The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union joins New Zealanders in mourning the death of former Finance Minister Sir William Birch.
Taxpayers’ Union Chair and former Finance Minister Ruth Richardson said:
"Hold a mirror to Bill Birch and you hold a mirror to the transformation of the NZ economy.”
"He came to prominence as an architect of Think Big. Muldoon had the conviction that a government directed economy would work and Bill Birch made it happen. Only two major episodes of radical reform could arrest the inevitable slide of those policies gone horribly wrong."
"At a personal level Bill was a very decent man, loyal to a fault and hard working. He had the yoke of Winston Peters around his neck in the jacked up job of Treasurer but between Bill and Treasury sound policy was kept on track."
"Bill was the ultimate man for all political seasons."
The Taxpayers' Union says there must be accountability after New Zealand's Civil Defence website crashed during last night's Fiordland earthquake and tsunami warning, leaving New Zealanders unable to access critical emergency information when they potentially needed it most.
Taxpayers' Union spokesman, Jordan Williams, said:
"Heads should roll. If Civil Defence can't keep its website online during an emergency, what exactly are taxpayers paying for? Any competent IT provider can stress-test a website to ensure it remains operational when demand surges. A sudden surge in public demand during a natural disaster is exactly what the Civil Defence website exists for."
"National Emergency Management Agency Director John Price should be offering his resignation, not excuses. When the key public communication system fails at the very moment it's put under stress, senior leaders needs to be held accountable. The role of governance is to manage risk - this risk was obvious.
"Public service bosses justify high pay because of high responsibility - but when things go wrong, there never is."
"Systems will improve when Ministers start demanding accountability. New Zealanders need confidence that the next time the ground shakes, the website won't fall over before buildings do."
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union says the Government's announcement taxpayers will be charged up to $1.7 billion on the ferry fleet raises a fundamental question: why are taxpayers borrowing billions to own and operate a commercial ferry service in the first place?
Taxpayers' Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, said:
"Every New Zealand household is being charged $820 for these ferries, with no ticket."
"Norway demonstrates you don't need the taxpayer to own ferry companies to provide world-class ferry services. After years of mismanagement, ballooning costs, and millions wasted on consultants, instead of setting course for Scandinavia the Government is steering New Zealand towards a Soviet Russia."
"The Government says it has kept the project within budget – that's welcome, but it's also the bare minimum. What's not been budgeted for is why are taxpayers paying for this in the first place?"
In response to reports of mounting losses from Callaghan Innovation’s business loan book, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“The Government must simply stop trying to pick winners. These are either loans too risky for private investors or opportunities good enough to attract private money without taxpayer backing.”
“Callaghan should stand as a warning before the Regional Infrastructure Fund repeats the same mistakes. Government corporate lending should be abolished.”
“Government will always have a role in funding basic scientific research, but early-stage commercialisation should be left to venture capitalists, who have greater expertise and a financial incentive to make better investment decisions.”
Responding to emerging proposals for a Wellington “Super City”, the Taxpayers’ Union is calling for any council amalgamation to be put to ratepayers through a binding referendum.
Taxpayers’ Union spokeswoman, Ella Dickson, said:
“These plans are being designed by the very officials who stand to gain bigger bureaucracies and build bigger empires.”
“If local voice is genuinely the priority, as South Wairarapa mayor Dame Fran Wilde says, then hold a referendum. No council should be amalgamated without a clear mandate from its ratepayers.”
“Bigger is not necessarily better. Auckland’s Super City has shown that amalgamation does not automatically mean lower rates or better services, which is why the Ratepayers’ Guide to Amalgamation sets out the rules any merger should have to meet.”
Responding to reports that the Government’s Roads of National Significance programme has been put in the “slow lane” after costing taxpayers $323 million, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union says voters need independent scrutiny of election promises.
Taxpayers’ Union spokeswoman, Ella Dickson, said:
“Spending $323 million before shovels have touched the ground and only for progress to stall, shows exactly why New Zealand needs an Independent Fiscal Institution. Major spending promises need independent scrutiny before taxpayers are committed.”
“The Greens’ $800 million tax-policy typo and Labour’s disagreement with Treasury over its pay-equity costings only reinforce the point: political parties cannot keep marking their own homework.”
“The Government must establish an Independent Fiscal Institution before the election so taxpayers can separate credible promises from political wishful thinking.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Local Government Minister Simon Watts to ensure ratepayers have a seat at the table as the Government considers council mergers.
Taxpayers’ Union spokeswoman, Ella Dickson, said:
“Telling councils to redesign themselves without ratepayer representation is like asking foxes to redesign the henhouse – the process lacks credibility from the outset.”
“Ratepayers foot the bill, yet not one Ratepayers’ Alliance has been asked to contribute to the Government's process. That is extraordinary.”
“Simon Watts needs to make clear whether this Government is working for council insiders or the communities they are meant to serve.”
The Ratepayers’ Guide to Amalgamation is available at: https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/the_ratepayers_guide_to_amalgamation
Responding to Chris Hipkins defending MPs’ retirement perks as anti-corruption measures, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Chris Hipkins seems to think taxpayers need to pay $2.50 for every dollar an MP puts into their retirement fund just to stop politicians becoming corrupt. That is an extraordinary admission."
“If Hipkins thinks MPs need more money, he should argue openly for higher salaries rather than hiding extra remuneration in gold-plated superannuation schemes and tax-free perks."
“David Seymour is right to be open to reform. Chris Hipkins should stop defending a system designed by politicians for politicians and commit to transparent pay, reimbursement of genuine expenses, and an end to the perks.”
Taxpayers can call on party leaders to fix MPs’ entitlements and gold-plated superannuation schemes at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/email_leaders_mp_perks
The organisation behind the failed $29 million MethaneSAT mission should not be allowed to review its own performance, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Ella Dickson, says:
“When $29 million of taxpayer funding is literally lost in space, taxpayers deserve a genuinely independent investigation. The Environmental Defense Fund cannot credibly review its own failure.”
“Reports that serious technical concerns were not communicated before launch raise questions about what officials knew, what due diligence was carried out, and why taxpayers were exposed to such a high-risk project.”
“The Auditor-General, Grant Taylor, must establish what went wrong, whether the risks were properly disclosed, and who is accountable for this loss.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on every political party leader to commit to ending Parliament’s gold-plated superannuation scheme and cleaning up MPs’ taxpayer-funded entitlements, following revelations in the New Zealand Herald that MPs’ generous superannuation arrangements escaped earlier efforts to rein them in.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“MPs have managed to protect a super scheme that gives them $2.50 from taxpayers for every dollar they contribute. That is a deal most New Zealanders could only dream of.”
“Politicians can argue that they are following the rules, but they are also the only people with the power to change them. After years of ducking the issue, party leaders need to tell taxpayers whether they will finally give up the gravy train.”
The Taxpayers’ Union has launched a campaign calling on party leaders to:
- Replace tax-free cash entitlements with reimbursement for genuine out-of-pocket expenses;
- Stop MPs using taxpayer-funded accommodation payments to rent properties from themselves; and
- End Parliament’s gold-plated superannuation scheme.
“Every party leader should commit before the election to fixing these entitlements. MPs should not be insulated from the same restrain everyone else faces.”
Taxpayers can email the party leaders at taxpayers.org.nz/email_leaders_mp_perks
The Taxpayers' Union says Christchurch Council's $200,000 spend on decorative lighting and a mural is a textbook example of why the Government must implement a rates cap now.
Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Tyler Groenewald said:
"Even when the Council had the option of a cheaper project or making savings, it still chose to dip into ratepayers' money and spend. The lights are on, but nobody's home."
"Councils should light dark streets but ratepayers don't need bespoke LED light displays and wave-pattern installations while roads, pipes and other core infrastructure continue to be neglected."
"This is exactly why the Government must Cap Rates Now. Until councils face real spending discipline, ratepayers will keep footing the bill for 'nice-to-haves' while the basics fall behind."
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Health New Zealand paid Russell Harrison to appear in a taxpayer-funded childhood immunisation campaign in 2023 while he remained on taxpayer-funded gardening leave from the Ministry of Justice.
The advertisement has now been removed by Health NZ following questions from the Taxpayers’ Union but is available to watch on our YouTube channel.
Health NZ says Harrison was engaged through a third-party agency, but has refused to say how much taxpayer money was spent, forcing the Taxpayers’ Union to lodge Official Information Act requests.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tyler Groenewald said:
“This story keeps getting worse. While the Ministry of Justice was paying Russell Harrison to sit at home for five years, Health NZ was also paying him with taxpayer money to appear in ads."
“Health NZ has now quietly pulled the ad, but taxpayers still deserve answers. How much was Harrison paid? Who approved it? And what checks were carried out before public money was handed over?"
“The public service cannot just wipe the ad from the internet and hope the questions disappear with it. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not another cover-up.”
Hi,
We have bad news if you fell for claims the Government is shrinking Wellington's bureaucracy; good news on our Cap Rates Now campaign, plus this month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll and Peter Williams sits down with the Deputy PM David Seymour for Taxpayer Talk.
But first – hitting the Jackpot at the Ministry of Justice: half-a-million-dollar garden leave courtesy of the taxpayer...
Winning the Taxpayer-Funded Lotto 🤡🥀
Last week we learned former Lotto presenter Russell Harrison had really hit the jackpot.
Having worked for the Ministry of Justice (a liaison role in the Family Court) for only a couple of weeks, he was suspended and put on full paid leave due to being charged as part of a major international FBI organised crime bust.
He was then left untouched.
For five years.
On full pay.
Until finally pleading guilty to smuggling gold bars to Turkey.
And Justice officials kept it secret... 🤫
Five years of a lavish taxpayer-funded salary is one thing, but, to our astonishment, the Secretary for Justice Andrew Kibblewhite did not think to tell the Minister.
And, thanks to the ratchet clauses in public service contracts, it appears Harrison even got pay rises while on gardening "crim" leave!
Holding 'em to account 🪧
Here at the Taxpayers' Union, we believe in public sector accountability.
So, rather than let the bosses of the Ministry of Justice shirk away and get away with refusing to front to the media, we took the media down to the Ministry of Justice.
With our hastily constructed "Ministry of Justice Winning Wheel", we invited Ministry staff to 'take a spin' as they headed in and out for their lunch break...
While the wheels of justice might turn slowly, not so the Ministry's Winning Wheel...
Making the serious point: no private sector employer would tolerate five years of paid garden leave for an employee who hadn't even worked for a month 🙅♂️
Our Executive Director, Jordan, used the stunt to hammer it home: "There is no justice for taxpayers at the Ministry of Justice!"
The Secretary for Justice (the Ministry's CEO) refused to front. Despite a cushy $649,000 salary, Andrew Kibblewhite left it to a faceless 'spokesperson' to defend the spending.
Their excuse? Innocent until proven guilty...
Of course, that is true for criminal law, but not civil or employment. Once it became clear Russell Harrison couldn't do the job (on a balance of probabilities standard) any reasonable employer would have stopped the pay cheques.
Instead Andrew Kibblewhite ignored the issue - and hid it from Ministers.
Here's how One News covered our stunt as the lead on the 6 o'clock bulletin. 👇
Oh, and here's the even bigger joke: Based on the mid-point of Russell Harrison's salary band we calculated old mate "Russ" was paid more taxpayer money on gardening leave than the value of the literal gold bars he smuggled for the Comancheros!
🎶 There was a reason we picked this song for our stunt... 🎶
EXCLUSIVE: Health New Zealand was also paying Russell Harrison to 'influence' 🤦♂️
In just the last hour, one of our young researchers has exposed that the Ministry of Justice wasn't the only department paying Russell Harrison.
Clearly Russ isn't the type of crim to sit on his hands.
The Taxpayers' Union can reveal that Health NZ has also been funnelling money to Harrison while he was on garden leave charged with smuggling.
As part of a Health NZ promotion campaign, ol' mate Russ was paid to be a community ambassador or 'influencer' to promote childhood immunisation.
It's fair to say Health NZ are being cagey... They're forcing us to use the Official Information Act, rather than have their media team just answer our basic questions. Other than confirm that it is indeed Russell Harrison, we don't know yet the precise payment amounts.
So more to come on this...
37 bureaucrats walk into a lunch programme... 🥪
From one taxpayer-funded absurdity to another.
Imagine outsourcing a job, then hiring a small herd of bureaucrats to travel around New Zealand supervising the people you have already paid to do it.
That is exactly what is happening with the Ministry of Education’s Healthy School Lunches programme.
Now, of course some oversight is needed. No one is suggesting lunch providers should be left to fling sandwiches into the void and hope for the best.
But the Taxpayers' Union has uncovered that the Education Ministry employs 37 full-time staff to oversee the school lunch programme.
Not cook, not to tender contracts, but to "oversee" the third-party lunch providers.
It includes 22 advisors, nine managers, and a healthy serving of taxpayer-funded travel.
Official Information Act documents reveal those staff spent $129,754.90 on travel in just one year.
That includes:
- $10,265.26 for three trips to the Chatham Islands
- $17,676.95 flying the General Manager between Rotorua (where he lives) and Wellington (where he works).
And after all that bureaucracy, the Auditor-General found the Ministry still “did not have sufficiently robust mechanisms to measure, manage, and monitor” the programme’s performance.
Is this the same Government that was paying people to rate restaurants around the country?
We say, too much 'nom nom' on the taxpayer, not enough prudence with our money.
So much for “slashing” the public sector bureaucracy 🐌
And it is not just school lunches where the bureaucracy seems to be doing just fine.
We have heard plenty from the Opposition media about the supposedly brutal public sector job cuts, to the extent you would think Wellington was being hollowed out.
Except the latest Stats NZ figures tell a very different story.
According to the latest filled jobs data, total jobs rose by 7,678 in May, with service industries doing most of the heavy lifting.
And as Politik pointed out last week, Infometrics says the public sector — government, healthcare, and education — is still providing the “backbone of job growth”.
Hold on.
"The public sector driving job growth?"
That will come as a surprise to anyone who believed the Greens’ routine claims that the evil National-led Government has been secretly taking a chainsaw to the bureaucracy.
If only... 🤤
(just kidding)
In fact, job gains are continuing in "public administration, healthcare, and education". Infometrics even noted that gains in public administration may be coming at the expense of private sector professional and administrative services as government agencies bring more work in-house.
In other words, the state is not exactly withering away.
The Government has talked a big game about getting the public service back under control, including reducing the size of the bureaucracy to around one percent of the population.
Good. But these figures are a useful reminder that announcements are not the same as delivery.
Is Labour about to back rates capping? 🤞
Speaking of pressure finally being applied in the right places...
This matters because Labour MP Damien O’Connor has written to Local Government Minister Simon Watts asking him to intervene over Waitaki District Council’s proposed 17 percent rates hike.
Until now, Labour had ruled out supporting rates caps.
But last night, Hipkins left the door open.
Hipkins said Labour had not yet “formed a final view” and suggested the party had not seen the details of the Government’s proposal. When Heather followed up, he repeated that Labour had not made a final call.
That is a big shift.
After years of councils hiking rates two to three times faster than inflation, rates capping is not just “good retail politics”, as Hipkins put it. It is bloody good policy.
Getting Labour over the line to support capping council rates 🙌
I know Jordan emailed you last night, but if you've not already, please add your voice and email Chris Hipkins asking him to get on board and back our campaign to Cap Rates Now.
>>> Email Chris Hipkins <<<
NEW POLL: Labour’s lowest vote share since October 2025 as country direction lifts 📊
And the political pressure is showing up in the numbers too.
In the weeks following the Greens’ proposals for new wealth and inheritance taxes launched with an $800 million mistake, and Labour’s recent contributions to their nearly $9,000-per-household funding gap, both parties have taken a hit this month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll.
While still the largest party, Labour has hit its lowest vote share since October last year. And with voters feeling markedly better about the country’s direction this month (based on the new "right/wrong direction"), the Coalition would still be able to form a Government on these results.
Labour is down 0.7 points to 31.5 percent, while National is up 0.4 points to 30.5 percent. The Greens are down 1.1 points to 10.4 percent, while New Zealand First is down 0.6 points to 10.8 percent.
ACT is down 0.9 points to 6.9 percent, while Te Pāti Māori is up 0.3 points to 3.4 percent.
For the minor parties, TOP is on 3.3 percent (+0.1 points), NZ Outdoors and Freedom is on 0.8 percent (+0.5 points), and New Conservatives are on 0.4 percent (+0.2 points).
Converting these results into seats in Parliament Labour gains 1 seat to 41 compared to last month, while National also gains 1 to 39.
New Zealand First is unchanged on 14, the Greens are down 1 seat to 13, while ACT is down 1 seat to 9. Te Pāti Māori also remains unchanged on 4.
The combined projected seats for the Government parties bloc is unchanged from last month on 62 seats.
The combined seats for the Opposition parties bloc is unchanged on 58 seats.
So on these numbers, the current three parties of Government would be able to form a Government.
A promising sign for the government? Or just optimism for the (short-lived) Iran ceasefire? 🤔
Every month our pollsters ask whether New Zealand is headed in the "right direction" or the "wrong direction". The two results are then netted out (right minus wrong).
Interestingly, the net country direction result in this month's poll is negative 6.3 percent (+12.5 points), the highest figure since November 2025.
39.2 percent (+5.5 points) say the country is heading in the right direction, while 45.5 percent (-7.0 points) say the country is heading in the wrong direction.
You can see the full breakdown over on our website.
Is KiwiSaver reform charging workers twice? Ruth and Simon say 'yes' 💸
The Taxpayers’ Union believes that you are much better with your own money than the Government is.
And while reasonable minds can differ on the merits of National's proposal to make KiwiSaver compulsory, economically the proposal would work like a 12 percent 'payroll tax'.
Therefore, if introduced, there is a strong argument that the Government should compensate workers with an equal sized tax relief package. That would make it more like a tax 'swap' than a painful tax 'take'.
Taxpayers' Union Chair (and former Minister of Finance) Ruth Richardson, opined in the Sunday Star Times (requires sub). The core of the issue?
“New Zealanders do not need saving from themselves. They need saving from a state that refuses to live within its means.”
– Ruth Richardson
We've republished Ruth's piece on our website here.
And former National Party leader Simon Bridges writing in the NZ Herald made similar points this week:
"Twelve per cent might make for a stronger collective future. However, it would also make things much tougher for a heap of Kiwis until they retire – employees as well as for SME owners, a much-neglected collection of businesspeople, who’ve survived – just – a torrid few years, but still aren’t finding it easy. If it’s a choice for them between paying off bills, keeping their businesses going, handling their mortgage repayments, or 12% more into KiwiSaver, I reckon I know what the majority would choose."
– Simon Bridges
The Simon Bridges piece is here (requires sub).
Taxpayer Talk: David Seymour gets stuck in 🎙️
And on that note, this week’s Taxpayer Talk digs into KiwiSaver too.
Peter Williams sat down with ACT Leader and Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour.
They got into everything from regulation and KiwiSaver to Treaty politics, coalition dynamics, and how ACT is tracking in Government - plus whether Seymour thinks the party can grow its vote at the next election.
The Deputy PM also had a few choice words for National’s new KiwiSaver policy, warning that compulsory savings do not magically appear from nowhere. Someone pays, and it is usually workers, mortgage holders, or small business owners.
It is a good, wide-ranging pre-election interview, and well worth a listen.
You can watch Peter’s full interview with David Seymour on Taxpayer Talk here.
Enjoy the long weekend,
 |
|
In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by ACT Leader and Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour for a wide-ranging pre-election interview on coalition tensions, regulatory overreach, free speech, KiwiSaver, Treaty politics, and ACT’s record in Government.
From “political neutrality” rules for regulators and the Ministry of Regulation’s war on red tape, to compulsory savings, bond markets, the Treaty Principles Bill, and whether ACT can grow its vote, Seymour makes the case that his party has delivered — and argues it is the only vote to both lock Labour out and unlock New Zealand’s potential.
The 2026 Rates Dashboard compiles the average rates increase for each of the territorial and unitary councils across New Zealand, allowing ratepayers to compare their council with others. This year’s Rates Dashboard includes a “total cost increase” that takes into account the councils where Local Water Done Well water delivery plans reform come into effect on 1 July 2026.
👇👇👇 See how your council compares 👇👇👇
The Taxpayers’ Union is responding to comments made by Labour Leader Chris Hipkins on Newstalk ZB this evening, where he confirmed the Labour Party is open to supporting the Government’s proposed rates capping legislation.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“For the first time, Labour has backed away from its previous blanket opposition to rates caps. When pressed on Newstalk ZB tonight, Mr Hipkins said Labour ‘hasn’t made a final call’ and suggested he has yet to see the details of the Government’s proposal.”
“That’s a very significant shift. Until now, Labour had ruled out rates caps. Tonight, Chris Hipkins left the door wide open.”
The comments follow Labour MP Damien O’Connor’s plea for Local Government Minister Simon Watts to intervene over Waitaki District Council’s proposed 17 percent rates hike.
“Labour MPs are right to recoil at the eye-watering rates increases councils are imposing. After years of councils treating ratepayers like an unlimited ATM, reality is finally catching up.”
“Chris Hipkins described rates caps as ‘good retail politics’. He’s half right. It’s also good policy.”
“A sensible rates cap would force councils to do what every Kiwi household has to do: live within their means, cut waste, and focus on the core services ratepayers actually expect.”
“National has committed to rates caps, but has delayed implementation. Meanwhile, councils are racing to lock in double-digit increases before any cap arrives.”
“If Labour is prepared to support rates capping, there is no reason Parliament can’t act sooner. Ratepayers shouldn’t have to wait while councils continue to gorge themselves on ever-higher rates.”
“We’re calling on Chris Hipkins to finish the job. Labour has an opportunity to stand with ratepayers instead of council bureaucracies. New Zealanders desperately need relief, and Parliament should deliver it.”
Responding to the Reserve Bank’s decision to raise the Official Cash Rate by 25 basis points to 2.50 percent, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Higher interest rates are what happens when Wellington refuses to stop spending.”
“The Reserve Bank is being forced to lean on mortgage holders and businesses because the Government has not done its bit on inflation.”
“Monetary policy is a blunt tool, especially when inflation is being driven by supply pressures. But every dollar of unnecessary government spending makes the Bank’s job harder and keeps pressure on interest rates.”
“Taxpayers should not be hit twice: first through wasteful spending, and then through higher mortgage and borrowing costs. The Government needs to cut actual spending, not just promise slower increases.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is criticising Labour's $160 million SolarSaver policy, saying taxpayers should not be covering private home improvements.
Taxpayers’ Union Spokesman, James Ross, said:
“Rather than just removing red tape and making sure cheap finance is available for solar, Labour has reverted to the failed politics of taxpayer-funded subsidies.”
“The best way to encourage solar is to get the government out of the way. Labour is asking families who can’t afford solar, or who may not even own a home, to subsidise those who can. New Zealand needs cheaper, more reliable energy, not another subsidy scheme.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Associate Health Minister Casey Costello’s comments that the Government is considering a review of tobacco excise.
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:
“Tobacco tax has become a textbook Laffer Curve problem. The Government has pushed excise so high that it is now losing revenue, while criminals are cashing in.”
“A third of tobacco smoked in New Zealand is now illicit and heavy smoking is at its highest level since 2012. That is not a public health success story.”
“You cannot tax your way out of a black market. The Government needs to cut the price gap feeding illicit trade, toughen up enforcement, and rebuild a sustainable excise regime that protects communities instead of enriching gangs.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for the NZTA bureaucracy to be slashed, before tolling and congestion charging are rolled out nationwide, after Tauranga Councillor Steve Morris claimed that 80 cents of each $1.10 toll charge on the Pāpāmoa East Interchange would cover administration costs.
Taxpayers’ Union Communications Officer, Ella Dickson, says:
“Reasonable tolling makes sense – road users who benefit should pay for new infrastructure. However, the numbers on the Pāpāmoa East Interchange toll show that’s not what Pāpāmoa residents can expect.”
“Most of the 3,400 submitters opposed this toll. Is it any wonder when three quarters of every dollar collected goes straight to bureaucracy, with local businesses and drivers left to pick up the tab?”
“With tolling and congestion charging being rolled out nationwide, the Government needs to get on top of the administrations costs first. Tolling can’t just become a job creation scheme for NZTA pencil-pushers.”
Responding to reports that Waitaki District Council is investigating options such as reduced penalties and charity for ratepayers struggling with the council’s 16.9 percent rates rise, Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Josh Van Veen, said:
“Waitaki ratepayers will be feeling insulted by this token gesture.”
“Despite overwhelming opposition from the community, the Council pushed ahead with a massive rates increase. Now, having acknowledged that some households can’t afford to pay, Council is giving false hope to struggling ratepayers with talk of ‘relief’.”
“A council of Waitaki’s size should not be costing $1,604.18 per household in staffing costs. The only real relief would be for Waitaki District Council to cut its bloated payroll, go back through the budget line by line, and pass the savings back to ratepayers.”
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says the latest revelations about the Ministry of Justice are a damning indictment of public sector accountability.
“The question isn’t where Russell Harrison is. The question is: where is Secretary for Justice Andrew Kibblewhite?”
“This happened on his watch. Yet instead of fronting, Kibblewhite has gone to ground while Ministers are left cleaning up the mess. New Zealanders deserve to hear from the person actually responsible.”
“If Andrew Kibblewhite knew a staff member was collecting a taxpayer-funded salary for five years while effectively on garden leave, but failed to tell his Minister, his position is simply untenable.”
“The Ministry’s excuse that nothing could be done until Harrison was convicted is nonsense on stilts. Employment law doesn’t require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Employers make decisions based on trust, conduct and suitability every day.”
“Based on the allegations, the charges, and the company Harrison was allegedly keeping, it was obvious he was no longer suitable to work for the Ministry of Justice. Instead of showing him the door, officials parked him on the taxpayer payroll and kept it quiet.”
“This is now a real test for Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche. He has made restoring accountability across the public service a cornerstone of his leadership. Well, here’s his big test. If those words are to mean anything, there must be real consequences for the officials responsible.”
The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that the Ministry of Education run Healthy School Lunches programme has 37 full-time Ministry staff, despite lunch delivery being largely outsourced to external providers.
Documents released under the Official Information Act show an assortment of bureaucrats spent more than $129,754.90 on staff travel in one year, including $10,265.26 on three trips to the Chatham Islands and $17,676.95 on travel for the General Manager between Rotorua and Wellington.
Taxpayers' Union spokesman Austin Ellingham-Banks said:
"The Ministry outsourced the lunches but kept the bureaucracy."
"A private consortium makes and delivers the food, but we've revealed that 37 staff, including 22 advisors, 9 managers, and six figures in travel sit on top of it."
"For all that overhead, the Auditor-General found the Ministry 'did not have sufficiently robust mechanisms to measure, manage, and monitor' the programme. What on earth are they all doing?"
Dear Supporter,
If you're a ratepayer, brace yourself: the 2026 edition of our popular 'rates dashboard' is out now, and it makes for sorry reading.
TL:DR: colour me surprised, but for those now facing new water bills from today, the councils haven't cut their rates to reflect the new water invoices and services no longer provided by the council... 🤦♂️
And we're not talking small amounts. In fact, based on what information is publicly available, we estimate that some Council ratepayers will face average increases in rates/water costs up to 30 percent!
Ouch.
Plus, we unpack the new election policies from Labour and ACT released over the weekend.
2026 Rates Dashboard: how does your rate hike compare? 📊
Our team have been combing through the consultation material and annual plans published by councils to create this year's National Rates Dashboard: so you can see how your council's rates hike compares to everywhere else.
This year proved more difficult than usual. That's because some councils have shifted their water services to over the new water delivery entities under Simon Watts' "Local Water Done Well" policy (which came into effect today).
The Dashboard shows the average proposed rates increase for 2026/27 is 6.9 percent — more than twice the current inflation rate of 3.1 percent.
But don't be fooled by the headline rates rise. Once new water charges are included, ratepayers are facing an even bigger bill.
Across the fourteen councils that have made the transition to new water delivery arrangements today, the average headline rates increase is 6.09 percent. But once water charges are included, we estimate the average total cost increase jumps to 9.72 percent.
You read that right: for councils that have moved to the new water delivery model, the real cost increase is nearly 10 percent, almost 60 percent higher than the headline rates figure councils are advertising.
Councils trying to be sneaky again... 🤫
Some councils are advertising low rates increases but leaving out that their residents are about to be smashed with enormous overall cost increases (in the form of brand new water bills).
Take the Kaikoura District. The Council is bragging of a rates increase of "just" 3.8 percent. But, once those new water entity invoices hit the mailbox, the real cost increase that is almost two-thirds higher.
What went wrong, Mr Watts? 😕
Here at the Taxpayers' Union, we hate to say "we told you so", but here we are.
We specifically warned the Government (both the Minister and departmental officials at separate meetings) last year that unless they forced councils to quantify the costs of the water service departments they were closing and hand the savings back to ratepayers, councils would just grow to fill the space.
They didn't listen. And as the dashboard shows, ratepayers will now pay the price.
It's the oldest trick in the [local government] book: take part of the cost off the rates bill, put it on a separate invoice, and hope no one notices the total has gone up.
For the fourteen councils that have adopted the new water delivery model, the bait-and-switch is clear.
Whether a charge appears on a rates bill or a separate water invoice, residents still have to pay it.
Had Simon Watts not dragged the chain on rates capping, councils have been able to shift water out of the council, but keep the associated rates income and effectively see their ratepayers pay twice for water.
See how your council compares (and the rates hike you're in for) here:
>>> RatesDashboard.nz <<<
ACT Party unveils plan for radically simpler, more accountable government ✂️✂️✂️
Long time readers of Taxpayer Update will know about our crusade against the spaghetti junction of government departments, ministries, and ministerial responsibilities.
New Zealand's Cabinet currently has 82 portfolios, 28 ministers, in charge of 41 departments – as illustrated below – it’s no wonder no one’s accountable.
Click here for larger version.
Take the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), as an example. It plays off against answers to twenty different ministers!
So no one is clearly in charge, and it shows.
Grasping the mantle of our complaints last year (see Taxpayers' Union: End the Ministerial Maze: Time to Cut Cabinet Down to Size) and the excellent work done by our friends at the NZ Initiative think tank, ACT has proposed to bring New Zealand into line with other countries of our size and cut Cabinet down to just eighteen.
David Seymour released a detailed plan including:
- Consolidating New Zealand's 43 departments into 19.
- Reducing 78 overlapping portfolios with 28 ministers into just 18 ministers.
- Having each department report to one minister for its budget and outcomes.
ACT say it would look something like this:
Click here for larger version.
But Seymour wants to go even further to increase accountability from ministries. He proposes to change the law to allow ministers to appoint their chief executives (for a fixed term) and give them the power to remove public sector bosses for non-performance or policy misalignment.
Right now, ministers don't even select the bureaucrats who run their departments - nor can they sack them. That's all done by the Public Service Commissioner.
Now, reasonable minds can differ on whether the public service heads should be political appointments. But, even putting the last proposal aside, we think ACT's policy would benefit taxpayers.
When a ministry answers to multiple ministers, no one is in charge. That means delays, excuses, and wasted money.
Fewer ministers = more accountability 🥊
The current structure has led to confusion, obfuscation, and waste. Having one minister each responsible for their own ministry would make a lot of sense to most Kiwis.
Democracy is broken when the average voter can't work out who is in charge of what. Whether your preference is smaller government, bigger government, or in between, most would agree New Zealand needs smarter and more accountable government.
Fewer ministers in charge of fewer ministries makes that more likely.
You can read the policy paper here, or watch David Seymour's speech/announcement (via RNZ) here.
Labour doesn't know what a GP is (free or otherwise)! 😂
Poor old Chris Hipkins. First he struggled to tell what a woman is, and now he's struggling tell the difference between a doctor and a nurse!
It turns out, Labour's three "free" (taxpayer-funded) GP visits aren't what they seem.
Last week, things got a little awkward when journalists asked Chris Hipkins a rather obvious question about the policy: would nurse practitioners stand in for doctors given there's already a shortage?
He didn’t know the answer. Apparently nobody in Labour does! Labour’s Health spokesperson Ayesha Verrall also couldn't say.
Watch Chris Hipkins try to explain why a nurse visit is the same as a GP visit...
All Greens in a sea of red? The $800m “typö” 😳
Goodness knows the Taxpayers' Union makes plenty of typos. As much as we try to spot them, those bloody ‘hellp’ (hello), ‘teh’ (the), ‘seperate’ (separate) sneak their way in. I'm still given stick for once having ‘pubic’ in stead of ‘public’ in an email subject line sent to my closest 200,000 taxpayer friends. 🤦♂️
But the Greens have really stepped it up...
Last week, Chlöe Swarbrick redefined what it means to have a typo, after saying a mistake of $800 million in their policy announcement was just that. A “typo”.
But it wasn't just a typo. The numbers were right, but the cost of their policy was added onto the revenue side of the equations setting out the costs of their laundry list of new taxes.
Swarbrick tried to downplay the error, saying the $800m blunder is "of no material impact" to the policy.
Try looking Kiwi households in the eye and telling them that $360 each means nothing...
It's not a typo, nor should it be dismissed. The Greens released a policy having not had anyone properly run their eyes over the arithmetic. Poor form, guys.
How can voters have accurate costings, when the parties can't even get it right? 🤔
This isn't the first multi-million mistake in election policy costings. And whilst your humble Taxpayers' Union and efforts like our pre-election 'Bribe-O-Meter' assist things, there's got to be a better way to ensure accuracy.
Since 2014, we've been calling for the establishment of an independent body to provide parties and the public non-partisan costings on their policies.
We repeated the call as recently as National's claim that Labour has a $18.2 billion gap between promised spending and revenue measures. How can the average punter (let alone a journalist) verify the contradictory claims between the parties about what adds up?
We’ve seen versions of an Independent Office of Budget Responsibility work in both the UK and Australia, so why doesn't New Zealand get on board?
When Ruth Richardson and Helen Clark both agree New Zealand would benefit from an Independent Budget Office, maybe it's an idea whose time has come?
Writing for the NZ Herald, Katie Bradford took a deep dive into how the Australian version of what we propose works there. It's definitely worth a read: Could an Australian-style Budget watchdog fix NZ's fiscal fights?
Click here to read over on NZHerald.co.nz
Are National caving-in on local government's calls for new taxes? 😡
Ratepayer-funded sock-puppet lobby group "Local Government New Zealand" are at it again.
This time, they're using ratepayer money to promote a campaign by some mayors (most notably, Auckland's Wayne Brown) to literally tax Kiwis for going on holiday!
Mayors across the country are promoting a new tax travellers wrapped up as a “bed tax” on accommodation.
And the Government appears to be considering it, at the very least for Auckland.
No new taxes: Hands OFF our holidays! 🏕️
Taxing international visitors is one thing, but the vast majority of a bed tax would be paid by Kiwis going on holidays or needing to stay in short term accomodation - say if you're visiting a sick relative and need to stay at an Airbnb, campsite, or book a bach (all of whom already pay rates).
No, no, no. After GST, fuel taxes, road user charges, council rates, and income taxes; that’s plenty enough.
New taxes have the nasty habit of growing once introduced – and do you really trust councils not to price gouge once they have a new taxing power?
This “alliance” of mayors have claimed the tax would help provide needed extra revenue from visitors. But until rates are capped and locals are ruled out, we disagree.
Radical idea: how about councils learn to live within the revenue they already collect? 😤
Does New Zealand hate success? 🚀
The social media comments ran hot this week after we ran a piece by Taxpayers' Union hero supporter, Nick Stewart, arguing the the entrepreneur who creates a successful business doesn't make the pie smaller, but bigger!
Creating a business = more jobs = more investment = more innovation = more opportunity. In this economy (and every economy) that should be celebrated.
Nick opines:
I want to make the unfashionable case. Not for Musk the man, he hardly needs my help, but for what the exception represents: the rare individual who turns the stuff of science fiction into things we use every day without a second thought, the smartphone in your pocket, the satellite that carries your call, the online payment that clears in seconds, the electric car at the lights, the cloud software that runs the small business down the road. Continue reading...
And while many politicians would have you believe that wealth creation depends on taking from the poor, it's refreshing to see the media occasionally run the other perspective.
Because the "success is suspicious" mindset underpins too many of the tax proposals we're seeing overseas and in in many cases the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Labour.
But to improve New Zealand's productivity, growth, and living standards we need innovators who are willing to take risks, build, spend, and invest.
Nick makes the case well and it's worth the read via the NZ Herald website here (requires sub), or via the Stewart Group's website here).
Oh, and if you dare do jump into the comments...
That's all for today, thanks for your support.
 |
|
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is slamming the Government's decision to spend $6.3 million of taxpayers' money bringing the Michelin Guide to New Zealand, resulting in the award of 16 Michelin stars.
Taxpayers' Union Spokesperson Tyler Groenewald said:
"Subsidising wining and dining in restaurants that most Kiwis could never afford in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis is disgustingly out of touch."
"New Zealand has no shortage of world-class restaurants. If the Michelin Guide sees commercial value in operating here, it should fund its own expansion - not expect taxpayers to pick up the tab."
"Ministers claim this is about tourism, but taxpayers deserve far stronger evidence before being forced to bankroll what amounts to a luxury dining marketing campaign."
"At $393,750 per star, this is an extraordinary amount of money to spend on restaurant ratings when the Government is supposedly focused on getting spending under control."
"The Government should be concentrating on core public services and reducing wasteful spending, not underwriting prestige projects for wealthy diners and overseas guidebooks."
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling for the Governor-General and Government House to be brought under the Official Information Act, following King Charles’ decision to disclose his personal tax bill.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Austin Ellingham-Banks said:
“Buckingham Palace says the King’s unprecedented tax disclosure reflects its ‘commitment to transparency’ as royal finances come under growing public scrutiny. Government House should follow that lead.”
“The Governor-General is the King’s representative in New Zealand. Taxpayers fund the office, the staff, the residences, the travel, the $458,600 salary, the $41,745 allowance, and $23,082.11 in Heathrow VIP charges.”
“But unlike almost every other taxpayer-funded office in the country, Government House still sits outside the Official Information Act. New Zealanders are required to pay for the vice-regal operation, but not allowed to ask where the money is going.”
“If Buckingham Palace can commit to transparency, Government House can too.”
EXPOSED: 2026 Rates Dashboard reveals water reform 9.0% rates sting
The Taxpayers’ Union has launched the 2026 edition of its national Rates Dashboard at RatesDashboard.nz
The Dashboard shows the while average proposed rates increase for 2026/27 is 6.9 percent — more than twice the current inflation rate of 3.1 percent – once new water charges are included, it's the equivalent to 9.0 percent — nearly three times inflation.
The discrepancy is due to ratepayers in fourteen council districts facing new water charges under the Government's Local Water Done Well policy.
Across the fourteen councils transitioning to new water delivery arrangements from 1 July, the average headline rates increase is 6.14 percent. But once water charges are included, the average total cost increase jumps to 15.88 percent.
This year’s Rates Dashboard includes a new “total cost increase” measure, which accounts for councils shifting water costs out of traditional rates bills and into separate charges under Local Water Done Well.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said:
“Some councils are asking ratepayers to look at the headline rates increase and ignore the water bill arriving through the side door.
“This is the oldest trick in the book: take part of the cost off the rates bill, put it on a separate invoice, and hope no one notices the total has gone up.
“The national picture is bad enough. Rates are proposed to rise by 6.9 percent when inflation is just 3.1 percent. But once the first wave of Local Water Done Well councils is included, the average total cost increase facing ratepayers nationwide rises to 9.0 percent — nearly three times inflation.
“For the fourteen councils affected by water changes this year, the bait-and-switch is even clearer. The average headline rates increase is 6.14 percent, but the real cost increase once water is included is 15.88 percent.
“Whether a charge appears on a rates bill or a separate water invoice, residents still have to pay it. Calling it something else does not make it cheaper.”
"The Government needs to take some of the blame here. Because Simon Watts has dragged the chain on rates capping, some councils have been able to shift water out of the council, but keep the associated rates income and effectively see their districts pay twice for water. As we've said all along, councils should be forced to reduce their rates at the same time the water services are shifted over to the new water entities."
The Dashboard shows some of the largest estimated total cost increases are in:
- Hutt City Council: 59.79%
- Upper Hutt City Council: 32.33%
- Kaikōura District Council: 26.01%
- Selwyn District Council: 21.15%
- Clutha District Council: 20.54%
- Waitomo District Council: 18.26%
- Waitaki District Council: 17.00%
Mr Williams said the real concern is the lack of transparency.
“Estimates calculated from publicly disclosed data on last year’s water costs and councils’ self-reported average bills are a start, but it shouldn’t take an accountant to work out what councils are lining up for residents."
“Local Water Done Well cannot become a convenient way for councils to disguise the real cost burden facing households and businesses."
“When the average headline rates increase is already more than twice inflation, and the total cost facing ratepayers is nearly three times inflation, ratepayers cannot afford to wait years for the Government to cap rates."
“Ratepayers deserve to know the full cost of their council — not just the tidied-up version buried in consultation documents.”
The 2026 New Zealand Rates Dashboard is available at RatesDashboard.nz, including an explanation of the methodology.
The Taxpayers’ Union says the proposal announced today by ACT’s David Seymour to cull the number of Ministers along with the number of government departments, would almost certainly increase political accountability to taxpayers.
Responding to David Seymour’s speech in Auckland, Taxpayers' Union spokesman, Jordan Williams, said:
“Fewer Ministers mean more accountability. The spaghetti junction of government departments and agencies has led to confusion, obfuscation, and waste.”
“Having one Minister each responsible for their own ministry - as ACT’s policy proposes - would make a lot of sense to most Kiwis.”
“Democracy is broken when the average voter can't work out who is in charge of what. Whether your preference is smaller government, bigger government, or in between, most would agree New Zealand needs smarter and more accountable government. Fewer Ministers in-charge of fewer ministries makes that more likely.”
The Taxpayers' Union is welcoming today's announcement - in particular - getting regulatory taxes out of the way of both solar and micro hydro.
Taxpayers' Union Spokesman, Jordan Williams, said:
"We've long argued against green energy subsidies and in favour of clearing the path of regulatory impediments to solar."
"On a per capita basis, New Zealand's domestic solar penetration is the lowest of the OECD club of countries. It says a lot that even many sector participants have been telling the Government and local councils to get out of the way, rather than market distorting corporate welfare."
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is once again calling on the Government to rule out any bed tax that would apply to domestic travellers.
Taxpayers’ Union Communications Officer, Ella Dickson, said:
“Until rates are capped, councils are already taxing and spending more and more each year. The last thing they need is yet another cash grab.”
“An ‘alliance of mayors’ may want a bed tax, but taxpayers don’t. The least Kiwis deserve is an untaxed holiday in their own country.”
“National promised us ‘no new taxes’. They need to deliver on that promise and put the ‘bed tax’ idea to bed.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union says the Green Party’s admission that its tax package contained an $800 million “typo” raises serious questions about the credibility of a plan that would cost taxpayers $10,000 per household.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:
“The Greens expect New Zealanders to trust them with billions of dollars in new taxes, but they can’t even get the numbers right.”
“The Party say the $800m blunder is ‘of no material impact’ to the policy. Try looking Kiwi households in the eye and telling them that $360 each means nothing.”
“The repeated costing mistakes we’ve seen this election show why New Zealand needs an independent policy costings unit. Billions of dollars in taxes and spending should be independently verified before voters are asked to decide on New Zealand’s future.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Green Party to front up on whether its tech tax proposals are a breach of New Zealand’s treaty on double-taxation with the US.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:
“Earlier this month, Chlöe Swarbrick said New Zealand needs to be responsible and uphold its international treaties or our trading relationships will be at risk. That was about the Paris Agreement, but does it only apply to treaties her party likes?”
“Despite the Greens’ claims, their ‘tech tax’ isn’t just better enforcement. Inland Revenue already has all the powers it needs to crack down on tech firms avoiding tax, IRD's expert analysts haven't just blanket reclassified offshore sales and service fees as royalties for a reason.”
“The Greens’ proposals can work one of two ways. Either IRD can review each tech firm’s business arrangements individually, as they do now. Only those which are actually dodging tax will see any tax changes, and the policy will be a damp squib with marginal revenue.”
“Or the Greens could legislate to rewrite how tech companies are taxed. Unilaterally deciding to tax sales booked offshore as if they were royalties - like the Greens are planning for Netflix and credit card companies - would likely breach our double tax agreement with the US.”
“The US is our second-largest market, with 12 percent of New Zealand’s domestic goods exports heading to America last year. If Swarbrick wants to try to sneak a digital services tax through the backdoor and start a trade war, the least she could do is let Kiwis know.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is challenging Chris Hipkins to explain how Labour would pay for its spending promises after ruling out the Green Party’s wealth and inheritance taxes.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Chris Hipkins is right to supposedly rule out the Green Party’s wealth and death taxes, but taxpayers deserve to know how Labour plans to fill the gaping hole in its economic plan."
“Labour has announced around $18 billion in new spending without explaining how it will be funded. Its capital gains tax falls well short, and our analysis shows Labour’s policies leave a gap of roughly $8,000 per household."
“The reality is Labour’s numbers only stack up if someone else does the dirty work. Hipkins can paint the Greens as the bad guys now, but any Labour-Green Government will still need the revenue from these taxes when Labour’s own budget inevitably falls short."
“Hipkins wants voters to suspend disbelief and accept that a capital gains tax, plus more spending, will somehow make debt disappear. That is economics from the school of fantasy."
“Chris Hipkins must be honest with voters. If Labour won’t adopt the Greens’ wealth and death taxes, who else is he planning to tax instead? New Zealanders deserve honesty about who he wants to pay for his promises.”
Dear Supporer,
It might be a Sunday, but your humble Taxpayers' Union has been in the office today and hard at work... 💁♂️
A lot to pack in this week: some promising signs on the local government information front, yet more interesting maths from Labour (just how many times can Hipkins spend the same money all over again? 🤔).
Shane Jones is at it again with the taxpayer expense card (stretch limos and all 🤦♂️), some good news for Wellington ratepayers (not a sentence you see often), and our two cents on the Immigration/MBIE scandal where officials misled Ministers to cover up their own IT cost blowout. 🤫
And, finally, we wrap up Fieldays with this year's politician 'vox pops' – while Labour managed to get away (by not turning up) even the PM couldn't resist but have a yarn to the Taxpayers' Union! 💁♂️
But first, the Nats and the Greens have today announced major election policies.
Let's dive in.
Nats propose compulsory KiwiSaver from birth, hikes to contributions, and more 💰
In a speech to National Party faithful today, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has picked up NZ First's policy of making KiwiSaver compulsory.
Luxon announced that if National is re-elected they will:
-
Make KiwiSaver compulsory for everyone in work from 2028
-
Automatically enrol every baby born in New Zealand into KiwiSaver at birth and contribute a $1,500 "Baby Boost" payment.
-
Provide mums and dads on paid parental leave with a government contribution to their KiwiSaver, even if a parent isn’t contributing themselves.
-
Require employers to continue KiwiSaver contributions for employees over 65.
Strangely, there is nothing on the National Party's website (even the speech is missing) which is a pain, because we always like to provide our supporters with the raw information, so you don't have to rely on the media's (nor our) filter.
So we've uploaded Mr Luxon's speech notes here; the media release here; and the National Party's more detailed Policy Document/costings (which was also emailed to the media) here.
Our two cents on compulsory KiwiSaver 🏦
Reasonable minds can differ on making KiwiSaver compulsory.
On the one hand, encouraging people to save for their own retirement is a good thing. More self-reliance, bigger nest eggs, and less dependence on the taxpayer-funded pension system.
On the other hand, compulsion is a very big step – and one that should make anyone who believes in personal choice and limited government pause.
The problem is that once KiwiSaver becomes compulsory, it stops being a voluntary savings scheme in any meaningful sense. It becomes, in effect, a payroll tax – albeit a hypothecated one where the money is accounted for in your own name.
And make no mistake: there is no free lunch when politicians talk about “employer contributions”.
National is already increasing the default employer contribution from 3 percent to 3.5 percent, with a path to 6 percent over the next few years. That money has to come from somewhere: it means higher costs for employers and, over time, lower wage growth than workers would otherwise have seen (at a time when the economy and wages are hardly roaring ahead).
Compulsory KiwiSaver means less take-home pay. That might be a worthwhile trade-off for some, but for mortgage holders, who will have less money available for repayments, it's a false economy. For some, the family home or lifestyle block is their nest-egg. Paying more in debt interest, because money must be deducted for KiwiSaver, doesn't actually increase overall savings for retirement.
And, unlike the lavish superannuation scheme MPs have set up for themselves, us mere mortals can't do a Chris Hipkins and use superannuation to pay the mortgage on a holiday home (that isn't allowed under KiwiSaver - it can only be withdrawn for a deposit on a first home).
Removing the ability for Kiwis to opt out, except in very limited circumstances, also changes the nature of KiwiSaver.
At the moment, people can vote with their feet. If they don’t like the scheme, don’t trust the settings, or simply need the money now, they have choices. Once those choices are removed, a pressure valve disappears.
The longer-term risk is not just today’s policy, but tomorrow’s politicians.
Once every worker is forced into KiwiSaver, and once balances become even larger, it is not hard to imagine future ministers eyeing up those funds for their own pet projects. A future Government determined to push investment into fashionable “green” industries, or away from sectors it deems politically unpopular, could start inventing quotas, carve-outs, and rules about where KiwiSaver money should go. That is much harder to do while people can opt out. Without that discipline, the temptation for Chlöe political meddling only grows.
But politics is the art of the possible. Compulsion may be a bad principle, but taxpayers are currently compelled to fund the very expensive alternative: universal superannuation.
If the policy results in increased national savings and means more New Zealanders arrive at retirement able to fend for themselves, that is good for taxpayers — and good for those of us who believe in self-reliance.
More than a little irony 😂
I understand there are just a few readers of Taxpayer Updates who are in their golden years...
They will appreciate the irony of the Party that spent the 1970s and 80s campaigning against compulsory superannuation – most famously with the 1975 “Dancing Cossacks” ad – announcing the modern version as its key election policy...
And then there's the timing. Having spent the morning warning voters about New Zealand First - and the risk that they might go with Labour - the National Party leader then stood up and announced (as his own) a policy NZ First announced barely a month ago!
An ACT supporter commented to me this afternoon that it is usually Labour who get warm feelings about government handouts 'from the cradle to the grave' but now it's the Nats proposing to literally turn on financial support for all newborn babies...
Maybe that's a bit harsh. After 50 years, it's certainly worth debating again.
Do you support making KiwiSaver compulsory?
As I said at the top, reasonable minds can differ on the merits of making KiwiSaver compulsory.
I can tell you that the policy wonks on staff are split on this one, which is why I've turned down media requests for comment on the policy this afternoon.
We'd love two seconds of your time to vote in our survey/straw poll of supporters on the issue.
>>> Vote in the straw poll here 🗳️ <<<
There's no right or wrong answer. We'd love to know the views of our supporters. Vote in the survey or hit reply and email me back!
Greens promise massive tax grab with new (leaked) tax policy 😱
The other big news today is the Greens' new $22.6 billion tax grab plan: a wealth tax, hiking corporate taxes; and something the Greens are calling a Capital Acquisitions Tax on gifts and inheritance (i.e. a "death tax").
Unlike the Nats, the Greens have put everything onto their website (alas, it even leaked because it was up too early!)
The Greens' proposals amount to a $10,141 per household tax grab in the first four years alone.
And that's the net amount. They are talking up a 'tax free threshold' but it barely compensates a third of the overall tax hikes contained in the plan.
The Greens call this a plan for fairness. At $10,141 per household, New Zealanders might have a different word for it!
To put it simply, the package just isn't thought through. For example, despite European examples where wealth taxes have failed - due largely to the high-net-worth individuals (and their businesses) uprooting - the Greens haven’t even bothered to model behavioural changes into their costings.
We know though that if such policies were implemented, many of the very people New Zealand needs to grow the pie, and raise New Zealand's growth, wages, and economic prosperity, will leave.
There's a lot to unpack (a tax-free threshold idea, for example, is one of those policies that sounds really good initially, but falls over once the experts dig into it). We'll get into the detail over the next few days.
You can read James' immediate comments provided to the media on our website here.
With Labour promising policies it cannot afford, taxpayers can't afford to write off any Green policy as unrealistic when it's very clear Chris Hipkins will need them (not just the Greens, but the extra money!) post-election.
UPDATE: Councillors' rights to information and Watts' legal screw-up 🥸
The Bill is supposed to be about (among other things) increasing the rights local councillors have to demand information from officials. But Watts's officials have screwed it up, and we sent him independent legal advice outlining why his Bill would achieve the exact opposite!
We sent Watts the legal advice more than a month ago - along with our request for Mr Watts to be interviewed on our Podcast Taxpayer Talk. We understand Mr Watts meets with LGNZ representatives every week, so the least he can do is front to the representatives of ratepayers once in a while.
While it's still crickets from Watts and his office, it seems Maurice Williamson has had better luck speaking to some other Ministers.
Another policy victory coming soon? 🤞
Maternity scans with what money? Labour’s CGT pot is already empty 👶💸
Labour has found yet another thing its so-called "limited" capital gains tax is supposed to pay for.
This week, Chris Hipkins promised to fund maternity scans through Labour’s CGT.
But there is one small problem: the money has already been spent!
Labour already promised the same CGT revenue would pay for three "free", sorry taxpayer-funded, GP visits a year. Now it is apparently paying for maternity scans too.
That means it wouldn't even cover Labour’s GP visits promise, let alone another $28.6 million a year for maternity scans.
So where is the money coming from, Chippie?
There are only three real options: rampant inflation, spiralling house prices, or Labour expanding the tax onto things it currently says are safe - like the family home, shares, or KiwiSaver.
And that is the real risk.
Once the machinery for a capital gains tax exists, future governments will widen it with the stroke of a pen – as is happening in Australia.
What starts as a tax on “someone else” has a nasty habit of creeping closer to "everyone else".
👉 We say Labour’s capital gains tax fails the fairness test. Read why here.
MBIE’s $33 million tech failure - where are the consequences? 🖥️🔥
Before politicians come asking taxpayers for more money, perhaps they could explain what happened to the money they already had?
Not a little bit less than promised.
Literally nothing.
Worse, officials were reportedly caught withholding information from Ministers, deliberately avoiding Cabinet scrutiny, and continuing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a project that was already doomed.
All up, taxpayers were left with a $33 million mess - and no biometrics upgrade to show for it.
This isn’t your usual run-of-the-mill waste; this was a direct attack on democratic accountability.
Most concerningly, officials who expressed concern (i.e. tried to blow the whistle) were quietly moved sideways by MBIE managers.
Disgraceful stuff.
Awards for failure? 🏅
New Zealanders elect Ministers to make decisions. Bureaucrats are employed to implement them. When officials decide they know better than elected representatives and actively dodge scrutiny, something has gone seriously wrong.
If someone in the private sector oversaw the misleading of their bosses and wasted $33 million, they would not be quietly shuffled sideways.
And they certainly would not be given an award!
But that's exactly what happened here.
Despite Ministers having known about the misconduct within MBIE for months, the department's boss at the time, Carolyn Tremain (pictured), was awarded a Companion of the King's Service Order (KSO) for her [checks notes] "services to the public service".
Only in Wellington could a scandal and attempted cover-up end with a gong for the boss!
If no one is held accountable for misleading Ministers and burning through millions, then the lesson to Wellington is simple: carry on, no consequences.
Enter "Mr Fix-it"? 👀
The Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche told media that it will be ‘quite the task’ to rebuild confidence and trust after MBIE officials misled Ministers.
No kidding!
We've never met Sir Brian. Unlike the Ombudsman and Auditor General (who have good working relationships with your humble Taxpayers' Union), Sir Brian has always told us that he's much too busy to meet with taxpayer advocates.
We read often in the media that Sir Brian is a "Mr Fix-it". But it's not at all clear what, to date, Sir Brian has actually, well, fixed.
You see, Sir Brian has developed a reputation among Wellington's "lanyard class" of public sector bosses (and politicians) as making issues go away – at least in terms of getting tricky political matters off the front pages.
But that is different from the more difficult task of 'fixing' or reform.
We hear from well-placed sources in Wellington that despite huffing and puffing in the media that there is likely to be dismissals those in leadership positions within MBIE have been told that the investigation is likely to take many months (perhaps even a year) and by then anyone who has not already been moved on will have the chance for a quiet exit.
In public sector land, "dismissals" doesn't mean getting the sack. It means getting shifted sideways...
So if the Kings Birthday gong for Ms Tremain is anything to go by, don't hold your breath in terms of accountability.
Hopefully we are wrong, and Sir Brian delivers both accountability and public sector reform, delivering an accountable, efficient, and transparent public service.
Time will tell...
Shane Jones’ $63k travel bill and stretch limos ✈️🥂
That included a private limousine on standby 24 hours a day over multiple days and $1,500 per night hotel bills.
Apparently, nothing says “cost of living crisis” quite like keeping a limo warm just in case.
Taxpayers understand that Ministers must travel. International trips cost money. Heck, I even think it's unreasonable to expect Ministers to travel anything but lie-flat/business class for overnight flights.
But no reasonable employer would let a staff member spend twice the approved budget and then simply shrug it off.
Ministers should not be held to a lower standard than everyone else.
Finance Minister Nicola Willis came out on the side of taxpayers, saying Jones had made “significant errors” - which led to the incredible line, “provoke the matua at your peril” from Shane Jones in response.
But the Prime Minister is Shane Jones’ boss. He should explain why he approved a doubling of the cost after the fact, and why taxpayers are expected to just pick up the tab.
Households are cutting back. Ministers should not be upgrading the bill.
Tory Whānau's Golden Mile finally buried, and not a moment too soon 🎉
Some good news from Wellington, for once.
The Golden Mile mega-project has finally been canned.
The project had lurched from a $78 million idea into a $220 million monster.
That’s $2,600 per Wellington household - all while Wellingtonians faced the highest commercial rates in the country, the second-highest residential rates, and a CBD still crying out for the basics: safety, cleanliness, foot traffic, and businesses that can afford to stay open.
Instead of the full Golden Mile, councillors have now backed a much cheaper “Tin Mile” approach, with up to $40 million to focus on more modest improvements.
That is still real money. But compared with throwing hundreds of millions more at Tory Whanau's failing legacy project, it is a victory for common sense.
But the councillor elected to stop it was barred from voting 🚧🗳️
Councillor Karl Tiefenbacher - businessman, Kaffee Eis owner, and someone elected after directly campaigning against the Golden Mile - was barred from voting because he owns a business on the road in question.
Sorry, what?
Voters elected him knowing exactly where he stood and why he understood the issue. Yet when the time came to vote, the very experience that helped get him elected was used to silence him.
Conflict of interest rules are supposed to stop councillors lining their own pockets. They should not be used to stop elected representatives delivering the mandate voters gave them.
As our Head of Policy, James Ross, argued this week, that makes a mockery of local democracy.
So yes, ratepayers should welcome the Golden Mile finally being put out of its misery.
But Wellingtonians should be deeply worried when the people they elect to stop wasteful projects can be barred from voting on whether to stop them.
Fieldays 2026: farmers know what is at stake 🚜🌾
This year’s Fieldays was one to remember.
The response was overwhelming.
It is clear farmers understand exactly what is at stake this election - and just how devastating the Greens’ wealth tax would be for family farming across New Zealand.
Thousands have already signed our petition to Save the Family Farm, and the conversations we had at Fieldays made one thing obvious: rural New Zealand is awake to the risk.
The weather was beautiful, the turnout was incredible, and it was fantastic to be out there talking with supporters and farmers about the upcoming election.
Vox poping the pollies at Fieldays 🎥 🚜
One of the great things about Fieldays is catching up with old friends (and politicians who can't run away from a camera!).
Casey Costello is a former Chair of the Taxpayers' Union (now a Cabinet Minister) but I still gave her stick for putting up taxes on durries, not once, but three times since becoming a Minister. 🤬
The PM had a yarn with me about local government and the election ahead.
Shane Jones on Labour's missing stall, plus energy policy (the filming was before we learned of his work trip misspending).
And Deputy PM David Seymour came along to check out the Taxpayers' Union stall.
To see all our interviews, make sure you follow us on Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), or for the teenagers (and young at heart) via Instagram.
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday evening.
|
|
Forget the ‘cost of greed budget’, this is the $10,000-per-household cost of Green
The Green Party accidentally leaked its $22.6 billion tax grab plan. This is a prescription for a poorer New Zealand, with the proposed new taxes amounting to $10,141 per household in the first four years alone.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:
“The Greens call this a plan for fairness. At $10,141 per household, New Zealanders might have a different word for it.”
“The entire package only works if wealth taxes raise $15.8 billion over four years, but the Greens haven’t even bothered taking behavioural changes into account. That is bananas when international evidence points to capital flight and the very people New Zealand needs to grow the pie leaving. Who does Chlöe Swarbrick want to pick up the slack when her tax plans fall short?”
“The same goes for the income tax changes. The 5 percent of people earning over $160,000 already pay more than 30 percent of all income tax, at a rate nearly 40 percent higher than the average taxpayer. Squeezing them harder won’t keep them in New Zealand, but it will strangle growth.”
“Reintroducing Labour’s Tenant Tax will push rents up, and hitting groceries, energy, and banking with new costs will drive up the prices of household essentials.”
“Chlöe Swarbrick might claim this is about tackling the cost-of-living crisis, but strip out the populist talking points and it’s a cost-hiking tax grab like any other.”
Responding to today’s release of the March quarter 2026 GDP figures, Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Austin Ellingham-Banks said:
“0.8 percent growth is welcome, but it is no cause for complacency. Most of it was banked before the Iran shock arrived, so the June quarter will be the real test.”
“We go into that test from a weak starting point. GDP per capita is still -2.18 percent below where it was when this Government took office, and Treasury’s 3.1 percent growth forecast for 2026/27 looks heroic compared with the more sober outlook from the Reserve Bank and NZIER.”
“Worse, the fiscal cushion has already been run down. Minister Willis is spending more in real terms than her predecessor, and debt now sits above $140,000 per household.”
"Treasury, Moody’s and Fitch have all sounded the alarm. The longer the Government waits to rein in spending and pay down debt, the tougher the choices will get."
Responding to reports today that Minister Brooke van Velden is very dissatisfied with the way the Department of Internal Affairs discharged its governance role over Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
"Since Fire and Emergency New Zealand was formed in 2017, we have written three reports exposing excessive costs and governance failures, and repeatedly submitted against levy hikes. In our last submission, we even warned that Fire and Emergency was relying on out-of-date information — exactly what the Minister has now discovered."
“Our last report was titled Up in Smoke: Is There a Failure of Governance by the Board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand and the Department of Internal Affairs? We have argued for a comprehensive review of Fire and Emergency since its creation in 2017. Perhaps Minister van Velden might now agree."
“This is yet another example of institutional slackness in the public sector. Taxpayers are left footing the bill for waste, weak oversight, and a lack of accountability."
“It is well past time for the Government to take control of the public service and start demanding performance.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to explain how Shane Jones was allowed to rack up a $63,000 travel bill after reportedly spending almost twice what had been approved, including a private limousine, on standby 24 hours over multiple days.
Taxpayers’ Union spokeswoman, Ella Dickson, said:
"Taxpayers will be shocked that a work trip to a conference appears to have turned into a luxury retreat. No reasonable employer would tolerate their employee spending nearly twice the approved budget. Ministers should not be held to a lower standard."
"As his employer, the Prime Minister needs to justify how this spending was allowed and why taxpayers are expected to unquestioningly cover the tab."
Dear Supporter,
We've uncovered major fishhooks buried deep inside Simon Watts' "Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill" currently before Parliament and in the last stages.
It's not a politically sexy issue, and it's technical. But if we are to fix local government, it's essential.
The Bill was sold as a reform to "strengthen local democracy" – reining in overmighty council bureaucracies and restoring power to elected councillors.
But in reality, the Bill does the exact opposite.
It hands more power to unelected council bureaucrats by making the council Chief Executives the gatekeepers of information.
That means the very officials councillors are supposed to oversee can decide what elected representatives are allowed to see.
It is a breathtaking inversion of democracy.
Background
For more than a decade, the Taxpayers' Union has argued that we cannot expect our local councils to be effectively governed when mayors and councillors don't have full rights to access information akin to company directors.
No company director would tolerate a CEO refusing to answer questions on the basis of "commercial sensitivity" or an excuse that it's "an operational matter".
But that is precisely the excuses being used every day to undermine local councillors (and even Mayors) from doing their jobs.
We thought we'd won the issue! The Govt said it would be strengthening councillors' rights to get information from officials
Despite 12 years of our efforts, successive Governments/Local Government Ministers have ignored the issue of council bureaucrats blocking elected officials from asking awkward questions.
Nearly every month, we are approached by councillors asking for help to get basic information out of their own councils!
But former Local Government Minister Simeon Brown really got it. Soon after the Luxon Government was elected, Simeon Brown promised us he'd fix the law and adopt our recommendations.
But (to put it simply) the more recent Minister, Simon Watts, has screwed it up.
This morning, I joined Michael Laws (who serves on the Otago Regional Council and fully understands the issue) on The Platform.
You can watch the interview here.
Simon Watts' proposed law change would make the situation even worse!
We've obtained independent legal advice from one of New Zealand's top public law firms. It concludes that Watts' Bill, as worded, would actually make councillors worse off in terms of their rights to information than as it stands now.
The opinion warns the Bill:
-
elevates the Chief Executive into a statutory veto-holder over councillors' access to information;
-
imposes more restrictive legal thresholds that councillors must satisfy before getting information;
-
creates rights for councillors that are inferior to those already enjoyed by ordinary members of the public under freedom of information law (LGOIMA); and
- undermines elected members in their role as democratic overseers of council bureaucracies.
Jordan, here's the contrast: a random member of the public can request official information from a council without even giving a reason. But under Simon Watts' Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill, elected councillors — the very people voters chose to govern the council — will have to justify to their CEO why they "need" information before the bureaucrats decide whether to hand it over.
Watts is turning democracy upside down and confirming the fox as guarding the hen house.
Anyone who has served on a Board will know that it is the rare occasions where you might need to second-guess, or verify, a CEO's assurances that are the most important.
Our lawyers describe it as "truly extraordinary" that Parliament is progressing legislation which starts from the presumption that councillors must justify requests for information when ordinary members of the public do not.
While Simon Watts is claiming in media statements that the Bill "increases" the rights of councillors to obtain information, it simply doesn't.
Documents vs Information
Even worse, the Bill narrows councillors' rights to access information to "documents" only.
That means officials can simply avoid recording inconvenient advice, concerns, or warnings in formal documents — and councillors may never see it.
Again, anyone who has sat on a company board will know, it's often the information not written down or contained in documents that is the most important.
Expecting local councillors to effectively hold their CEO to account when staff are not required to answer councillors' specific questions is madness.
The Bill was supposed to fix the problem of the people elected to govern councils being kept in the dark. But Watts' bill gives the dimmer to the very staff councillors are supposed to supervise...
How we can win this
Yesterday, we wrote to every councillor and mayor to raise awareness of this issue. We are sure the vast majority of councillors will agree that having the tools to demand information from officials is essential for them to do their jobs effectively.
Every councillor — whether Labour, National, independent, rural, urban, majority or minority — should have the right to access the information necessary to scrutinise spending, test advice, challenge assumptions, expose waste, and hold council management accountable.
You can read my letter to the Mayors and Councillors here.
At the end of the legal opinion is a draft amendment that would fix the Bill.
Jordan, this is not a left-versus-right issue – it's a democracy-versus-bureaucracy issue.
A month ago, we had our lawyers write to the Minister. We also shared the legal advice – we fear the Departmental Officials (who are very close to the local government quango LGNZ) have snookered the Government's intentions to empower local government oversight.
We also separately reached out to the Minister's office, asking for an interview with Simon Watts about this Bill. After all, the Minister meets with LGNZ every week but has met with us once (unless you count a short conversation at the Nats' stall at Fieldays).
But we've had radio silence. To date, Watts seems unwilling to defend his own law changes!
We need your help too, Jordan
If you agree that to fix local government, we need to ensure elected officials have access to the information necessary to second-guess officials, we need two minutes of your time.
Local democracy will continue to disappoint so long as bureaucrats decide what elected representatives are permitted to know.
The Government promised to fix this – but is about to deliver a law change that will make it worse.
Ratepayers need Simon Watts to step in with the necessary amendments to fix the Bill before it passes the last steps in Parliament.
That could be as early as next week. Time is of the essence.
Thank you for your support.
|
|
P.S. You can read my letter to the mayors and councillors here. We also sent to all councillors the Franks Ogilvie legal opinion with suggested amendments to the Bill.
Labour has today promised to fund maternity scans through its capital gains tax, but the Taxpayers’ Union says the money has already been swallowed by other spending promises. Once again, Labour’s numbers do not add up.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:
“Using recent housing market data, Labour’s CGT would raise just 38.6 percent of what Labour claims by 2029/30. The tax revenue wouldn’t even cover the cost of Labour’s three taxpayer-funded GP visits, let alone any new spending commitments.”
“Labour’s CGT revenue is already spent, and there’s no money left in that pot. Where is Labour expecting to find another $28.6 million a year?”
“There are only three ways Labour’s capital gains tax can raise enough to cover its promises: rampant inflation, spiralling house prices, or expanding the tax onto main homes, shares, or KiwiSaver. Labour needs to front up to New Zealanders about which one it is planning.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union says revelations that public servants knowingly misled a Minister, deliberately avoided Cabinet scrutiny, and wasted millions of taxpayer dollars on a failed immigration project expose a culture of arrogance and impunity within the public service.
Reports indicate officials withheld information from the Minister, deliberately bypassed Cabinet oversight, and continued spending taxpayer money on a project that was ultimately doomed.
Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Officials misled a Minister, bypassed Cabinet, and torched millions in taxpayer money”
"This isn't just waste, it's a direct attack on democratic accountability. New Zealanders elect Ministers to make decisions. Bureaucrats are employed to implement them. When officials decide they know better than elected representatives and actively work around them, something has gone seriously wrong."
"Every taxpayer should be furious. Families are working harder than ever to make ends meet while unelected officials treat public money like Monopoly money. Yet the most alarming part isn't the money that's been wasted. It's the apparent belief among senior bureaucrats that they can override Ministers, avoid scrutiny, and face no consequences.
"If a private-sector employee misled their boss and wasted millions of dollars, they'd be shown the door. Taxpayers deserve complete transparency with the ensuing inquiry, and ultimately accountability for every official involved. Heads must roll."
The Taxpayers’ Union says new figures on illicit tobacco show the Government’s sky-high tobacco excise is now backfiring.
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says:
“Illicit tobacco has reportedly jumped from 27.2 percent to 33.5 percent of consumption in just one year. Wellington has taxed tobacco so hard it has effectively created a business model for gangs.”
“Treasury’s own figures show the wheels are falling off. Tobacco excise revenue fell by $2 million to $1.47 billion, even as excise rates kept rising. That is the Laffer Curve in action - higher taxes have resulted in less revenue.”
“When one in every three cigarettes is illegal, Ministers can’t keep pretending this is just a law enforcement issue. The Government has made legal tobacco so expensive that smugglers and gangs can massively undercut legitimate retailers.”
“You can’t police your way out of a problem caused by your own tax policy. Customs and Police should crack down hard on illegal sellers, but they’ll be chasing their tails while Wellington keeps feeding the black market.”
“The Government must cut tobacco excise, shrink the profit margin for criminals, and bring sales back into the legal market. Right now, the Government’s anti-smoking policy is doubling as a gang enrichment scheme.”
Responding to the Prime Minister floating a potential bed tax on Newstalk ZB this morning, New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“The Prime Minister needs to categorically rule out slapping domestic travellers with yet another tax.
“Make no mistake: a bed tax won’t just hit overseas tourists staying in flash hotels. If it applies to domestic travellers, it would hit Kiwis staying at DOC campsites or the local TOP 10 holiday park."
“Previous research by Tourism Industry Aotearoa found only 30 percent of international visitors stay in commercial accommodation. That means a bed tax risks falling mostly on Kiwis, not tourists."
“New Zealanders travelling around their own country, whether for work, family, or holidays, should not be caught up in a tourist tax."
“If the Government wants to target international visitors, it should say so clearly. But domestic travellers must be off the table.”
Labour’s $8k per household budget hole shows why Independent Office of Budget Responsibility overdue
Labour’s $8k per household budget hole shows why Independent Budget Responsibility Office overdue
The Taxpayers’ Union says National’s claimed $18.2 billion gap between the Labour Party's promised spending and revenue measures highlights exactly why New Zealand needs an Independent Office of Budget Responsibility to independently verify the costings of election promises.
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says:
“If National is right, Labour’s spending promises leave taxpayers exposed to a funding gap of $8,800 for every Kiwi household.”
“But the bigger issue is that voters are expected to take politicians’ competing claims on trust. One side says the numbers don’t add up. The other side insists they do. For the average voter, it’s impossible to know who’s telling the truth.”
According to National’s analysis, Labour’s announced spending commitments total more than $21 billion over the forecast period, while its identified revenue measures raise only $2.8 billion, leaving a shortfall of $18.2 billion.
“Whether the true figure is $18.2 billion, more, or less isn’t really the point. New Zealanders deserve independent verification rather than partisan arithmetic.”
Williams says recent questions surrounding Labour’s public transport fare cap policy demonstrate the problem.
“Given the clear errors in Labour’s costings of its public transport policy released on Wednesday, things have to change. Labour claimed 1.36 million New Zealanders would benefit by an average of $1,200 per year, yet simultaneously claimed the policy would cost only around $65 million annually. Those numbers simply don’t reconcile.”
“A properly resourced Independent Office of Budget Responsibility would lend credibility, rigour, and expertise to opposition policy development. It would also provide voters with confidence that the promises being made during election campaigns have actually been checked.”
The Taxpayers’ Union has long advocated for an independent parliamentary budget office modelled on institutions operating successfully overseas.
“This is not a left-versus-right issue. The public should be able to trust the numbers regardless of which party is making the promises.”
“The Taxpayers’ Union has been calling for an Independent Office of Budget Responsibility since we launched our pre-election ‘Bribe-O-Meter’ in 2014. More than a decade later, we’re still relying on political parties marking each other’s homework.”
“Helen Clark and Ruth Richardson found common ground this week in supporting stronger institutions to improve democratic accountability. An Independent Office of Budget Responsibility would be a practical reform that improves transparency, lifts the quality of public debate, and helps voters make informed choices.”
“If Labour’s numbers stack up, independent scrutiny would prove it. If National’s criticism is justified, independent scrutiny would expose it. Either way, New Zealand voters, and taxpayers, win.”
ENDS
Hi,
Hello from Fieldays, where we've launched our Save the Family Farm campaign (more on this below).
We've also got this month's Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll, a defence of the cost of the Official Information Act, and our Ratepayer Guide to Amalgamation, which breaks down the do’s-and-don’ts of local government reform.
But first...
Labour’s first policy of the election year: another “free ride” with a $180million price tag 🚌💸
Labour have finally managed to release a policy, and it's a classic "promising things without doing proper costings".
On Wednesday, Chris Hipkins announced a public transport fare cap as part of Labour’s transport policy platform. On the surface, it sounds lovely. Cheaper buses and trains. Less pressure on commuters. A nice, neat headline for the evening news.
But, there is no such thing as a free bus ride.
And the symbolism was hard to miss.
While rural New Zealand gathered at Fieldays, Labour’s plot sat empty, and Chris Hipkins made the announcement from Auckland.
Which is quite something, because the people outside the big cities could be among those asked to help pay for it.
If fares are capped, the cost does not magically disappear. It gets shifted from passengers to taxpayers and ratepayers.
And the numbers are already raising eyebrows.
Our analysis now shows that Labour's costings are orders of magnitude out. See: Labour’s fare cap numbers don’t add up.
Labour claims its nationwide fare cap would cost taxpayers just $65 million a year.
But using publicly available 2024/25 data, we estimate Labour's policy in Auckland, Wellington, and Canterbury alone would cost between $141 million and $183 million a year.
That matters because around 90 percent of public transport trips are taken in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.
And unlike Labour, we're showing our workings...
Then there's the fairness angle: A decade ago, public transport subsidies covered around 61 percent of the cost of providing services. Now, that figure is around 87 percent.
Labour’s fare cap would push that even higher.
A tradie in Timaru, a farmer in Feilding, or a courier in Gore paying Road User Charges does not get cheaper buses in Auckland. But under Labour’s plan, they would still pay for them.
Save the Family Farm: don’t bet rural New Zealand on a change of government 🚜
At Fieldays, we launched our Save the Family Farm campaign.
Many farmers think a Labour/Green Government means a ute tax. If only!
Labour are campaigning on a capital gains tax and opposing council rates caps, while relying on coalition partners who support wealth taxes, trust taxes, and even death taxes.
The Greens’ wealth tax alone would hit the average dairy farm with a bill of $68,043 a year, and the average sheep and beef farm with an extra $131,610 annual tax bill.
And the Greens' proposed death tax would be even worse: $1.23 million for the average dairy farm and $2.07 million for the average sheep and beef farm.
Family farming is not just about the people who own the land.
It is the contractors, vets, local businesses, rural schools, suppliers, mechanics, stock agents, shearers, and communities that depend on families staying on the land and investing locally.
But under a Labour-led coalition, those farms would be squarely in the firing line.
If you agree that protecting the rural way of life is important, back the campaign and sign our petition via SaveTheFamilyFarm.nz.
👉 Sign the petition asking Labour to rule out taxes on farms from any potential coalition agreement
NEW POLL: Government parties still able to form Government 📊
This month’s Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll is out, and despite some movement between the parties, the Government remains ahead.
Compared to last month, Labour is up 0.3 points to 32.2 percent, while National is up 0.1 points to 30.1%. The Greens are up 1.8 points to 11.5 percent, while New Zealand First is down 0.3 points to 11.4 percent. ACT is up 1.3 points to 7.8 percent, while Te Pāti Māori is down 1.0 point to 3.1 percent.
Converting these numbers into seats in Parliament, Labour drops 1 seat to 40 seats, while National also drops 1 to 38.
New Zealand First drops 1 seat to 14, while the Greens gain 2 to 14.
ACT gain 2 to 10 seats, while Te Pāti Māori drop 1 to 4.
For more detailed results, head over to our website.
$180 million to answer questions Government should already be answering 🕵️♂️💸
Most of the stories we break are (sadly) not leaked to us in underground carparks by trench-coated bureaucrats.
And even when they are, we verify using freedom of information laws: primarily the Official Information Act.
Cue Wellington clutching its pearls about people asking too many questions...
But that gets the problem exactly backwards.
As Tyler (from the Taxpayers' Union) put it, the cheapest OIA request is the one that never needs to be made because the information is already available to the public.
This $180 million bill is not the cost of transparency. It is the cost of secrecy.
Much of the information people ask for under the OIA is not top secret national security material. It is reports, data, spending information, briefings, and documents taxpayers have already paid for.
Instead of publishing that material as a matter of course, agencies force journalists, researchers, taxpayer advocates, and members of the public through a slow bureaucratic obstacle course — only to release much of the information anyway.
And then, blow me down, they complain the obstacle course costs too much.
Agencies should be proactively publishing reports, data, and frequently requested information online.
The UK and USA already publish spending and procurement data so taxpayers can scrutinise government spending without having to beg officials for permission. Even Ukraine, in the middle of a war threatening their very existence, does this.
We say that's the model New Zealand should be moving toward: an “armchair audit” approach, where routine spending data is published through a central transparency portal.
The answer is not to make it harder for taxpayers to ask questions. The answer is for Government to stop hiding so much in the first place.
Why transparency saves taxpayers' money 💰🦸
Responding to the same Newsroom piece, prominent Wellington lawyer Graeme Edgeler reminded his followers on X (formerly Twitter):
"One thing to consider when think about the cost of the OIA is how much money it saves!
Science funding was spent on a scheme to play whale songs to trees, with no assessment of whether doing so actually helped the trees.
We know this because of the OIA."
(and the research team at Taxpayers' Union...) 😉
The Ratepayers’ Guide to Amalgamation: bigger is not always better 🏛️
This is exactly why our new Ratepayers’ Guide to Amalgamation matters. If councils are going to merge, shift services into new entities, or redraw lines of accountability, ratepayers need a clear test before they are asked to sign off.
One of Wellington’s favourite articles of faith is that bigger councils must mean better councils.
A bigger bureaucracy, bigger boundaries, bigger budgets, and somehow - magically - lower costs.
Aucklanders' experience with the Super City means many have a view on that...
Councils have been given just three months to prepare those plans. That is not a lot of time for decisions that could reshape local democracy, shift debt and liabilities, and determine who controls core services for decades.
So our message is simple: ratepayers should not be forced into bigger councils on an unspecific expectation that savings might show up later.
Any council pushing amalgamation should have to show, upfront, how it will cut duplication, reduce costs, improve core services, and protect local accountability.
That means publishing transition costs before decisions are made, setting mandatory savings targets, having the numbers independently checked, and making sure local communities get the final say.
Because we have heard the “efficiency” sales pitch before.
Aucklanders were promised the Super City would deliver savings and better coordination. Fifteen years later, the Government still has not completed the promised post-implementation review.
So before Wellington pushes more councils down the same path, ratepayers deserve evidence, not just vibes.
Bigger is not always better. If amalgamation cannot pass the ratepayer test, it should not proceed.
👉 See what every amalgamation proposal should have to prove before ratepayers are asked to sign off.
Come and say hello 👋
If you’re at Fieldays, we’re at stall RM54 in the Rural Living Marquee. Pop in to say hi and join the campaign to Save Family Farms!
|
|
P.S. Family farms are a way of life for so many people. That’s why we can’t let Labour and their mates in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori destroy what generations of Kiwis have worked so hard to build. Sign the petition now to tell Labour to rule out taxes on farms from any potential coalition agreement.
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has released The Ratepayers’ Guide to Amalgamation, setting out a ratepayer test for council mergers ahead of the Government’s deadline for amalgamation plans.
Taxpayers’ Union Senior Policy Analyst Josh Van Veen said:
“Councils have been given just three months to prepare amalgamation plans. Ratepayers should not be forced into bigger councils on the promise that savings might show up later.”
“Any council pushing amalgamation must prove it will cut duplication, reduce costs, and improve core services before ratepayers are asked to sign off.”
“That means publishing the transition costs upfront, setting mandatory savings targets, and having the numbers independently checked.”
“Most importantly, local communities must have the final say. Amalgamation should be approved by residents and ratepayers, not imposed from Wellington or stitched up behind closed doors.”
“Aucklanders were promised a Super City would deliver savings and efficiency. Fifteen years later, the Government still has not completed a proper post-implementation review.”
“Bigger is not always better. If amalgamation cannot pass the ratepayer test, it should not proceed.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Labour to release the figures behind its claim that capping public transport fares across the country will cost the Crown just $65 million a year, after new analysis shows the true cost to the taxpayer could be three times as much.
Using publicly available 2024/25 data from New Zealand’s three largest public transport-using regions, the Taxpayers’ Union estimates the annual cost to be:
- Auckland: $118,061,733 to $141,051,370
- Wellington: $23,249,363 to $38,094,684
- Canterbury: $394,877 to $3,383,523
That puts the cost for just these three regions at $141,705,972 to $182,529,576 a year, potentially up to nearly three times higher than Labour claims for the entire country.
Commenting on this, Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:
“These figures show Auckland, Wellington, and Canterbury alone could cost between 2.5 and 3 times what Labour claims the policy would cost nationwide. Something’s not adding up, and the public has a right to know why."
“Labour has had six months since its last announcement to crunch the numbers, yet it still can’t tell the public basic details like how many people would benefit. If we can pull together rough costings in 24 hours, Labour’s taxpayer-funded researchers can release their data today."
“Of Labour’s three policy announcements so far, none has been up-front with taxpayers. A Future Fund with no costings at all, a capital gains tax that would barely raise 38 percent of what Labour claims, and now fare cap numbers that look like they have been plucked out of thin air."
“Hipkins recently said voters don’t really care about the details. Even if that were true, hopefully Labour’s researchers do. If they want to regain credibility, Labour need to release the numbers."
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS:
Mean weekly spend per user was calculated by dividing farebox revenue by the number of boardings.
The proportion of the regional population which use public transport was taken from the HTS Transport Survey for 2024/25. The regional number of public transport users could then be calculated.
Three log-normal distributions (with low, medium, and high variance) were calculated for each region. A log-normal distribution was chosen as this reflects the pattern of public transport use, with large numbers of occassional users and a smaller number of high-frequency users above the $20 cap. This allowed us to calculate three variables:
- The share of users who spend more than the $20 weekly cap in each region.
- The number of public transport users in each region who would benefit
- The average weekly saving of someone who spends more than the cap currently in each region.
By multiplying the number of people who benefit by the average weekly savings, we could calculate the weekly and annual cost to the Crown of a central government-funded fare cap in Auckland, Wellington, and Canterbury.
These figures do not account for Waiheke ferries or Wairarapa-to-Wellington buses, both of which Labour have said will be excluded from the cap. Given the difference between Labour’s claims and our costings, however, the effect of these will be marginal.
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that on top of $300,000 per year on limousines for former Prime Ministers', taxpayers have been charged over $77,000 a year for the fringe benefit tax (FBT) on former Prime Ministers' travel services.
Taxpayers’ Union spokeswoman, Ella Dickson, says:
“Annual Reports from the Department of Internal Affairs reveal taxpayers were charged $78,742 for FBT on former PMs' travel in 2024 and $77,851 in 2025."
“We are currently in a fuel crisis where Kiwis are finding it tough as is to afford their own petrol. The annual $300,000 limousine bill is ridiculous enough – especially considering the cars are paid for regardless of whether they get any use – but taxpayers should not be paying for the tax on politicians’ perks as well.”
“This entitlement needs to hit the brakes. Taxpayers have enough of a tax burden, they do not need to be paying former politicians’ taxes as well. Christopher Luxon must make a U-turn: stop the perk or explain to taxpayers why his predecessors get a free ride while Kiwi households pick up both the bill.”
Labour’s plan to cap public transport fares would pour another $65 million into a system which is already 87 percent subsidised, up from 61 percent in 2015/16.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Taxpayers are already picking up almost 90 cents in every dollar spent on public transport, which the average subsidy last year of $17.65 per boarding. Households already subsidise public transport to the tune of $1,373 a year, and Hipkins wants to slap another $65 million down for them to pay.”
“This is dressed up as a cost-of-living policy, but it does nothing for the vast majority of households. Only 6 percent of Kiwis are regular public transport users, and nearly 90 percent of rides are in Wellington, Auckland, and Christchurch.”
“If Labour is serious about easing pressure on families, it should commit to genuine tax relief so Kiwis can keep more of what they earn - not another niche subsidy for a service most people rarely use.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Local Government Minister Simon Watts to close the Auckland IMSB voting loophole, after legal advice from Franks Ogilvie confirmed the Government can do so through a simple amendment to the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill currently before Parliament.
The advice confirms the Bill can be amended to remove voting rights from unelected appointees of the Independent Māori Statutory Board.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Simon Watts has said it is too difficult to fix the loophole that allows Auckland Council to give voting rights to unelected IMSB appointees."
“However, the legal advice confirms the Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill already before Parliament can be used to fix this. Minister Watts can act now if he chooses to do so."
“The Taxpayers’ Union is working with our sister organisation, the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance, to campaign on this because it directly impacts Aucklanders. But every New Zealander should be concerned when unelected appointees are given voting power over ratepayer decisions."
“The Government has accepted the principle that only elected members should vote on council committees. Aucklanders deserve that same democratic protection."
“If ratepayers do not like how councillors vote, they can vote them out. They cannot do that with unelected appointees. That is why this loophole needs to be closed.”
The Taxpayers’ Union has launched its Save the Family Farm campaign at National Fieldays, calling on Labour and its likely coalition partners to rule out new taxes on family farms and protect the future of rural New Zealand.
The campaign is backed by a new report, Save the Family Farm: How a Labour coalition would end Family Farming, which warns that a Labour-Greens-Te Pāti Māori Coalition would put farming families in the firing line.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Family farms are the backbone of rural New Zealand. They support contractors, local businesses, suppliers, schools, and entire communities. But under a Labour-led coalition, productive land would become a tax target.”
“Labour is campaigning on a capital gains tax and opposing rates caps, while relying on coalition partners who support wealth taxes, trust taxes, and even death taxes."
“The Greens’ wealth tax would hit the average dairy farm with a bill of $68,043 a year, and the average sheep and beef farm with $131,610 a year.”
“The Greens’ proposed death tax would be even worse, triggering bills of $1.23 million for the average dairy farm and $2.07 million for the average sheep and beef farm.”
“These farms may be worth millions on paper, but that money is tied up in land, stock, sheds, and machinery. A tax bill like that means more debt, selling land, or losing the farm altogether.”
“The last Labour Government imposed the Ute Tax, backed freshwater regulations that loaded farmers with compliance costs, and pushed Three Waters despite widespread opposition from rural New Zealand.”
“As it stands, farmers cannot afford to bet the family farm on Labour. That is why we are calling on Labour and their coalition partners to rule out any taxes on family farms.”
The Save the Family Farm petition can be signed at SaveTheFamilyFarm.nz.
Save the Family Farm: How a Labour coalition would end Family Farming is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/save_the_family_farm_report.
The Taxpayers’ Union is backing The Brewers Association’s call for urgent reform of alcohol excise taxes, following reports that tax now accounts for around half the wholesale price of a keg of beer.
Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“New Zealanders currently have the lowest levels of drinking ever recorded, yet the booze taxes they have to pay keep climbing every year.”
“Half the cost of a keg is tax. Those costs are directly reflected in the price of a pint, and with the cost-of-living crisis hitting Kiwis hard it’s no wonder people can’t afford a Friday catch-up after work anymore.”
“By counting alcohol spending itself as a social cost, the studies Ministers rely on create a circular logic where every tax increase automatically inflates the very harm used to justify tax hikes. By that logic, that means no tax bill could ever be enough.”
“These automatic excise hikes are becoming self-defeating, with an expected $180 million shortfall in alcohol excise revenue as consumption falls. Ministers are about to learn what happens when you push beyond the peak of the Laffer Curve.”
“Pub-goers have more than paid their fair share. It’s time for Ministers to show some Dutch courage and put an end to automatic alcohol excise increases.”
Responding to comments made today by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, the Taxpayers’ Union claims it is hypocritical of him to create new taxes on property ownership while using a taxpayer-funded superannuation scheme to finance his own holiday home.
Taxpayers’ Union spokeswoman, Ella Dickson, says:
“Chris Hipkins – like all MP’s – has a generous superannuation scheme with every $1 he puts in matched $2.50 by his employer (taxpayer-funded), which he admits contributes to the mortgage of his family’s holiday home. A second dwelling that would be considered taxable under the bracket of his proposed capital gains tax, yet taxpayers fund it.”
“Hipkins can claim owning a holiday home is different than owning multiple rental properties, but when his CGT sees no difference and taxes them both the same: where does he draw the line? He claimed not to ‘begrudge’ other Kiwis who own holiday homes, he just taxes them for it.”
“The Labour leader today admitted to getting the maximum entitlement from the taxpayer. When asked if it was ‘fair’, he said his goal was to ‘raise the wages of all New Zealanders’, but taxing them will not help in that mission. If Hipkins wants a fairer economy, he should start with his own benefits and his own tax policy.”
The Taxpayers’ Union says Hastings Mayor Wendy Schollum’s admission in front of a packed ratepayer meeting that she was given a “heads up” about the impact of QV changes on rates — while the Council kept the information from the public until just two days before submissions closed — is extraordinary.
“Last night, tensions ran high, and rightly so,” said Jordan Williams, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director.
“We have never seen such a material piece of information for an Annual Plan hidden from the public. If legally challenged, the Council would almost certainly be forced to reconsult. The cost of that alone could be hundreds of thousands of dollars — all because officials and the Mayor failed to disclose information ratepayers had every right to know.”
“At the very time businesses are closing in Hastings, commercial ratepayers are being hit with rates hikes of up to 85 percent. Now we know the Mayor had been warned about the shift in advance, but ratepayers were kept in the dark.”
The issue stems from property revaluations used to calculate rates. Because commercial property values have increased more than residential values on paper, the share of the rates burden falling on commercial and industrial ratepayers has surged.
Hastings District Council already has the highest commercial differential of any comparable council in New Zealand, meaning a commercial property pays three times more than an otherwise identical residential property simply because of its use.
Just two days before submissions on the Draft Annual Plan closed, it became clear that CBD rates would rise by 27 percent and other commercial rates by 34 percent, with some businesses facing much higher increases.
“Not only did the Mayor and council bosses know Hastings businesses were about to be absolutely smashed, they chose to keep it secret,” said Williams.
“At the meeting, the Council’s deputy CEO initially claimed he had kept the information from elected officials — but then the Mayor admitted she had been told. They cannot even get their story straight on the cover-up.”
“If the Council wants to avoid expensive litigation, it probably has no choice but to reopen consultation.”
A new report showing government agencies spend more than $180 million a year responding to Official Information Act (OIA) requests highlights the cost of failing to proactively release information.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tyler Groenewald, said:
"The cheapest OIA request is the one that never needs to be made because the information is already available to the public."
"This $180 million bill is the cost of a lack of transparency. Much of the information being requested is clearly able to be made public, yet taxpayers are funding a costly bureaucratic process to release information that often ends up being disclosed anyway."
"Agencies should be proactively publishing reports, data, and other frequently requested information online. Countries such as the UK, United States, Ukraine and Brazil already publish spending and procurement data online, allowing taxpayers to scrutinise government spending without lodging information requests."
"An 'armchair audit' approach, where routine spending data is proactively published through a central transparency portal, would reduce OIA costs, strengthen accountability, and improve public trust."
The Taxpayers’ Union has been contacted by Lucinda Perry, Hastings and Havelock North City Business Association's general manager, concerned about 'too much public interest' in tonight’s emergency business rates meeting, with the Association concerned that the room may fill well before the event start at 5:30pm.
The Taxpayers' Union is urging commercial and industrial ratepayers to get there early for a seat.
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says:
“With rates hikes of up to 85 percent on the table, it is no surprise business owners want answers and the room booked allows for barely a quarter of the Associations' members to attend."
“This is not some minor accounting change. These increases could mean lost jobs, higher costs being passed on to residents, and serious pressure on local businesses already doing it tough."
"The key question for tonight is who knew what and when. When did Council bosses know the rates proposal in the Draft Annual Plan would push up CBD rates by 27 percent and other commercial rates by 34 percent? And why were these impacts not put before ratepayers in the consultation material?"
“To ensure people do not miss out, the Taxpayers’ Union is offering to livestream the meeting so affected ratepayers can hear directly from Council."
The Business Associations are public bodies, funded by targeted rates on commercial ratepayers. The Taxpayers' Union will be attending on behalf of a number of members who are also members of the Associations.
Mr Williams is urging local ratepayers to "Get there early."
Councillors Duped Into Thinking $7.7 Million Website Was an App
The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming Christchurch City Council after The Press revealed the Council’s MyChristchurch “digital platform” has cost ratepayers $7.7 million, despite councillors initially being led to believe they were funding an app.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Josh Van Veen said:
“Christchurch ratepayers have forked out $7.7 million and ended up with a website. If elected representatives did not know what they were approving, ratepayers deserve to know why.”
“The Council can dress it up as a ‘digital platform’, but that does not explain how this project has cost the equivalent of 1,962 households' worth of rates. At a time when rates are soaring, every dollar blown on bloated IT projects is a dollar not going to core services.”
“This fiasco shows exactly why local government reform is needed. Elected councillors are meant to be in charge, but too often management controls the information and leaves them playing catch-up.”
“Council officials need to come clean on where the money went, why councillors were left in the dark about what was being delivered, and how a website ended up costing ratepayers millions.”
“Ratepayers need a system that gives councillors the power to properly scrutinise spending and stop bureaucrats pulling the wool over the eyes of the people elected to hold them accountable.”
Rates showdown tonight: Hastings businesses face rates increases of up to 85 percent
The Taxpayers' Union says small businesses and jobs are at immediate risk in Hastings following the District Council's new revelations that commercial rates are going up next month by an average of 27 percent in the Hastings CBD and a massive 34 percent elsewhere in the region. Industrial property rates are reported to be soaring by 24 percent.
Ahead of a crisis meeting scheduled for tonight, organised by the Hastings and Havelock North Business Associations, the Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that some small businesses face rates increases of up to 85 percent.
The unprecedented one-year rates hikes are being driven both by Council decisions and new valuations from Quotable Value (QV).
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says this is the worst possible time for any rates increases, let alone of the magnitude revealed by council data only yesterday.
“Combined with the war in Iran, oil shock, global downturn, returning inflation and rising interest rates, the massive rates hikes mean dozens of Hastings businesses face the same fate as Wattie’s and McCain’s, potentially costing Hawke’s Bay hundreds of jobs,” Mr Williams said.
“When did Council chief executive To’osavili Nigel Bickle and his deputy Bruce Allan know the rates proposal in the draft annual plan would push up CBD rates by 27 percent and other commercial rates by 34 percent? Why were these impacts not put before ratepayers before now? Ratepayers expect consultation, not nasty shocks on the eve of their new rates bill."
“And when did they tell new Mayor Wendy Schollum and her councillors?"
“Who will take responsibility for this fiasco?"
“Mayor Wendy Schollum recently called on Parliament to inquire into why rising costs were forcing Hastings’ major employers to close. She doesn't need an inquiry, she needs a mirror. Skyrocketing rates are driving both the cost of living crisis and businesses out of Hastings."
“The Taxpayers' Union is hopeful Mayor Schollum fronts up at tonight’s meeting and announces how she is going to stop Hawke’s Bay businesses paying any more than the 8.9 percent rates increase she advertised and which businesses have budgeted for."
“Ratepayers need transparency about what she knew and when, and must hold her and her councillors to account.”
Tonight's Emergency Ratepayer Meeting is from 5:30pm in The Shakespeare Room at ToiToi Centre.
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Corrections has spent $32,478,300 (GST inclusive) since 2021/22 pursuing Carbon Neutral Government targets.
The Official Information Act request also shows:
- Corrections has bought 327 electric vehicles supported by 352 chargers since the targets were implemented.
- Corrections spent a further $369,150 (GST inclusive) on emissions inventories over this period.
- 2025 emissions reduction targets weren't met and uncertainty about meeting its 2030 target remain.
Taxpayers’ Union Investigative Lead, Rhys Hurley, said:
“New Zealand already built the Emissions Trading Scheme to cap emissions nationally. Forcing Corrections to spend $32 million chasing separate carbon-neutral targets will not cut emissions by a single gram, and shows exactly why the programme should be scrapped.”
"Corrections’ job is to keep criminals behind bars, rehabilitate offenders, and keep the public safe, not worry about decarbonising their sheep farm.”
“The Government looked at removing the targets back in 2023. These figures show it should stop looking and finally pull the plug.”
We did it!
After years of campaigning, exposing, and protesting, Simon Watts has finally acted.
Today, the Government announced that only elected councillors will be able to vote on council committees.
That means the days of Mayors appointing teenagers (yes, seriously) or race-based "representatives" onto council committees to screw the scrum and vote numbers are over.
Minister Watts announced this afternoon an amendment to Local Government (Systems Improvements) Bill restricting voting rights to elected members only.
This is a win for the Taxpayers' Union and for ratepayers across the country.
It means if someone wants a vote on rates, spending, borrowing, and council policy, they'll need to earn it from voters first.
Frankly, that should never have been controversial.
Appointed reps were always counter to the constitutional foundation: "No taxation without representation."
That's why we fought so hard to protect democratic accountability, calling it out when councils across the country handed over voting rights to unelected appointments.
Friend, some people have tried to turn this debate into one about race, for us, it was always about democratic accountability.
Remember our "bouncy council" protest in Hastings?
Two years ago, when the Hastings District Council decided to give voting rights to their unelected "youth councillors", it prompted the Taxpayers' Union to get the bubble machine out and host a youth councillor-friendly committee meeting outside the council.
The decision was made to give unelected youth councillors the same voting rights as democratically elected councillors on committees by the deciding vote from the then-Mayor, Sandra Hazelhurst. The story resonated with supporters, and we had dozens of supporters come down to our council meeting.
The Hastings District Council's decision was also lampooned at last year's Jonesie Awards.
Eventually, thanks to the pressure from ratepayers who demanded democratic accountability, Hastings backed down, and youth councillors were drafted for a limited scope of "youth-related" matters.
But it didn't stop with Hastings, we also called out Tauranga for their unelected iwi appointees.
Or the 55,000 emails that went to Tauranga councillors?
In December 2024, Tauranga City Council proposed to make unelected permanent appointments of Iwi reps on every one of the Council’s standing committees.
We mounted an urgent campaign, with 6185 supporters using our email tool within 12 hours to push back against the unelected appointees on every standing committee.
Every person who used the tool emailed all the Tauranga councillors, with more than 55,000 emails being sent.
Sadly, the Mayor won the vote, and Tauranga ratepayers gained unelected appointees on all their council committees with full voting rights.
Back then, after the vote was lost, we shared our remaining campaign plan, a two-step campaign to keep holding councils to account and convince the government to change the law.
And today we won 🙌
We started investigating councils across New Zealand, exposing where unelected appointees were being handed influence over rates and spending decisions, and building the case for reform.
At the time, we promised supporters that although we'd lost the battle in Tauranga, we hadn't lost the war on democratic accountability, and we wouldn't give up.
So, working alongside allies such as ACT MP Cameron Luxton, we took up the issue at Parliament and called out what he rightly described as an attack on democratic accountability.
As a ratepayer in Tauranga, I know that for Cameron it was personal. He (and ACT) deserve much credit for forcing this onto the coalition's agenda.
So after years of pressure, the Government has now accepted the principle we've been arguing all along: if you want a vote on how ratepayers' money is spent, you should first win the support of ratepayers at the ballot box.
Thank you Friend. For supporting the effort, taking action, and for making this policy victory possible.
This win for democratic accountability is on you!
|
|
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming an amendment to the Local Government (Systems Improvements) Bill restricting voting rights to elected members only, calling it a major win for ratepayers and local democracy.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“This is a victory for ratepayers after years of campaigning by the Taxpayers’ Union and our sister organisations.”
“We have consistently called out councils handing voting power to unelected appointees, including Hastings District Council giving youth members voting rights - a decision we highlighted with our infamous bouncy castle stunt - which went on to win the Jonesies Local Government Waste Award.”
“The principle is obvious: if you are voting on how ratepayers’ money is spent, you should have to answer to those ratepayers at the ballot box. Anything else waters down democratic accountability.”
“Cameron Luxton proposed this amendment last year, and it is good to see the Government finally moving to close this accountability loophole.”
“But the job is not finished. If the Bill can be amended to protect voting rights, then it can and should be amended to protect elected members’ right to information.”
“Councillors cannot properly scrutinise spending, challenge officials, or represent their communities if council bureaucracies can block or delay access to the information they need."
“This amendment is a strong step forward. Now Parliament should finish the job and make it clear that elected members have a guaranteed right to the information required to hold councils to account.”
Jordan is fresh out of the Budget 2026 lockup and joined by economist Cam Bagrie to unpack whether the Government’s numbers really stack up.
They warn the Budget is heavy on promises, light on proof, and may rely too much on inflation, backloaded savings, and heroic assumptions to get back to surplus. From rising borrowing costs and “promise-enomics” to the demographic time bomb of superannuation and healthcare, this is a blunt post-Budget reality check on whether taxpayers are being served broccoli — or just another sugar hit with the bill pushed past the election.
The Taxpayers’ Union is sad to note the passing of distinguished economist Professor Lew Evans ONZM.
Professor Evans was a long-time friend and supporter of the Taxpayers’ Union and was widely respected across academia, public policy, business, and the legal community for his immense contribution to economic thought and regulatory policy in New Zealand.
Taxpayers' Union Chair, Ruth Richardson said:
“Lew Evans was one of New Zealand’s great economic minds — rigorous in his analysis, deeply thoughtful in his approach, and always generous with his time and wisdom.”
"Lew played a very important part in New Zealand's economic transformation."
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:
"I first came across Lew when I was a young lawyer working in regulatory economics - much of the expert material relied upon by the Commerce Commission was Lew's."
“What set Lew apart was not only his extraordinary intellect, but also his humility and practical focus. He understood that good economics must ultimately serve people through better institutions, better incentives, and better public policy.”
Richardson said:
“Lew's contribution to New Zealand’s intellectual and public policy life was profound. On behalf of the Taxpayers’ Union, I extend our sincere condolences to Lew’s family, friends, colleagues, and former students.”
Despite branding this a “responsible Budget”, Nicola Willis has today confirmed the Government will have borrowed more by 2029/30 than Treasury forecast just five months ago.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:
“The accounting tricks and fiscal illusions in Budget 2026 can’t hide the facts. Yes, surplus may have come forward a year, but over the forecast period we will still be borrowing almost a billion dollars more than Treasury forecast only five months ago.”
“Government debt is set to hit $364.1 billion by the end of the decade, or more than $162,000 per household. That’s up from $29,000 in 2008, and $116,000 in Grant Robertson’s last Budget. The trend is only going one way.”
“If this Budget is supposedly fiscally responsible, Nicola Willis needs to explain why debt will now be higher in 2028, 2029, and 2030 than Treasury previously forecast, and why the next generation is being left to pick up the tab.”
We’re just out of the Beehive where the team have been in Budget 2026 ‘lock-up’ poring through Nicola Willis’s election year budget pack.
This year’s budget will be a difficult one for the Government (or the Opposition) to frame. It’s a real mixed bag.
In every Budget, there are two sets of documents. The first is the material provided by the Beehive. It’s the details of all the new spending initiatives, including a folder of spin media releases (amounting to 30 this year – a new record!), a copy of the Minister’s speech to Parliament (what you’ll see on the news), a “Budget as a Glance” glossy leaflet and an 81-page “Summary of Initiatives”.
The second set of documents is arguably more important. They aren’t written within the Beehive, but rather come out of the Treasury as a result of Ruth Richardson’s Fiscal Responsibility Act. These documents are arguably the most important. They are intended to avoid what happened in 1990 – when a new Government discovered fiscal stink bombs hidden from the public.
This is also the document where the Treasury’s forecasts on things like when we’ll get back into budget surplus, forecast GDP growth, and debt projections come from.
While the politicians want the focus on the first set, for our economic team (and us as taxpayers!) it’s the second set that really matters.
Budget 2026 in 100 words
This is an election year Budget. In the short term, it’s actually Nicola Willis’ most profligate in terms of the immediate ‘sugar hit’. It has a wide range of spending initiatives (see below) across transport, health, education, law & order, defence, and energy.
The vast majority of the “savings” come later – in 2027/28, and it is assumed the international situation gets back to normal in the short term.
Compared to December’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, Treasury are forecasting real GDP to be lower, nominal GDP to be higher and the OBEGALx* returning to surplus one year earlier.
*you’ll recall OBGALx is a bit of a fudge – it was invented by Nicola Willis and excludes ACC liabilities.
The biggest loser – RIP National’s ‘no new taxes’ promise 🪦
“No new taxes” promise is now a distant memory: a new “banking levy tax” will be paid by savers and mortgage holders.
The biggest winner – Town Halls across the country celebrating 🏫
To our astonishment, the biggest winner from Budget 2026 is local councils! Rather than forcing councils to live within their means, the Government is going to be directly funding councils with a new $400million ($194/household) based on the number of new resource consents each council approves.
Austerity (in the short term) very much exaggerated 🤫
The Government is making much of its spending restraint. In her speech to us in the lock-up, the Minister included this slide to demonstrate her relative restraint in spending vis-à-vis the Ardern/Hipkins Government to emphasise her ‘fiscal responsibility’.
As you can see, Nicola Willis has a point. Compared to Grant Robertson, she is growing government at a slower rate.
But here’s the fly in the ointment: according to Treasury, compared to her previous budgets, and the claims that Budget 2026 is ‘no sugar hit’, this year’s budget is alarmingly expansionary. 😫
Austerity – but not until after the election ⏰
Check this out (taken from page 21 of Treasury’s economic outlook) – in the year ahead (labelled 2027 below), the overall combined effects of government consumption, investment, taxes, and transfers of Budget 2026 are not about cutting back in the short term. As you can see, the consolidation is after the election.
This is what we mean, we criticise Nicola Willis for saying all the right things, but pushes the savings until later…
Lord, give me fiscal virtue, but just not right now…
Summary of Initiatives (New Spending)
Here's the snapshot provided by the Government. 
New taxes
As well as the new banking levy tax, there are changes to the way foreign investments are taxed. We don’t have our head around the technical details yet (our team are actually headed to a separate briefing with the IRD at 4pm), but from what we can tell so far, it looks to be good and tackle an unfair quirk that saw ‘deemed dividends’ that were taxed regardless of actual cashflows.
There are also tax changes to non-profits and a new limit to tax-deductible donations. This will cap the tax credit to $33,333 per year.
Fine for mum and dad givers to charities, but very bad news for those who want to give away the bulk of their wealth towards the end of their life to, say, build a hospital or buy ambulances. It may also have major implications for charity-owned trading companies. Again, we’ll have more to say once we’ve had the briefing from IRD this afternoon.
The Budget Pack
In the last few minutes, the Budget Documents went online at https://budget.govt.nz/index.htm
Our media releases and commentary are here:
- Spend today, save tomorrow: Budget 2026 promises restraint, eventually
-
RIP National’s ‘No new taxes’ promise: New $209 million “banking tax” will hammer savers and mortgage holders
- Watts hands councils $400 million while ratepayers wait
- Budget 2026 delivers a sugar hit for new spending
Summary
Budget 2026 is a good first step in terms of getting New Zealand’s unaffordable spending and debt trajectory under control. Would we have preferred more? Of course. Would we have preferred sooner? Absolutely.
But credit where credit is due: Nicola Willis is being honest with New Zealanders that the spending path created by the last Labour-led Government is unsustainable. Without wholesale correction, of course, New Zealand is on a path to a debt shock not seen since the early 1990s.
Economic uncertainty is high. While this year’s budget projects a surplus in 2029 or 2030 (depending on the measure used), that all relies on positive terms of trade, and the oil/security situation following a rosy path.
Let’s hope that pans out.
Thank you for your support.
|
|
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling out this year’s Budget for its continued spending commitments.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Despite Minister Willis’ assurances to the contrary, this Budget is full of sugar hits.”
“From $20 million to host the Pacific Islands Forum, to $48 million for te reo Māori broadcasting and cultural capability, this Budget is heavy on the sweet treats.”
“New Zealanders were promised fiscal discipline, but what they’ve been given is more spending today with promises of supposed savings tomorrow.”
“And with Treasury allowing up to $4.7 billion in forecast new operating spending in 2028/29, the surplus could have been even bigger if new operating spending was held at Minister Willis’ promise of $2.1 billion.”
“If the Government is serious about getting the books back to black, it needs to stop with the feel-good spending and commit to genuine fiscal discipline now.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming the Government’s decision to hand councils $400 million in “growth incentives” while walking slow to bring council costs under control by capping rates now.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Local Government Minister Simon Watts has let ratepayers down. Handing councils $400 million in additional revenue without bringing forward a rates cap means councils are under even less pressure to rein in their costs.”
“Town Halls don’t have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Giving councils a bailout in the form of a new taxpayer-funded subsidy, no matter how good the intent, is akin to funding more beer for an alcoholic."
"Giving councils more revenue before forcing discipline is the wrong way around."
“A rates cap should have come first. Without it, extra revenue will simply give councils more room to avoid the hard decisions."
“Simon Watts should be protecting ratepayers from runaway councils, not handing councils $400 million and hoping they suddenly discover restraint.”
Commenting on Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ decision to introduce a new tax - sorry, ‘levy’ - on banks and deposit takers in Budget 2026, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Minister Willis’ ‘no new taxes’ promise is now dead. As much as the Beehive are trying to frame it as a levy on the big banks, make no mistake that this new tax will be paid by savers and mortgage holders. It’s a sleight of the hand.”
“Any so-called levy designed to recover $209 million over four years will be felt at the very time savers and mortgage holders are set to be hammered. Comparisons to the UK and Australia demonstrate this this is nothing more than a naked tax grab.”
“Once again, our political class have taken the easy option to tax harder, rather than make the tough but necessary reductions in spending to ensure Kiwis have the best incentives to invest and save.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is cautiously welcoming the announcement of Budget 2026, with a surplus now expected this decade – but warning that it’s based on seriously optimistic assumptions.
Commenting from within the Budget briefing, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:
“This is clearly an election year budget. Despite the claims from the Finance Minister that it isn’t a ‘sugar hit’, Treasury’s fiscal analysis shows that this Budget is expansionary today, contractionary tomorrow.”
“’Spend today, save tomorrow’ is what New Zealanders have had every year since COVID. Even now, the vast majority of ‘savings’ coming later in the forecast period. Minister Willis is relying on everything going well between now and then, at home and overseas.”
“Minister Willis has said all the right things – now it’s on her to deliver them."
Responding to this afternoon’s Official Cash Rate announcement, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“With ongoing uncertainty around the Iran conflict’s impact on inflation, the Reserve Bank has rightly chosen to sit tight and hold the OCR at 2.25 percent as expected."
“But while the Reserve Bank can wait for the inflation picture to clear, the Government does not have the same luxury. Tomorrow, Nicola Willis' Budget must show credible spending restraint if it wants any believable path back to surplus."
“That means Ministers, not departmental chief executives, going line by line through spending and scrapping programmes that are wasteful, ineffective, or no longer needed. The Taxpayers’ Union’s Back to Black report gives them a ready-made place to start.”
The Taxpayers’ Union pre-Budget report, Back to Black, is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/back_to_black
The Taxpayers' Union is telling Dame Therese Walsh to put her money where her mouth is and make a donation to the IRD before she grandstands about wanting higher taxes.
Speaking to Radio NZ's "30 with Guyon" the Air New Zealand Chair, Walsh suggests that New Zealand needs a tax system better at "picking people up" and is personally "happy to pay a higher tax rate because I earn more than the average Kiwi”, going on to say "I think I should contribute more, and that's what I'm happy to do.”
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:
"This is the sort of woke business ‘leadership' that makes us all poorer. Instead of standing up for entrepreneurship, competitive markets, and tax policy that allows Kiwis to get ahead, Dame Walsh wants an even bigger state, and higher taxes."
"We wonder why New Zealand businesses under-perform. Perhaps if the likes of Walsh took more of an interested in fighting for economic opportunity rather than falling over themselves for Guyon Espiner and RNZ to like them, New Zealand would get ahead."
"I guess Walsh's point of view is understandable when your career is based on quasi-protected business like banking, or chairing an airline dependant on taxpayer handouts. Dame Therese has many admirable achievements, but economic expertise is not among them."
"What make Walsh's comments particularly galling is that she is rumoured to be lobbying for the role as the next Governor General. These political comments – calling for New Zealanders to be taxed even harder, right on the eve of an election year budget – demonstrate why she is totally unsuitable for the constitutional appointment.”
"Craig Stobo was recently sacked for similar political comments – but at least the FMA isn't losing taxpayer money like the airline which Walsh chairs."
"Walsh sounded a lot like Jacinda Ardern in couching higher taxes around aroha and 'lifting people up'. Say that to the average income earner who is struggling to afford the groceries let alone the cost of an Air NZ flight in recent years."
"The only thing Walsh achieves in that interview is Labour's endorsement to be Governor General. Clearly that's what she set out to achieve."
Responding to reports that the Government is considering establishing something similar to Australia’s Business Growth Fund, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“The Government needs to stop speculating with taxpayers’ funds."
“This looks eerily similar to Callaghan Innovation, which was disestablished last year because it had become an unfocused and underperforming agency. It invested too broadly and in too many companies that ultimately failed or moved offshore."
“What would be different about this proposal? The problem this fund appears to address is that the companies under consideration cannot access growth capital. The question that must be asked, and answered first, is: why?"
“The suggestion is that they are too small, but size alone should not deter rational investors."
“The real reason is much more likely to be that their returns are viewed as too low, given the risk of any capital investment. If banks and venture capitalists are unwilling to invest in these firms, why should taxpayers be exposed to these risks?"
“Minister Willis has previously been sceptical about governments attempting to ‘pick winners’ — and the Taxpayers’ Union is in complete agreement. Governments have a very poor track record at picking winners, so why is she now considering trying doing just that?”
Commenting on the release of the new briefing paper, The Wellbeing Surplus, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:
“The political establishment keeps talking about getting back to surplus someday in the future. Our analysis shows New Zealand could be back in surplus right now.”
“New Zealand could return to surplus immediately simply by using Jacinda Ardern’s 2019 Wellbeing Budget as the baseline. Back then, National slammed it as reckless spending. Now, compared to today’s permanently bloated government, it looks like fiscal heaven.”
“COVID may have justified temporary deficits. It does not justify permanently embedding emergency-era spending into the machinery of government years after the emergency ended.”
“That’s resulted in a u-turn by the Taxpayers’ Union. We now want to Make Wellbeing Great Again to get the books back to black, right now.”
“Nicola Willis inherited Labour’s mess. But her Budgets have continued treating Labour’s COVID spending binge as the new normal.”
The Wellbeing Surplus finds that using the 2019 Budget as the spending baseline would see:
- cumulative surpluses between now and 2030 totalling approximately $83.8 billion;
- equivalent to roughly an extra $49,366 per household in New Zealanders’ bank accounts compared to New Zealand’s current fiscal track.
- and debt interest costs falling significantly over time as debt repayment reduced future borrowing costs.
“The Coalition was elected promising spending restraint and a smaller state. If Jacinda Ardern’s 2019 Wellbeing Budget was considered compassionate and generous then, why is returning to equivalent spending levels now supposedly ‘extreme’?”
“This paper proves New Zealand does not need so-called ‘austerity’ to return to surplus. What we need is political courage.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is blaming Local Government Minister Simon Watts for the biggest rates hike in Super City.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
"Simon Watts promised to cap rates, but bizarrely delayed the implementation until the next term of Parliament. That means Auckland Council is able to blow up rates bills now, and will fully admit it's to beat the new law."
“Rather than be forced to deliver the savings promised when the Super City was established, yet again Auckland Council has chosen to dig deeper into the pockets of struggling ratepayers."
“Local Government Minister Simon Watts has let Aucklanders down. Unfortunately, this just a harbinger of what is to come in town halls across the country as councils clamber to lock in higher rates before a cap takes effect in 2029.”
"It's also a major warning to ratepayers elsewhere who are staring down the barrel of forced amalgamations. Far from saving money, the Auckland example shows Watts seems to empower high rates and more wasteful council spending."
In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by Nick Clark from the New Zealand Initiative and Jordan Williams (Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director) to break down the Government’s plan to slash New Zealand’s 78 local authorities down to as few as 15.
They explain why bigger councils do not necessarily mean lower rates, better services, or fewer bureaucrats — and why amalgamation could actually make local government less accountable, less local, and even more expensive. From the Auckland Super City experiment to bloated town hall empires, unelected decision-makers, and the fight to bring councils back to core business, this is a must-listen for ratepayers wondering who really wins when Wellington decides bigger is better.
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Oranga Tamariki has 815 more staff than children in care, with 4,822.4 FTE staff and 135 contractors, compared to 4,142 children in care.
The Official Information Act request also shows:
- In December 2025, 32 children aged 6 to 16 were not enrolled in a school, while 510 records could not be matched to a school enrolment.
- In 2025 there were also 995 missing instances lasting at least 48 hours, involving 414 children in care.
Taxpayers’ Union Investigative Lead, Rhys Hurley, said:
“OT now has more staff and contractors than children in care. That is 1,512 more staff than in 2017, yet vulnerable kids are still going missing and falling through the cracks.”
“When an agency has 815 more staff and contractors than kids in care, taxpayers are right to ask what all those people are actually doing.”
“With 1.2 staff for every child in care, there is no excuse for children going missing for days or not being enrolled in school. Keeping these kids safe and in education is the bare minimum.”
“The answer cannot always be more money, more staff, and more bureaucracy. At some point, taxpayers need to ask whether this agency is actually focused on children or growing the bureaucracy around them.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Stuart Smith’s Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill being drawn from the members’ ballot this evening.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Ratepayers elect councillors to govern, set priorities, and make decisions on their behalf. This Bill is welcome because it puts proper democratic accountability back at the centre of local government.”
“For councillors to direct a council properly, they need proper information rights. Full access by default to advice and key documents is needed as well, so councillors cant be kept at arm’s length by unelected town clerks.”
Hi,
What. A. Week.
The Good: Nicola Willis borrows a leaf from your humble Taxpayers' Union. ☺️
The Bad: Winston Peters wants to buy [checks notes] the bank that nearly saw the Crown go bust in the 1990s. 💸
And the Ugly: Hipkins has a car crash interview (not to be missed! 😂) and the wheels fall off Labour's keystone election policy – they want to shift round Crown-owned enterprises but refuse to release any costings, citing the Treaty... 😬
Plus, Wellington City Council is furious with the Taxpayers' Union and our friends at the Wellington Ratepayers' Alliance for publishing a "Wellington Town Hall Rich List" – it turns out local council bosses don't like the public knowing just how much they are paid.
Let's go.
We love you (?) Nicola Willis ❤️
Just a few months ago, Finance Minister Nicola Willis was holding up our Pathway to Surplus report and rejecting your humble Taxpayers' Union's respectful suggestions, describing them as "human misery" at a press conference in Wellington.
Of course, all we were doing was pointing out the elephants in the room identified by her own economic and Treasury boffins: New Zealand's fiscal path is unattainable, no meaningful tightening of the belt has yet occurred (in fact, under Willis spending and the rate of borrowing has grown!) and the longer we wait, the harder the decisions.
Well, times have changed.
And so too, it appears, has the appetite of the Finance Minister to grasp the mantle and deal with New Zealand's fiscal challenge.
On Tuesday, Minister Willis announced she's going to take the scissors to Wellington’s bloated bureaucracy, promising to cut 8,500 back office jobs, merge departments, and increase efficiency with AI.
Sir Humphrey's growth: One third more bureaucrats since the Key/English-era ⬆️
Let's set out the context: Since the Key/English Government left office, the expansion (more like explosion 💥) in total public service jobs under Ardern/Hipkins was 33.6 percent, even though the population grew by less than 11 percent.
The big increases have come with information professionals (i.e. spin doctors and data analysts), legal, human relations, finance professionals, and managers more generally.
As pointed out by Richard Harman's POLITIK, the number of "traditional public service pen pushers, clerical and administrative workers, are up, but by about only half of how much managers have risen."
Click on the table for a larger version (or click here to read on POLITIK)
Bureaucracy "grew" 33.6 percent, but "slashed" by 0.73 percent... 🙄
Of course, we welcomed Willis' announcement. But given similar promises were made by National prior to the last election, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
To date, the 'massive cuts' you hear about on the news have amounted to just 0.73 percent of the bureaucracy.
Promising savings is the easy part. It allows Nicola Willis to 'bank' the savings within Treasury's forward projections in next week's Budget and bring the (forecast) surplus forward.
But, for taxpayers, it's the delivery that matters.
And that doesn’t mean “reprioritised”, nor shifting roles into the arms (i.e. wallets) of "consultants".
The numbers must. Actually. Fall.
That was the point Jordan made on 1News at 6 o'clock: taxpayers should welcome the target, but they should also keep the pressure on.
But already, the special pleading and backsliding have started...
Foreign Minister Winston Peters is reported to be “thumbing his nose” at Nicola Willis’s hopes of slashing the public service, with the Foreign Minister scoffing at future MFAT savings and saying:
Well, that’s comforting.
If every minister treats their own patch as special, protected, and immune from savings, then taxpayers will get the usual Wellington routine: bold targets, soothing forecasts, but business as usual in the costly head office.
Minister Willis deserves credit for setting a firm target. Now she needs to make it stick. Debt is ticking... ⏰⏰⏰
Now to finish the job: New report on how to get the Budget "Back to Black" 🖤
Having acted on our calls to scrap Chris Hipkins' wasteful Fees Free scheme, and now the announcement on bureaucrat numbers, we thought it only fair to provide an updated edition of our 2025 Pathways to Surplus report.
Yesterday, we released Back to Black: A plan to rebuild New Zealand’s public finances before it’s too late.
Because I have to be frank with you, even with the recent announcements, the numbers are very grim.
New Zealand’s government debt has blown out from $46 billion in 2008 to $291 billion today, and is forecast to hit $363 billion by 2030.
Per household, that's a change from $29,000 in 2008 to a stonking $162,000 for every Kiwi household!
Ouch.
So our helpful Back to Black fiscal cheatsheet identifies $14.11 billion in savings for next year – that's enough to wipe out the forecast $13.9 billion deficit and achieve a $210 million surplus.
👉 Read Back to Black here 👈
Another government-owned bank: What could possibly go wrong? 😬
While Nicola Willis reaches for the axe, Winston Peters reaches for a fax. He wants to go back to the 1980s when the Crown had the majority share in the Bank of New Zealand.
Going rogue with the taxpayer chequebook, Winston Peters announced he's eyeing up the BNZ with plans to renationalise it.
Yes, that bank. The bank whose history with Crown ownership is not exactly a bedtime story for taxpayers.
Our Chair, Hon Ruth Richardson, might know something about this. She was Minister of Finance the last time BNZ had to be bailed out. Her response to Peters' speech:
“The last time the Crown was the majority owner of the Bank of New Zealand, it nearly sent us bankrupt. Now Winston Peters wants to do it all over again 30 years later.”
And it seems Ruth touched a nerve...
Borrowing to buy a bank while credit ratings agencies are breathing down New Zealand’s neck about government debt is not economic strategy, it is Muldoonism – and we all know where that left us.
We all agree that New Zealand needs more banking competition. But let's do that by allowing new generation fin-tech banks to enter the market, rather than retry a government-owned model subject to political pressure, and too often ending in tears (i.e. bailouts).
Bad banks cost shareholders, but bad government banks cost taxpayers.
The Geographic Board belongs in Willis’ bureaucracy clean-up 🗺️
The problem with Wellington is not just how many bureaucrats there are. It is what too many of them think they are there to do.
Voters can sack politicians. They cannot sack taxpayer-funded boards that decide they know better than the public, Parliament, or the ministers supposedly in charge.
Labour refuse to provide costings for "cornerstone policy" 🤣🤣🤣
Now, I love parlour games as much as the next person. But one game I’m not willing to play is Labour’s “guess the cost of our policy” lottery.
This week, the NZ Herald reported:
Labour has admitted key details about its Future Fund, including the cost to the Crown and which state assets will be rolled into it, will not be released until after voters have gone to the polls.
On Tuesday, Labour’s finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds admitted the party doesn’t itself know which public assets will go in the fund, and won’t know until it gets advice from officials after the election.
Explaining why this was necessary, Edmonds said some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) may have Treaty of Waitangi obligations attached to them.
The Government would need advice on these obligations, which could only come after an election, meaning Labour will not decide on which assets go into the fund before Kiwis go to the polls.
First, it was “commercial sensitivity”. Now, apparently, it's Treaty obligations. What next? The dog ate it?
Amber, Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds are mixing fiscal policy with peek-a-boo. Voters deserve better.
And this is despite Hipkins promise less than a year ago to "stand behind our promises because every single one of them will have been properly researched, fully costed, and we will have a plan to deliver on it".
It's literally still on the Labour Party website!
Labour can't even keep promises in Opposition.
This is really treating the voters as gullible idiots. They are claiming they can’t give details because of Treaty obligations.
The real answer is that they know their numbers don’t add up. They think if they give no details before the election, then they can’t be scrutinised on their credibility.
Asking voters to sign a cheque before disclosing the amount is just not credible. Can we afford it?
From bad to worse: Hipkins car crash interview with Jack Tame 💥🚗
If you need a reminder of what the last Government's spin-over-substance approach sounded like, Jack Tame's Q&A interview with Hipkins over the weekend is absolutely worth a watch.
You can watch the full 21 minute interview here – or just our highlights reel of Chris Hipkins getting roasted. 🤭
Bring popcorn. 🍿
Taxpayers milked for $1.07m cowshed loan 💸🐄
And it’s not just Labour’s election promises where taxpayers are being asked to sign blank cheques.
We’ve written before about how the Regional Infrastructure Fund is looking more and more like the Provincial Growth Fund: a new Government, a new fund, but the same old pork barrel politics.
Now Rhys has uncovered that the taxpayer-backed $1.07 million cowshed upgrade in Taranaki is expected to sustain just 1.8 ongoing jobs.
Yes, 1.8 jobs. Not 18. Not 180. One point eight.
Documents released under the Official Information Act show the project received $900,000 in loan funding through the Government’s Regional Infrastructure Fund, despite only $120,000 in co-funding from Omuturangi 6E & 7A Ahu Whenua Trust.
Large parts of the application, financial analysis, loan terms, risk assessment, and decision-making material were blacked out.
Moo-ve along. Nothing to see here...
If the project stacks up commercially, why couldn’t the Trust get a loan from a bank like it has before? And if it doesn’t stack up, why are taxpayers being asked to carry the risk?
Farmers across Taranaki would love help upgrading their cowsheds. But most of them are stuck paying rates, taxes, interest, and compliance costs without being able to send the bill to Wellington.
Wellington City Council’s bureaucratic Rich List 💰🏛️
And from taxpayers being milked in Taranaki, to ratepayers being squeezed in Wellington...
Our sister group, the Wellington Ratepayers’ Alliance, has launched the Official Wellington City Council Rich List - exposing 35 Council figures paid more than $200,000, including 34 Council staff paid more than Mayor Andrew Little.
Top of the pops is Town Clerk Matt Prosser on $531,616, while five Chief Officers sit at salary-band midpoints of $440,000. The Mayor, on $201,947, comes in last.
All up, these 35 officials cost ratepayers around $9.3 million a year.
That’s roughly the entire annual rates bill of 1,800 average Wellington households.
Not a bad gig if you can get it.
No one is saying councils don’t need capable staff. But when Wellington has the second-highest average residential rates in the country, the highest commercial rates, and a bureaucracy where dozens of officials earn more than the person voters actually elected to lead the city, ratepayers are entitled to ask whether they are getting results to match the payroll.
We are reliably informed by a Wellington City Councillor that expletives were flowing in the "Executive Lounge" at the Council when the Rich List appeared full page in Tuesday's edition of The Post...
If you're paid the big bucks, we say it ought to be transparent. In the UK, the salary of every single public sector worker is searchable via an online database. The kerfuffle this rich list has caused speaks to a culture where highly paid executives expect to remain behind closed doors, unelected, and unaccountable.
I'm sure that many on the Town Hall Rich List will be worth what they are paid. Others, not so much. But when they fight simple transparency – including a legal threat from the Council received on Monday – for simply advertising information that is publicly available (albeit not widely promoted) speaks to a culture that is not serving ratepayers well.
👉 View the Rich List at WellingtonRichList.nz 👈
Thank you for your support! Enjoy the rest of your week.
|
|
In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by former Finance Minister and Taxpayers’ Union Chair Ruth Richardson for a no-holds-barred warning about New Zealand’s worsening fiscal mess.
From exploding debt and runaway interest costs to bloated bureaucracy, superannuation reform, and a Government that still hasn’t found its “brave pills”, Ruth lays out why the country may be sleepwalking towards a fiscal crisis — and what needs to change before taxpayers are left carrying the can.
The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for cost-benefit analysis to be made compulsory for all major government investment decisions following the release of the Helen Clark Foundation’s report Measuring What Matters.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf says:
“Cost-benefit analysis should be at the heart of every major spending decision, yet this report shows many agencies still aren’t using it properly.”
“Treasury already provides a clear methodology, so there is no excuse for Ministers to be signing off major investments without robust analysis of costs and benefits.”
“That only a third of departments surveyed were regularly using cost-benefit analysis raises serious questions about the quality of advice going to Ministers. This may go some way to explain why New Zealand ranks among the top 10 percent of OECD countries for infrastructure spending but in the bottom 10 percent for efficiency.”
“The Government should make cost-benefit analysis compulsory for all investment decisions so taxpayers can see whether projects actually stack up.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that New Plymouth District Council will spend $4.37 million demolishing Metro Plaza and a further $2.53 million on “daylighting” the Huatoki Stream, as part of the 2021 Ngāmotu New Plymouth City Centre Strategy.
Rhys Hurley, Taxpayers Union Investigative Lead said:
“RNZ reported the Metro Plaza demolition at just $1.1 million, only a quarter of the actual cost. When the public-facing figure is that far off, it points to a serious transparency failure."
"Ratepayers shouldn’t have to dig through long-term plan workshops or file information requests just to find out what they’re paying for.”
“This is a classic example of a ‘nice-to-have,’ spending millions to turn the stream into a city focal point after the last council hit the New Plymouth District with a 37.73 percent rates hike."
“It seems the council's bureaucrats were prioritising pet projects like renaming parks, removing cars from the city centre, and co-governance arrangements in this strategy ahead of front-footing this information to the people paying the bills.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the Ministry for Regulation’s new report The State of New Zealand’s Regulatory Systems, saying it confirms what taxpayers and businesses have long suspected: New Zealand’s public service has become an tangle of regulators, legislation, and bureaucracy.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tory Relf, said:
“The challenge now is whether the Government act on it under their plans for the public service, or whether this becomes just another report gathering dust.”
“Having at least 267 organisations involved in regulation is an obscene number for a country of New Zealand’s size, and shows just how far the Wellington bureaucracy has been allowed to sprawl. Even ministerial oversight has become absurd, with Simeon Brown alone responsible for 32 regulatory organisations across his portfolios. ”
“The creation of MCERT must learn from the mistakes of MBIE. Mergers should eliminate duplication, simplify legislation, have clear Ministerial responsibility and reduce staffing numbers - not simply create even larger bureaucratic empires.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the appointment of Mr Raveen Jaduram as Chair of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, saying his infrastructure experience is exactly what FENZ needs to get its capital planning and spending under control.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tory Relf, said:
“Raveen Jaduram has spent more than three decades managing major infrastructure, making sure public assets are properly planned, maintained, and delivered. That is precisely the background FENZ needs.”
“Minister van Velden has rightly put the focus on active governance of FENZ’s fire appliance investment, including a clear multi-year pipeline that matches operational need with affordability and value for money. Mr Jaduram’s infrastructure background should help bring the planning discipline, spending control, and accountability FENZ has been missing.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has today released Back to Black: A plan to rebuild New Zealand’s public finances before it’s too late.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Seeing as Finance Minister Nicola Willis appeared to enjoy our A Pathway to Surplus report enough to bring it along to HYEFU, act on our Fees Free recommendation, and announce a reduction in bureaucrat numbers, we thought it only fair to provide her with an updated edition.”
“Back to Black gives the Minister a practical, oven-ready plan to stop the debt spiral and get the books back into surplus.”
“New Zealand is drowning in red ink. Debt has blown out from $46 billion in 2008 to $291 billion today, and is forecast to hit $363 billion by 2030.”
“The report identifies $14.11 billion in savings next year, enough to wipe out the forecast $13.9 billion deficit and deliver a $210 million surplus. That includes $4.5 billion from better-targeted welfare, $930.6 million from ending corporate welfare, $782 million from tertiary education reform, and $639.4 million from cutting duplicated demographic ministries.”
“Across the forecast period, the report identifies $59.29 billion in savings, plus $104.49 billion in possible asset sales to reduce debt and cut interest costs.”
“This is not austerity. It is fiscal common sense. Every dollar wasted on interest payments, bloated bureaucracy, and political pet projects is a dollar that cannot go toward hospitals, schools, police, or tax relief.”
“You don’t have to agree with every proposal. But pretending the current path is sustainable is no longer an option.”
“The path back to black is clear. What is missing is political will.”
Back to Black: A plan to rebuild New Zealand’s public finances before it’s too late is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/back_to_black.
Chris Hipkins calls Labour’s Future Fund a ‘cornerstone' policy, but Labour can’t answer basic questions like how many jobs it will create, what it will cost, or even which assets would be dumped into it.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“If Labour doesn’t know what assets are going in, how many jobs it creates, or what the numbers look like, how are voters supposed to know whether they can afford it? This is not some minor detail buried in the fine print. It is the whole policy.”
“First it was commercial sensitivity, now it is Treaty obligations. Labour keeps changing the excuse, but the problem is the same: they want voters to sign the cheque before seeing the bill.”
“New Zealanders know Labour like to tax more and spend more. The least they can do is be upfront about the cost before asking voters to trust them with the country’s credit card.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ target to reduce the public service to 55,000, saying it is a win for taxpayers – but that next week’s Budget must keep the same pressure.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Cutting the public service headcount is a big win for taxpayers. At long last, Minister Willis is putting some backbone into the books.
“But 55,000 must be the halfway mark, not the finish line. When National left office in 2017, the public service sat at around 47,000 FTEs - if that was enough then, it should be enough now.”
“The proof of the pudding will be in the eating: public service numbers must actually fall. But between last week’s decision to scrap Fees Free and today’s target to shrink the public service, it’s clear Minister Willis has been reading A Pathway to Surplus.”
“This is a step toward surplus, but taxpayers should not have to wait until the end of the decade for the books to balance. Next week’s Budget needs to go further and cut harder across the board to bring the books back to black.”
The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that disgraced Waikato Regional Councillor Robert Cookson – one of the so-called ‘Rates Control Team’ who u-turned on his pre-election pledge just six months into the job – has put himself forward for selection to stand as a New Zealand First candidate.
Jordan Williams, a spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Union, said:
“Robert Cookson is a man in politics for pure self-interest. He’s proven to voters his contempt for democracy by failing to keep his word. And now that he's cooked his goose in local government, he's greasing up to NZ First for another gig.”
“Unlike the Rates Control Team, NZ First is a party of conviction and integrity. NZ First must not let this turncoat sneak into the party.”
“The Taxpayers’ Union would certainly ensure local voters are aware of Mr Cookson’s record in local government should he run for Parliament. The billboards would write themselves.”
New Taxpayers’ Union-Curia polling shows NZ First voters overwhelmingly prefer a National-led Government over a Labour-led alternative, with only one in ten wanting Winston Peters to go left after the election.
As part of this month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll of 1,000 New Zealanders, respondents were asked whether they would prefer the next Government to be National-led or Labour-led.
Overall, 42 percent of voters preferred a National-led Government, compared with 40 percent who preferred a Labour-led Government. A further 18 percent were unsure.
But among those who indicated they would vote NZ First, the result was clear: 56 percent said they wanted a National-led Government, while just 10 percent wanted a Labour-led Government. The remaining 34 percent were unsure.
The Poll also asked voters who they think NZ First would go with if the party holds the balance of power after the election.
Overall, 43 percent of voters thought NZ First would go with National, 27 percent thought they would go with Labour, and 30 percent were unsure.
Among NZ First voters, two-thirds (66 percent) expect the party to go with National, compared with 19 percent who said Labour and 15 percent who were unsure.
Commenting on the results, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Unlike previous elections, it appears NZ First voters aren’t sitting on the fence. The results send a very clear message: NZ First voters see the Party as part of a centre-right governing arrangement and they want to keep it that way.”
Responding to the speech this afternoon by Winston Peters where he announced a policy to buy back the Bank of New Zealand, Hon. Ruth Richardson, Chair of the Taxpayers’ Union, said:
“The last time the Crown was the majority owner of the Bank of New Zealand, it nearly sent us bankrupt. Now Winston Peters wants to do it all over again 30 years later. It’s not a serious idea, it’s a bankruptcy of thinking.”
“Time and time again government-owned banks cost taxpayers dearly. Mr Peters’ policy would be forgivable only in the 1960s.”
“Borrowing to buy a bank when credit ratings agencies are already putting New Zealand on watch for unsustainable debt is a counterproductive contribution to the challenges facing New Zealand’s public finances.”
The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that a taxpayer-funded $1.07 million cowshed upgrade in Taranaki is expected to sustain just 1.8 ongoing jobs.
Documents released under the Official Information Act request show the project received $900,000 in loan funding through the Government’s Regional Infrastructure Fund, despite only $120,000 in co-funding from Omuturangi 6E & 7A Ahu Whenua Trust. Large parts of the application, financial analysis, loan terms, risk assessment, and decision-making material of the loan have also been withheld.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Rhys Hurley said:
"The Government sold this as a productivity story, yet taxpayers are being used as the bank for a private cowshed upgrade that creates fewer than two ongoing jobs.”
“If this project stacks up commercially, why couldn’t the trust get a loan from a bank like they have before? And if it doesn’t stack up, why are taxpayers being asked to carry the risk?”
“Farmers across Taranaki would love help upgrading their cowsheds, but they are stuck paying rates, taxes, interest, and compliance costs. They don’t get to send the bill to Wellington.”
“The Government needs to explain why this loan was approved, what risks taxpayers are exposed to, and how many more low-value projects are hiding behind blacked-out OIA documents. Otherwise, this simply looks like another case of pork barrel politics.”
Responding to the Prime Minister’s pre-Budget speech, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Christopher Luxon is talking about fiscal responsibility while announcing nearly $3,780 per household in additional government spending.”
“A $2.1 billion operating package is not restraint - it is still $2.1 billion more spending. And increasing the capital package to $5.7 billion, when December’s Budget Policy Statement had it at $3.5 billion, is a $1,065-per-household blowout before Budget Day has even arrived.”
“If the Government is serious about getting debt down and returning to surplus, this should be a ‘zero Budget’ with no new net spending, like John Key’s 2011 Budget. Every dollar of new spending should be matched by a dollar of savings.”
National have seen a small uptick in support in the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll, while both ACT and New Zealand First have taken a hit. The Coalition continues to be able to form a Government on these numbers.
The poll sees National up 0.2 points to 30.0 percent, while Labour is down 1.5 points to 31.9 percent. New Zealand First drops 1.9 points to 11.7 percent, while the Greens gain 1.9 points to 9.7 percent.
ACT drops 2.5 points to 6.5 percent, while Te Pāti Māori gains 1.5 points to 4.1%.
Headline results and more information about the methodology can be found on the Taxpayers’ Union’s website at www.taxpayers.org.nz/maypoll_2026tucur
For the minor parties, TOP is at 2.8 percent, New Conservatives are at 0.8 percent, Outdoors and Freedom Party is on 0.5 percent, and Vision NZ is on 0.3 percent.
This month’s results are compared to the last Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll conducted in April 2026, available at www.taxpayers.org.nz/easter_26_poll
The combined projected seats for the 'Government Bloc' (National, ACT, New Zealand First) is down 3 to 62 seats. The 'Opposition Bloc' (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori) is up 3 to 58.
Labour drops 1 seat to 41, while National gains 2 to 39. New Zealand First drops 2 to 15, while the Greens gain 2 to 12. ACT drops 3 to 8, and Te Pāti Māori gains 2 to 5.
In the Preferred Prime Minister ranking, Luxon gains 1.0 point to 21.5 percent. Hipkins drops 2.7 points to 19.0 percent. Peters drops 0.5 points to 11.6 percent, Swarbrick drops 2.0 points to 5.4 percent, and Seymour drops 0.7 points to 3.9%.
Commenting on the results, Taxpayers’ Union Spokesperson Tory Relf said:
"National may be breathing a sigh of relief, but there's still only a hair's breadth between the left and right blocs, and barely a few percentage points between Kiwis' preferred Prime Ministers."
"The final Budget before the election is only a few weeks away. It will be make-or-break for the Government."
"Unsurprisingly cost of living and the economy remain Kiwis' top concerns. With the fuel crisis still dragging growth down, the Government needs to announce serious plans to right-size the state and get the country growing again."
Hi,
Look, I'll be first to admit the Taxpayers' Union can be a little critical of the current Government, but in today's Taxpayer Update, it's nothing but kudos for Nicola Willis, Winston Peters, and Christopher Bishop. 🥰
This month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll is out, an update on the ratbagu-turning regional councillors in the Waikato, and the biggest change to Palmerston North's Alcohol ("Councillor lounge") Rules in a generation...
Oh, and local council amalgamation – we ask the question: Is bigger necessarily better? 🤔
Fiscal Reality bites: Luxon gets serious about upping the retirement age 👵🏼
Regular readers will know that thanks to the aging population, the second fastest area of government spending is NZ Superannuation (the fastest growing spend is [checks notes] interest on government debt). This path we are on is not sustainable, the fiscal reckoning is coming – the more we delay, the harder the hangover.
So Christopher Luxon's grasping of the fiscal mettle and announcement that the National Party will go into this year's election on a policy of raising the Superannuation age is refreshing.
NZ Super: some facts 🆘
Universal Superannuation currently costs about five percent of the total economy – more than the cost of education, justice, and defence combined – and is projected to hit eight percent by 2065.
But the real story is illustrated by the dependency ratio: in the 1980s, there were seven workers to every Super recipient. It's 4:1 now – and forecast to be just 2:1 by 2060.
Even Labour acknowledge that's not a sustainable trend and is mooting the idea of means testing*.
Make no mistake, no credible economic analysis sees the superannuation settings staying the same if the Government is to remain solvent. It's a question of when to make changes, not if.
But until now, both Labour and National have been pretty half hearted in leading the discussion while in Government (both have been far more willing to have the honest conversation with voters while in Opposition)
But, thanks to Christopher Luxon, the National Party is acknowledging the elephant in the room.
Even small changes make a big difference: A raise in the recipient age, from 65 to 68 (in line with the UK) and the pinning of increases to inflation only (rather than the average wage) would make a hugedifference, keeping Super costs to roughly the current percent of GDP.
The earlier we settle this debate, the better those who are not yet of retirement age have certainty and can plan. We say well done to Mr Luxon.
* A quick note on means testing: Reasonable minds can differ, and while an option to lower the cost, it's not one we favour. One of the economic advantages New Zealand has is a very high workforce participation rate for our over 65s. Means testing would likely see that fall away, as well as creating an incentive for people not to save for retirement, which is what we need to encourage.
Fees Free-free Budget? Costly Ardern policy on scrapheap 🗑️
And in a sign that the Luxon Government is getting serious about cutting back on unaffordable hangovers from the Ardern-era – Winston Peters has u-turned on one of the signature Policies of his Ardern-led Government when he let slip on Friday that the Fees Free programme faces the chop in this month's Budget.
Better late than never.
Your humble Taxpayers’ Union was warning about this policy from day one. Literally. We published Robin Hood Reversed back in August 2017, just hours after Ardern launched her policy (and just a few months before NZ First put Labour into office).
In the Briefing Paper, we made the simple point: Fees Free was never going to be a serious solution to educational disadvantage and we pointed out that the same policy in Scotland had resulted in fewertertiary students and more inequality in who was accessing universities.
And, well, we told you so!
The Government's own boffins now admit that Labour's 'Fees Free' policy had “no impact on [...] learner participation and access"; "no noticeable effect on general participation in tertiary study"; and even concluded that "learner behaviour is not generally influenced by tuition fees”.
Coming from the university sector's own bureaucracy, it's damning.
Fees Free is an expensive middle-class handout, paid for by blue collar and low-income taxpayers. Taxpayers are already subsidising more than 80 percent of the costs of a tertiary education. By definition, those at varsity are likely to be the high income earners of tomorrow.
Our on-campus group, Generation Screwed, put it well in their comments to media:
"Support should be targeted toward students who genuinely need it most, rather than expensive universal programmes that leave future taxpayers footing the bill. Young New Zealanders deserve a future they can actually afford, not empty promises that that stick them with costly debt later down the road.”
“While ‘free’ policies sound appealing, young people ultimately end up paying through debt, higher taxes, or weaker economic opportunities,”
The best thing a government can do for future generations is to have no debt. If money saved from scrapping Fees Free sees the deficit reduced, our kids and grandkids are better off.
NEW POLL: Centre-right remain ahead, Luxon returns to preferred PM top-spot 🔵🥇
There’s good news for Mr Luxon in this month’s Taxpayers’ Union-Curiapoll, which sees the current Coalition Government still ahead (although down a little) to 62 seats. The combined seats for the 'Opposition Parties' bloc is up 3 to 58 seats.
Compared to last month, National are up 0.2 points to 30.0 percent, while Labour are down 1.5 points to 31.9 percent. New Zealand First drop 1.9 points to 11.7 percent, while the Greens gain 1.9 points to 9.7 percent.
ACT drops 2.5 points to 6.5 percent, while Te Pāti Māori gains 1.5 points to 4.1%.
In the Preferred Prime Minister ranking, Luxon gains 1.0 point to 21.5 percent. Hipkins drops 2.7 points to 19.0 percent. Peters drops 0.5 points to 11.6 percent, Swarbrick drops 2.0 points to 5.4 percent, and Seymour drops 0.7 points to 3.9%.
For more information, head over to our website.
Have taxpayers been taken for a ride already on Auckland's CBD Rail Link? 🚇
A lot of taxpayer victories come after hard-fought campaigns, long stretches of public pressure or social media shenanigans. This one was surprisingly quick.
Last week, former boss of the Auckland Rail Link, Sean Sweeney, hit the headlines for declaring the project could have been “half the cost” - and at an estimated $2,663.83 per household, that’s not small change.
Remember, this was the project that was originally a CBD Rail Loop, then just a two-way Link – and now we're told we paid twice what we should have.
Someone needs to ask: "WTF?"
This is why we can't have nice things! 😭 😭 😭
Contrary to the cries of local government about needing more of your money, according to the OECD data, New Zealand actually spends more than most developed countries on infrastructure. We're in the top ten percent of spenders, but the lowest ten percent for 'value for money'!
The issue isn't that we're spending too little, it's that we're not getting bang for buck.
So when we saw this example, James set into motion and immediately – writing to Transport Minister Chris Bishop and publicly demanding a Ministerial inquiry to understand not just whether but why our largest infrastructure project has been so poorly delivered.
If we are to fix the problem, we first have to understand it.
As James put it:
If Dr Sweeney’s claims are accurate, taxpayers deserve clear answers as to why this project cost them
twice what it needed to. With Treasury estimating an infrastructure deficit of $210 billion, there is no
chance of closing the gap without far better cost control.
He called on the Minister to commission a Ministerial Inquiry, and suggested terms of reference.
Well, it's good to know there is at least one Taxpayer Hero in the Beehive because blow me down, with a few hours, James managed to get Minister Bishop to answer the call!
Nice one Bish.
Local government amalgamation is coming... careful what you wish for?
One place Minister Bishop – and Local Government Minister Simon Watts – may have fallen short this week is their apparent faith that 'bigger is better' when it comes to local government.
All the signals point to amalgamation coming for local councils (and not just regional councils), whether communities like it or not...
In the words of Minister Bishop, councils must centralise or “[they] will do it for you.”
Look, we're hardly cheerleaders for the muppets who run too many of New Zealand's town halls (we leave that to others), but when it comes to amalgamations, the data is far from clear-cut.
Just ask Aucklanders whether the so-called "Super City" has been that grand? The promised savings never eventuated, the post-implementation review still hasn't happened, and good luck getting hold of anyone other than a 'customer service' (ironic) rep on the telephone.
And as shown by our Ratepayers Report league tables last week, some of New Zealand's most efficient councils are actually the smaller ones.
And at least at the smaller councils, you can actually know who is responsible for what, rather than fight with a bureaucracy just to get a hold of someone on the phone.
Over the weekend, Rhys had a thoughtful piece published by The Post, which is well worth a read (either here on The Post if you have a subscription, or on our website here).
So is amalgamation the value-for-money panacea? Well, the evidence is lacking. As Rhys summarised:
The Infrastructure Commission (in 2022) examined whether larger councils deliver key services more cheaply [...] it found council size means nothing when it comes to cost efficiency. Performance was basically the same on average.
TDB Advisory’s reports make these same points. Wellington super-city analysis found a case for sharing some costly services, like roading and water. For the other local government functions, sitting at around two-thirds of expenditure, there was little or no evidence of economies of scale.
Their overall conclusion was blunt: “bigger is not necessarily better”.
Better than amalgamation would be tackling the root causes of out-of-control local government: removing the power of general competence would be a start. That would mean going back to the law as it stood before 2002 when councils were only permitted to undertake activities they were charged with (i.e. to focus on the basics) rather than determine for themselves what activities they involve themselves in.
Or perhaps, Watts could bring his rates cap now to bring council spending under control, rather than waiting until the end of the decade (and letting councils hike in the meantime).
And reforms to improve the quality of governance, oversight, and transparency (more to come on that in the coming days)...
Instead, bigger councils – with their bigger bureaucracies and oversized budgets – are like using a wrecking ball to hit a nail when there’s a perfectly good hammer in the toolbox.
Win for transparency: MBIE share more info on fuel shipments 🚢⛽️
After weeks of lobbying, letters, calling out MBIE and even a meeting between the Taxpayers' Union and MBIE's CEO, a win this week in MBIE finally providing the names of the ships carrying fuel to New Zealand as part of their twice-weekly 'fuel supply updates'.
Linking with real-time marine tracking tools, this change means that FuelClock.nz is even more accurate.
MBIE didn't want to release this data. For six weeks, MBIE have claimed the information is 'commercially sensitive' – which was always nonsense. The fact is that we can now know - immediately - should a fuel ship turn around on the water (rather than having the information 'managed' – i.e. delayed and spun – by the Beehive.
Keep an eye on the ships at FuelClock.nz ⛽️
Update on Waikato Regional Council 'turncoats' 👋
Finally, this week, an update on the two Waikato Regional Councillors who broke their Rates Control Team 'Pledge' to exit the Council from the anti-ratepayer sock-puppet lobby group Local Government New Zealand.
First, there was some confusion following Jordan's update - not all the members of the "Rates Control Group" broke their Pledge. The voting breakdown was:
The local media have been pretty brutal (and rightly so).
Update on Sir Les Paterson (Palmerston North Mayoral edition) 
In last week's Taxpayer Update Jordan highlighted the errr, generous, entertainment spending of Palmerston North Mayor Grant Smith.
To recap, the Mayor was (to put it in the words of our source) "f*&ken furious" that a fellow councillor had exposed the Mayor for sucking back a grand a month of ratepayer-funded booze, plus much more coded as "Mayoral hospitality" on the expense card.
Before your humble Taxpayers' Union took to it, the Mayor was claiming it was all badly needed for the Council's "international relations" and "diplomacy" (yes, seriously!).
How attitude can change with a little bit of publicity...
This week, we spotted a very interesting agenda item – a motion put onto the Agenda by non-other than Mayor Smith: to call closing time on the Councillor's [drinking] Lounge.
We now have the Minutes, and the Mayor's motion passed unanimously (and Mayor Smith is now claiming virtue from teetotallers).
But things don't go unnoticed by your humble Taxpayers' Union...
We went back and had a look at the last time the Palmerston North City Council voted on its (very) "local" alcohol policy...
Back in November 2022, a vote on a motion to stop the Council from reimbursing staff and elected officials for booze was defeated by one vote!
The deciding vote against? One Mayor Smith...
Cheers to transparency! 🥂
Decision to terminate Taxpayers' Union membership - a note from the Chair 🗳️
While this sort of missive is normally reserved for members only, given the wider interest from supporters, we have published on our website our Chair's email to Members on the Board's decision here.
If you are not a member of the Taxpayers' Union (this email goes to our full 'supporter' list), you can join up here. Membership allows you to attend our AGM, other gatherings, and provide feedback to guide the work of our union.
➡️ Join the Taxpayers' Union ✊
Thank you for your support, and enjoy the rest of your week.
|
|
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that the Ministry of Social Development paid taxpayer-funded bonuses exclusively to Public Service Association members before their collective agreement had even been signed by the union. An Official Information Act request revealed 5,459 FTE received the $300 member-only benefit, costing taxpayers $1,637,700.
Taxpayers’ Union Lead Investigator, Rhys Hurley, said:
“Among other bonuses for Te Reo capability and overtime allowances sits Clause 2.8.1, the ‘Lump Sum Payment': a union-favouritism clause dressed up as a good-faith benefit for union members but funded by taxpayers.”
“MSD paid out the more than $1.6 million to PSA members before the union had even signed the agreement, following a similar Health NZ deal earlier this year.”
“Only in the public service would a payout that effectively leaves taxpayers funding union membership fees even make it out of bargaining, let alone be paid out before any agreement had even been signed.”
“If the Ministry wants to hand out special payments to union members, then the responsible Minister should be signing off these agreements and justifying them personally.”
The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement that National will campaign on lifting the Super age, saying it is a sensible step toward getting the books back in order.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“The Prime Minister has clearly recognised that, with government debt approaching $300 billion by the election, the current path is unsustainable. Lifting the Super age is one of the difficult but necessary decisions needed to protect taxpayers and restore fiscal discipline.”
“But he doesn't need to wait until November. There needs to be this kind of ambition in this month's Budget. For more ideas on how the Government can return to surplus, Ministers should read our A Pathway to Surplus report.”
A Pathway to Surplus is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/a_pathway_to_surplus
Responding to reports that Waitaki District Council considered but rejected consulting ratepayers on a 9 percent rates increase option, instead only presenting options of 19-45 percent, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:
“Waitaki ratepayers have already been smashed with a 34.8 percent rates hike over the last three years, now they are being asked to choose between increases of 19, 27, or 45 percent. While budget adjustments are unavoidable in Waitaki in order to fulfil their water delivery requirements, efficiencies could still be found elsewhere. It’s not mandated that they have to increase rates, it’s mandated that they have to invest more in their water infrastructure."
"Even so, the real scandal is that Council apparently knew there was still a lower option and chose not to put it to the public. According to unconfirmed minutes reported by the Otago Daily Times, the reason was that ‘the 9% increase might be more popular with the community but would leave less financial flexibility’. In other words: don’t ask ratepayers, because they might pick the cheaper option.”
“Minister Watts cannot keep pretending this is a problem for 2029. He has created exactly the wrong incentive. By announcing a rates cap but delaying it until 2029, he has effectively told councils to get their hikes in now. If the Minister is serious about protecting ratepayers, he should bring the cap forward and stop councils using the next three years as a last-chance spending spree."
“The Taxpayers’ Union will be writing to Minister Watts inviting him onto Taxpayer Talk to defend why ratepayers should wait until 2029 while councils like Waitaki race to lock in double-digit hikes.”
Responding to revelations today that the ex-CEO of Auckland’s City Rail Link thinks the expected $5.5 billion final cost could have been halved, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tory Relf, said “if even remotely accurate, such a waste of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money warrants a full inquiry into how public funds were used.”
“International statistics show that New Zealand has a high per capita infrastructure spend but delivers very poor results. The City Rail Link project exemplifies this problem. Over-specification, gold-plating and scope changes kill efficient procurement and construction of infrastructure assets and this appears to be exactly what has happened here. No wonder costs blew out and it took so long to build.”
“The Taxpayers’ Union believes the waste of public funds on this project is so great that a full inquiry and accounting of the excess costs must be undertaken. We have written to the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, calling for a full ministerial inquiry into what is increasingly looking like a gross misuse of public funds."
Reacting to report in The Post revealing KiwiRail’s ferry project’s $14.4 million consultant spend, including $1 million on recruitment services alone, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tyler Groenewald said:
“$14.4 million on consultants and not a single ferry to show for it is the definition of a project that’s run aground before a single hull has even hit the water.”
“KiwiRail have spent nearly $1 million on recruitment alone; taxpayers are paying for consultants to find people to hire more consultants, while the actual ferries remain nowhere in sight.”
“The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Ombudsman to release the full list of consultant contracts immediately. Taxpayers deserve to know exactly who’s cashing in on this slow-motion shipwreck.”
“Taxpayers have totally been taken for a ride. Until someone drops anchor on this spending spree, taxpayers will keep footing the fare for a voyage to nowhere.”
The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the Government’s decision to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) as the first step toward reducing unnecessary bureaucracy.
Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:
“This is exactly the sort of quango reduction taxpayers voted for. One less bureaucracy, one less board, and one less layer of administration standing between taxpayers and value for money.”
“Ministers need to keep going. There are still far too many agencies, from the Outdoor Access Commission to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, that have outlived their original purpose but continue consuming taxpayer money.”