliamentary term. This week the Bribe-O-Meter also sees Labour and the Green Party jump by more than $1 billion and National by approximately $0.5 billion.

Getting in on the ACT

ACT has announced a $1 billion per year increase in teacher funding. However, when combined with their other policies such as removing corporate welfare and a cancellation of Budget 2017 welfare increases, ACT’s total package would reduce net government spending by $2.4 billion over the next three years. That’s $1,407 per household.
 
The Labour Party continues to steadily push the fiscal boundaries, with total new spending over the next three years now at $22.8 billion. $22.8 billion is equivalent to $13,237 per household. This week’s new spending came primarily from bringing forward free tertiary education by one year and increasing the student allowance by $50 per week. These two policies will cost taxpayers $2.4 billion over three years. Although it should be remembered that the zero fees policy will be much more expensive once it comes into full effect in 2024.
 
The Green Party has announced a string of environmental policies, with a particular target on farmers. A new nitrogen tax will raise $392 million over three years, accompanied by a $20 million per year increase in funding for sustainable farming and $5 million a year to establish an organic farming certification scheme. However, the Green Party have also promised to cancel all future unappropriated irrigation subsidies so some of this new spending is offset. We have estimated that cancelling these irrigation subsidies will save $280 million in the next three years.
 
Major announcements this week from National included $62m to crack down on meth, $52m to go towards Predator Free New Zealand, and an extension of paid parental leave to 22 weeks at a cost of $205 million over three years. Labour has similarly proposed to increase paid parental - from 26 weeks instead of 22 - costing an estimated $420 million over the next three years.

Transparency Rating

Transparency week 8 As part of the Bribe-O-Meter, our economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent party has been National. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Māori Party. 

This week we have taken one star off the Green Party because they have failed to release their full alternative budget, as promised. Refer to: http://bit.ly/2eErKvJ 


Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter

Key Findings (as at 5 September):

  • National has promised $7.6 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,422 per household.Transparency rating: 5/5
  • Labour has promised $22.8 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $13,237 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • The Green Party has promised $9.9 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $5,765 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • NZ First has promised $26.0 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $15,062 per household. Transparency rating: 0/5
  • ACT has promised $2.4 billion in savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $1,407 in savings per household. Transparency rating: 3/5
  • The Māori Party has promised $12.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,060 per household. Transparency rating: 1/5
  • The Opportunities Party has promised $10.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $6,199 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5

 

Briefing paper: Robin Hood Reversed

Robin_Hood_Reversed_cover.pngFollowing on from Jacinda Ardern's announcement today of Labour's tertiary education policy offering 'free' university study for up to three years, we have released a briefing paper examining whether "zero fees" university really is what the left say it's cracked up to be.

We find that the implementation of a zero fees policy for tertiary education would reach into the pockets of the disadvantaged, to line the wallets of the future’s wealthy.

Contrary to claims that zero tertiary education fees help the poor, we found that similar policies overseas have led to job shortages in crucial areas, and poorer quality courses.

In Scotland, which introduced zero fees in the early 2000's, students from low socio-economic groups were the first to be shut out. This contradicts the political ideology of those who advocate for it, because the policy hampers social mobility, and actually increases barriers to reducing inequality.

The costs of such a policy are borne by low and middle-income earners, to help tomorrow's rich get a free ride."

Key findings: 

  • Taxpayers already cover 84 percent of the cost of obtaining a tertiary degree
  • The average household currently pays $2,456 in tax per year to fund tertiary education
  • Fully implemented, Labour's proposal would increase that cost by $852.57 per year.
  • Low and middle-income earners will pay more to subsidise tomorrow's rich
  • Likely effects of the policy, based on the experience in Scotland with its zero fees policy, include:
    • more job shortages in crucial skills-based areas
    • lower quality tertiary education
    • less access to education for students from disadvantaged or low socioeconomic backgrounds
    • less social mobility and entrenched income inequality. 

Download the PDF report from here. Hard copies are also available for members of the Taxpayers' Union, on request.

Bribe-O-Meter Update: Labour Attempting to Buy the Big Cities

Big spending packages targeted at New Zealand’s major cities account for the majority of the increases in the latest update of the Bribe-O-Meter. Labour has been the most ambitious with expensive new packages targeted at each of the major cities, with other smaller promises from National and the Green Parties.

More Labour Party lollies

In the last week the Labour Party announced new spending packages targeted at the four largest cities. $300 million for a Christchurch Capital Acceleration Fund, $100 million for transport investment in Christchurch, $30 million for the Auckland Skypath, $22 million for a new rail line between Upper Hutt and Trentham and a renewal of the $100m Urban Cycleways Fund.
 
Labour has also committed to building a new Dunedin Hospital. However, unlike National’s proposal, they will not make use of a Public-Private Partnership. Labour claims their Hospital will cost the same as National’s – approximately $1.4 billion over seven years. The Bribe-O-Meter has taken Labour’s costings as being accurate, although this is questionable given the historic efficiency advantages that public-private partnerships have over Government builds.
 
The total cost of these targeted packages is in excess of one billion dollars over the next three years. Labour’s total new spending in the next term is now $20.4 billion, only behind NZ First at $26 billion. Labour’s spending amounts to $11,828 per household compared to $15,062 by NZ First.

Other party promises

Elsewhere, the Green Party has increased their total new spending promises to $9 billion or $5,215 per household. Their major announcements last week were regional transport policies and new environmental spending funded by a plastic bag levy.

The National Party has increased education spending by $290 million over three years and promised $120 million for a new Christchurch sports stadium. Smaller spending includes $500,00 in funding for Winter Olympians and $150,000 to stimulate demand in geothermal energy.

Transparency Rating

As part of the Bribe-O-Meter, the Taxpayers' Union economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent parties have been National and the Greens. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Maori Party. 

Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter

Key Findings (as at 28 August):

  • National has promised $7.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,159 per household. Transparency rating: 5/5
  • Labour has promised $20.4 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $11,828 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • The Green Party has promised $9.0 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $5,215 per household. Transparency rating: 5/5
  • NZ First has promised $26 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $15,062 per household. Transparency rating: 0/5
  • ACT has promised $5.4 billion in taxpayer savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $3,103 in savings per household. Transparency rating: 3/5
  • The Maori Party has promised $12.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,060 per household. Transparency rating: 1/5
  • The Opportunities Party has promised $10.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $6,199 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5

Bribe-O-Meter Update (Week 6)

National Party Doubles New Spending Promises In Just Seven Days

20170822_bribe_o_meter_static_graphic.png

National spends-up large...

The National Party has more than doubled its new election spending in the space of just one week. Since last Monday, the National Party has increased promised spending from $2.5 to $6.8 billion across the next parliamentary term. $6.8 billion is equivalent to $3,920 per household.

The most expensive new policy Bill English has announced is the proposed roads of national significance. The cost works out at approximately one billion each year over the estimated ten-year timeframe. This was accompanied by $290 million in agreed-in-principle treaty settlements; $285 million in cheaper GP visits for children; and $459 million over three years towards the building of a new hospital in Dunedin.

...so does the Maori Party

The Bribe-O-Meter has also been updated to reflect the Maori Party's manifesto, which was only released last week.

Unfortunately, the encompassing policies have about as much fiscal transparency as NZ First. That is they are nearly impossible to cost.

From just the policies we have been able to estimate, the Maori Party's policies would cost $12.2 billion over the next parliamentary term. This is equivalent to $7,060 per household. Maori Party policies are predominantly a list of giveaways and subsidies, neither of which come cheap. For example, the largest component of the manifesto that we have been able to cost is an estimated $4 billion write-off of student loan living cost debt.

Little Difference with Ardern

There has been some criticism in the political commentariat of the Labour Party not being substantively different in policy under Jacinda Ardern – compared to her predecessor Andrew Little. The Bribe-O-Meter appears to validate this view. Since Ms Ardern has taken over, there has been very little new policy aside from water taxes and a commuter rail service between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga.

Total Labour Party spending is now at $19.4 billion, which is within $1 billion of Andrew Little’s Labour Party.

United Future removed

Peter Dunne’s resignation has led us to remove United Future from the Bribe-O-Meter as without Dunne there is almost zero possibility of United Future returning to Parliament.

Last week we criticised Mr Dunne for trying to buy himself into Parliament with taxpayer money. Taxpayers will be breathing a sigh of relief now that they won’t have to front up for Mr Dunne’s $4.7 billion of pork barrel politics.

Transparency Rating

As part of the Bribe-O-Meter, the Taxpayers' Union economic staff have assessed political party's transparency across policy detail and cost and given each a score out of five (see below). The most transparent parties have been National and the Greens. The least transparent is NZ First, closely followed by the Maori Party. 

Transparency.png

Click here to visit the 2017 election Bribe-O-Meter

Key Findings (as at 22 August):

  • National has promised $6.8 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $3,920 per household. Transparency rating: 5/5
  • Labour has promised $19.4 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $11,242 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5
  • The Green Party has promised $8.5 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,939 per household. Transparency rating: 5/5
  • NZ First has promised $23 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $13,324 per household. Transparency rating: 0/5
  • ACT has promised $5.4 billion in taxpayer savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $3,103 in savings per household. Transparency rating: 3/5
  • The Maori Party has promised $12.2 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $7,060 per household. Transparency rating: 1/5
  • The Opportunities Party has promised $10.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $6,199 per household. Transparency rating: 4/5

2017 Ratepayers' Report published

Unknown-5.png

This morning, in partnership with our sister group, the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance, we published the 2017 "Ratepayers' Report" - our local government interactive league tables. The tool allows ratepayers to see how their local council performs on metrics including average rates, staff numbers, liabilities per resident, and even CEO salary.

Ratepayers' Report is the result of months of work by our local government researcher, Garrick Wright-McNaughton.  We did it so that New Zealanders can easily compare their local council's performance and financial position against similar councils

Every dollar spent by a Council was earned by a hard working ratepayer. This tool allows ratepayers to see how that money is being spent.

Click to here to view the 2017 Ratepayers' Report

For most of New Zealand's territorial authorities, debts continue to increase, even on a per person basis. This is a worrying trend we highlighted back in 2014 when we last published the league tables.

From an Auckland persepctive, the data shows why Auckland ratepayers, in particular, have cause for real concern. Council debt is now $22,189 per ratepayer, more than three times the national average of $6,989. Even with low interest rates, $839 of everyone’s rates is now required just to service the Council’s borrowing.

Ratepayers’ Report also reveals that Auckland Council has the second highest ratio of staff per residential ratepayer – one staff member for every 69 residential properties.

This strongly suggests that Auckland Council is overstaffed. Whilst a high staff to ratepayer ratio can offer more face-to-face interaction, it requires significantly more funding. In comparison, Marlborough District Council employs a one to 97 staff to ratepayer ratio – representing a $200 difference in staff costs per residential ratepayer compared to Auckland.

Not only does Auckland Council have a lot of staff, it also pays them generously. Nearly fifteen percent are paid more than $100,000 per year compared to only nine percent in the general workforce.

Ratepayers' Report is available online and free of charge so all ratepayers can judge for themselves the performance of their local town hall.

Ratepayers' Report facilitates straightforward comparison of average residential rates using a formula first used by Napier City Council which allows for an 'apples to apples' comparison of average residential rates and charges. Only one Council, Kaipara District Council, was unable (or unwilling) to provide the Taxpayers' Union with the necessary information.

Data for the report was compiled by the Taxpayers' Union, and was supplied to all councils for them to review prior to publication.

The previous Ratepayers’ Report was published in 2014. All territorial authorities (excluding Chatham Islands Council) are included.

Ratepayers’ Report is free and available to the public at www.ratepayersreport.nz

Note: All references to rates in the above comments, refer to residential rates.

Notable findings:

  • Auckland Council is New Zealand’s second most indebted local authority, with liabilities per residential ratepayer of $22,189. More than three times the national average, only Waitomo District Council has more debt per residential ratepayer ($24,600). 
  • Auckland Council has the second highest ratio of staff to ratepayers of New Zealand’s unitary authorities, with one member of staff for every 69 ratepayers.
  • Auckland Council pays 15% of its staff a salary of over $100,000 per year. Of all of New Zealand’s city councils, metropolitan councils, and unitary authorities, only Palmerston North pays proportionally more of its staff a salary of over $100,000 (18%). 
  • The highest average residential rates in New Zealand are in Western Bay of Plenty ($3,234 per year).
  • The lowest average residential rates in New Zealand is the Mackenzie District ($1,637 per year).

Mr Taxman (still) not picking up the phone

Tens of thousands of New Zealanders still can't get through to the IRD, according to new figures which show only a slight improvement in the numbers of callers being rejected by IRD due to under-staffing. In the space of a month, almost 170,000 callers have not even made the hold tone, making up 31% of callers who called IRD in the space of a month. The data comes after the Taxpayers' Union revealed last month that 55% of callers to IRD were being rejected over a 3-day period.

"These numbers come off the back of the IRD announcing that it will cut its staff force by about 1500 in the coming years," says Researcher Matthew Rhodes. "How are these cuts justified when there is not even enough staff around to pick up the phone?"

"A significant increase on the number of forecasted calls has meant that IRD have had to ‘cap’ 31% of calls coming in. When IRD say they 'cap' calls, what they actually mean is hanging up on customers before they even make it to the hold music."

"Either there is something wrong with the forecasting procedure, or staffing levels are simply not adequate to meet the demand. What’s equally as concerning is 73% of the calls being rejected are enquiries relating to personal tax – the very people who need the most help when it comes to tax time. Paying tax is bad enough but having to wait hours on the phone only to be hung-up on, is a slap in the face by the taxman."

"These figures also show that it's not just at peak tax time that the phones are going unanswered - the problem is rife."

See IRD's OIA response below: 


Join Us

Joining the Taxpayers' Union costs only $5 and entitles you to attend our annual conference, AGM and other events.

Donate

With your support we can make the Taxpayers' Union a strong voice exposing waste and standing up for Kiwi taxpayers.

Tip Line

Often the best information comes from those inside the public service or local government. We guarantee your anonymity and your privacy.

Spread The Word

Tell your friends, family and colleagues about the Taxpayers' Union and our mission to give taxpayers a voice in the corridors of power.