Responding to the Ministry for the Environment’s announcement of a review into New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, says:

“While a review of New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme is long overdue, the Government’s prioritisation of reducing gross carbon emissions over net emissions is illogical and ill-informed. Such an approach will not help tackle climate change, will disincentivise investment in carbon sequestration technologies, and will come at an exorbitant and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer.

“The Emissions Trading Scheme is the most effective way to reduce net carbon emissions. It ensures that net emissions reduce over time while doing so in the most efficient way possible and at least cost to taxpayers. But it must be allowed to do its job.

“If the Government is serious about meeting our international climate commitments, it should work towards expanding the Emissions Trading Scheme to cover all sectors of New Zealand’s economy – including agriculture – with appropriate mitigations.

"If the Minister is worried about afforestation in New Zealand, he should open the ETS market up to the world and allow emitters to purchase credits from approved overseas sequestration programmes."

A new report published by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union exposes the bad decision-making that led to a 61% cost blowout in Auckland’s City Rail Link and shows that the costs of the project now significantly outweigh any benefits.

‘The City Rail Link: A Great Big Sucking Sound for Taxpayer and Auckland Ratepayer Dollars’ provides the first in-depth analysis of cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in the Auckland City Rail Link (CRL). The report’s author, economist Jim Rose, argues that key decisions made first by the Government and Auckland Council were premised on a flawed business case.

As of December 2022, total costs for the CRL project were estimated to be $5.5 billion, 61% higher than the original cost estimate. While project managers blame COVID-19 for this big cost over-run, the evidence suggests that the project should never have gone ahead.

Key findings of the report are:

1. Auckland Transport originally estimated a cost-benefit ratio of between 0.4 and 0.9 in 2011
2. The business case presented to Cabinet in 2019 assumed $1 billion in wider network improvements not included in the project cost
3. In 2022, a review by the Auditor-General found that KiwiRail and Auckland Transport would have to spend a further $6.7 billion between 2022 and 2036 before the full benefits of the CRL could be realised
4. With rail patronage down 30-40% on pre-COVID levels, it is unlikely that the supposed travel time savings will ever be realised
5. As of December 2022, the cost of the project exceeded the $5.1 billion of benefits estimated by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2019
6. It is therefore more likely than not that the cost-benefit ratio has dropped below 1, meaning the costs of the projects now outweigh the benefits
7. A briefing summarising the key points of the report and the full report have been sent to the Auckland mayor and councillors ahead of a meeting tomorrow (Thursday 23 March) to discuss the $1 billion increase in projected costs.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The City Rail Link will go down in history as a monument to the sunken costs fallacy as we continue to throw good money after bad. It is clear that the benefits of this project are now more likely than not to be outweighed by the costs of the project that have been allowed to spiral out of control. 

“The planners at Auckland Transport who dreamt up this project shouldn’t be let anywhere near the public purse again. If there is a silver-lining from this, it’s that Cabinet ministers and Auckland councillors might think twice before trusting the advice they get from Auckland Transport in the future.”

Public sector managers growing at twice the rate of frontline workers

Figures unearthed by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union reveal that the growth in public sector managers is almost twice that of frontline social, health and education workers.

Since 2017, the frontline workforce for social services, health and education has increased by 24.6% compared with a staggering 43.4% increase in managers. The number of nurses has only increased by 18.3% in the same period while the number of doctors went up 19.2%.

Over the past year, the situation has been even worse with managers increasing by 7.1% while frontline workers fell 3.5%

Taxpayers Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“With the number of managers growing at almost twice the rate of frontline workers, we have to question whom exactly these people are managing.

“The Government crows about its significant investment in social services, health and education, but it is instead taxing billions of dollars from hardworking New Zealanders to spend on bureaucratic jobs for Wellington’s managerial class that provide little value for the taxpayer.

“While the focus on the exorbitant consultant bill by the major parties in recent weeks has been welcome, politicians also need to take a closer look at the bloated public sector and pledge to significantly cut back on managerial positions.”

The Taxpayers’ Union has slammed the revelation that government agencies and State Owned Enterprises are spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on lobbying firms as revealed by Radio NZ this morning.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“Taxpayers’ money should not be used to pay for sock puppets to lobby the government on behalf of government agencies.

“SOEs, and Government agencies already have special access to decision makers. Paying the well connected, insiders and lobby firms doesn’t offer value for the public – nearly always they are serving the interests of the agencies and their bosses.

“While media commentary is often on the apparent need for a register of lobbyists, that doesn’t fully address the problem. It is very clear that former MPs, Ministers, and Parliamentary staffers are profiting from their connections. New Zealand is unusual in that there are no controls on regulators, government staffers or MPs from leaving their jobs and going straight into lobbying. That is where New Zealand’s law needs to catch up.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is pleased to hear that the Minister of Local Government, Kieran McAnulty, has invited concerned mayors to the Beehive to discuss the Three Waters reforms but believe he should meet with the country’s largest taxpayer and ratepayer organization too.

The Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, has written to the Minister requesting a meeting to share the views of taxpayers and ratepayers on the problems with the Government’s Three Waters reforms and to set out alternatives that maintain local control and democratic accountability while keeping costs to ratepayers down.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“We met with more than 10,000 people on our Stop Three Waters roadshow last year including elected local representatives and those directly involved with the delivery of water services.

“Our concerns that these reforms will lead to higher water costs, unnecessary bureaucracy, no local control and an undermining of democratic accountability were echoed those we met.

“The entire process for these reforms has been flawed and lacked proper engagement with those directly impacted, including when more than 60,000 of our supporters made a submission against the reforms but the Select Committee refused to hear them.

“We strongly urge the new Minister to engage with concerned mayors in good faith and meet with us so that we can put forward the concerns of all those who were not given the opportunity to present to the Select Committee.”

Time to stop Parker's planning power grab 🏠🛑

Last week, we blew the whistle on the Government's planning reforms, which seek to replace the awful Resource Management Act with something even worse. It takes all the worst elements of Three Waters – like seizing powers from councils and introducing unelected decision makers – and applies them to your house, your business or your farm, but on a much bigger scale. 

Like many, when the 891 pages of legislation were published, we were scratching our heads thinking 'this can't possibly be right'. What David Parker has proposed is so complicated and so convoluted, it could only have been designed by bureaucrats in Wellington. 

Below, we sketch out what the new Regional Planning Committee might look like using Canterbury as an example.

But because the bill leaves so much to negotiation between councils, iwi and the minister, it is difficult to know exactly where things will end up. The likely answer is in the courts.

But the courts aren't too happy either. In a very unusual move, the Chief Justice made a submission on the Natural and Built Environment Bill. She warned that many of the provisions contained within the proposed legislation were things that were likely to be challenged in the courts. This means that the true implications of David Parker's bills are very uncertain and these court battles will be expensive.

In an even more staggering intervention, however, the Chief Justice raised concerns about the role of the proposed new National Māori Entity. She said that the bill as currently drafted includes the Environment Court as an entity whose decisions would be independently monitored by the National Māori Entity and would be required to respond to their reports. 

The Chief Justice said that such a set up "would be inconsistent with New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements" and that "Court decisions are appropriately challenged by way of appeal, not by way of review by a statutory entity". She was so surprised by this that she said that the Supreme Court "assume[d] this is an error in drafting or an oversight."

This is bigger than Three Waters but so many people still don't know about it. In the coming weeks, we will be launching our campaign to put a stop to these radical reforms. 

Kiwis want Wellington to stop hoarding taxes 💰⚠️

Councils often struggle to pay for essential infrastructure in our local communities such as roads and water pipes. While many don't help by funding vanity projects and white elephants, one of the biggest drivers of this problem is that when new developments are built, almost all of the tax revenue generated goes straight to central government in Wellington.

This means local councils are often reluctant to support development, such as new housing or suburbs. But the solution is simple: Let some of the taxes collected from new houses and businesses stay in the communities where they are generated. This would ensure that the money would be directed exactly to where new infrastructure is needed and would empower councils to make sensible decisions about local development.  

This is not a new idea and has been promoted by our friends at the New Zealand Initiative (a Wellington-based think tank) for many years. Now it seems the idea has widespread public support. In this month's Taxpayers' Union – Curia Poll, our pollsters asked a representative sample of Kiwi voters if they supported such a proposal and an overwhelming 70% were in favour while just 15% were opposed and 15% were unsure. 

ACT deputy lead and housing spokesperson, Brooke van Velden has been championing this idea in Parliament for some time and has tabled the Housing Infrastructure (GST-sharing) Bill that would give councils half of the GST raised on new houses in their area. National and the Greens have already pledged to support it at first reading, but it will need Labour votes to progress any further.

We say it's time for Wellington to stop their development money grab and urge the Government to support this bill that is desperately needed to improve local infrastructure. 

Avatar producers rake in massive profits as Kiwis pick up the tab 🎥💸

Hon. John Boscawen joins Taxpayers' Union Board

Last week saw a new addition to the Taxpayers' Union Board in the form of businessman and former ACT MP, the Hon. John Boscawen. John served as Minister of Consumer Affairs and Associate Minister of Commerce in the John Key Government.

John has been a long-time supporter of the Taxpayers’ Union. With his experience in business and politics, John brings with him great knowledge and insights to the organisation. We are delighted to be able to work with him to champion lower taxes, less waste and more accountability.

All of our board members are not just volunteers, but financially support the work of the Taxpayers' Union. As we get stuck into the important work this election year, we are grateful to all of them for their commitment to making New Zealand a more prosperous society with an efficient, transparent and democratically accountable government.

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Stuff Damien Grant: Things get done because of agitators and advocates

RNZ Ashley Bloomfield, the public service and political neutrality

NZ Herald Labour overtakes National in new political poll - Greens hover just above threshold

Interest.co.nz Chris Hipkins helps Labour take the lead in Taxpayer Union political poll for the first time in 12 months

Stuff Labour and National neck-and-neck, with just one seat in it, in latest poll

RNZ The Panel with Nicky Pellegrino and Allan Blackman (Part One)

NewstalkZB Afternoon Edition: 09 March 2023 – New Poll

NewstalkZB  Barry Soper: ZB senior political correspondent on Labour taking the lead in new Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll

The Daily Blog BOOM: New Taxpayers’ Union Poll puts Labour on Top but Greens in danger of falling below 5%

RNZ Labour rises in new Curia poll, Greens dangerously close to threshold

Te Ao Māori News Hipkins hoists Labour’s election chances but not quite enough to rule

NewstalkZB The Huddle: Te Whatu Ora apologises for reporting inaccurate information and Labour leads in new poll

TodayFM Full Show: 10 March 2023 – New Poll (02:12:22)

RNZ First Up - The Podcast, Friday 10 March (00:36:19)

NewstalkZB Morning Edition: 10 March 2023 – New Poll

RNZ Political editors panel: Public service posturing

Otago Daily Times Hipkins doesn't see kids 'anywhere near enough'

NZ Herald Prime Minister Chris Hipkins tells Newstalk ZB he doesn’t see kids ‘anywhere near enough’ in top job

NewstalkZB Jordan Williams and Fleur Fitzsimons face-off over Government consultant spending

NZ Herald Chris v Chris: Poll, battle, mistakes - did Luxon or Hipkins deliver the goods to win the week?

The Gisborne Herald National has to change tack

Stuff National snaps politics right back to December

NewstalkZB Jason Walls: Newstalk ZB political editor on multiple public servants breaking impartiality requirements

RNZ Political commentators Lamia Imam & Brigitte Morten

NewstalkZB Callum Purves speaks to Kerry Woodham on the RMA reforms

The Platform Is the Government sneaking through legislation with their latest RMA reforms?

NZ Herald Voters want councils to have a share of GST, poll shows

Politik Speed limits hit potholes

Newsroom Auckland’s light rail stage fright

NZ Initiative Localism: The initiative that has won the nation over

 

 

 

Reacting to the Q4 2022 GDP figures released by Stats NZ  Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, says:

“Today’s figures demonstrate why the Government needs to double its efforts to deliver better value for money and stop piling cash onto the inflation bonfire.”

“In general, higher government spending results in more inflation than allowing taxpayers to keep more of their own money.  With the economy now running backwards, now is the time for tax relief - funded by pruning wasteful government spending in Wellington. It’s affordable, not inflationary, and would improve the economy more than a ‘top down’ government-led approach.”

Bigger doesn’t mean better – Canterbury and Waikato Supercities are a bad idea

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union says that proposals from Hamilton and Christchurch City Councils to create new supercities are a bad idea that would increase costs for ratepayers, undermine local control and reduce democratic accountability.

The Union is also calling on the Government to commission an independent review of the Auckland supercity that amalgamated the former Auckland Regional Council and seven district and city councils.

The proponents of amalgamation claim that that it will reduce overheads and lead to efficiency gains, but this is not borne out in the evidence. A report by the Infrastructure Commission last year, for example, found no evidence that larger councils are more efficient.

Taxpayers’ Union Local Government spokesman, Josh Van Veen, says:

“Aucklanders know from bitter experience that the roads are worse, rates are higher, and our public transport system is even less co-ordinated than it was under the old regional and district council model.

“At the same time, decision-making is further and further removed from local communities. Large Council-Controlled Organisations spend billions of dollars in ratepayer money but are kept at arms-length from democratic accountability.

“Recent centralisations of polytechnics and health have also been a complete mess. Rather than generate economies of scale, they have simple created additional layers of bureaucracy on top of what was there before. Creating more supercities is completely the wrong approach.

“It is time for the Department of Internal Affairs to do what it promised 12 years ago and give the public an honest appraisal of Auckland Council.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union congratulates Wētā FX on their success at the Oscars with Avatar: The Way of Water but is disappointed that it is tainted by the millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that franchise has received.

Taxpayers have forked out over $140 million in subsidies for the Avatar sequels, the first of which grossed almost $3.7 billion. In the five years to 2026, taxpayers will have paid more than $1 billion to wealthy film production companies, including one owned by Jeff Bezos – the world’s third richest man.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The Government needs to explain why the film industry is special enough to receive favourable treatment over other industries. Every dollar taxed to fund these subsidies is a dollar that could have been spent improving public services or reducing the tax burden on Kiwis.

“James Cameron has publicly stated that the film is generating a profit so it is time for taxpayers to see a return on their investment.

“We urge the producers of Avatar to express their gratitude to New Zealanders by paying back the generous subsidies that have been provided by taxpayers over the years."

Today’s announcement that the Government is adjusting superannuation and main benefits for inflation highlights the need for a principled approach to income taxes.

“While those receiving taxpayer support get an adjustment, hard-working New Zealanders are going backwards each and every day,” says Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves.

“Indexing tax brackets for inflation is a principled policy that would ensure that people only pay more tax if they are actually earning more in real terms.

“Those lucky enough to receive a pay rise in line with inflation still end up worse off as they pay a higher proportion of their income in tax or are rocketed into higher tax brackets.

"After taxes, wages are not keeping up with inflation but the Government continues to ignore the obvious solution of income tax bracket indexation.

“Indexation would mean that, at whatever level income taxes are set, they remain at the same rate in real terms and are not increased by stealth.

"The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Government to index tax brackets to make our tax system more honest and shield New Zealanders from the ever-increasing cost of living."

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement of $1 billion of savings from dropping unpopular policies, including that ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme, but has said that this does not go far enough.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

"This $568 million 'cash for clunkers' scheme was simply classic middle class welfare dressed up as climate action. The policy would have benefited those wealthier New Zealanders in the market for electric vehicles but wouldn’t have reduced net emissions by a single gram because transport emissions are already covered by the 'cap and trade' Emissions Trading Scheme.

“The Government has wasted billions of dollars on ineffective climate policy putting pressure on inflation and the cost of living. It is time for the remaining pointless climate policies to join this one on the scrap heap so that the Emissions Trading Scheme can do its job.

“Scrapping $1 billion of wasteful spending is, of course, welcome, but if the government is really serious about getting the focus back onto bread and butter issues, scrapping Auckland Light Rail, Three Waters and trimming the bloated public service would be good places to start. 

“Our research team can identify far more instances of wasteful spending. We will be writing to the Prime Minister offering to meet and help him trim it back. Ensuring Kiwi taxpayers get better value for money from Wellington should the priority for all politicians.”

Wellington City Council must slash waste to prepare for climate change

On Monday, The Dominion Post reported that Wellington City Council’s Environment and Infrastructure Committee has been advised to spend an additional $15.4 million on retaining walls to prevent floods and land slippage caused by extreme weather.

Taxpayers’ Union Local Government spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, says:

“Wellingtonian households are about to be hit by a massive 12.8% rates increase. We agree that climate adaptation must be prioritised. However, the money for retaining walls should come from the reallocation of existing budgets.

“The Council is spending millions on climate change mitigation in areas already covered by the ETS such as the $20 million Environmental and Accessibility Performance Fund and the Climate and Sustainability Fund, which saw thousands of ratepayer dollars paid to a church.

“This spending should be slashed and reallocated toward future proofing the city’s infrastructure.

“With the new Tākina Convention Centre opening in June, there is also an opportunity to rationalise Council property assets to free up capital necessary for investment while also reducing ratepayers’ exposure to risk from climate or seismic events.”

Over the weekend, David Farrar sent an email to our supporter lists about what the Government is currently sneaking through Parliament to replace the Resource Management Act.  Here at the Taxpayers’ Union, we are no fans of the RMA.  But what is proposes is far, far worse.  As a result of enquiries today, we are copying the email for all to see.

Right now the team are working on planning for the campaign to defeat the Central Planning explained below.  The catch 22 is that it is difficult to plan when we don’t know what financial resources are available, and we don’t know that because so few Kiwis are even aware of these Bills.  Watch this space through – a campaign will be launching very soon.

I apologise that this is so long – but it is important. While Three Waters was about community/council assets, this post is about a new series of bills going through Parliament right now that will dictate what you can can do with your house, your farm, and your business. And unlike Three Waters, it is getting nearly no media attention.

David Parker's new planning bills are even worse than Three Waters – and apply to your land/house/business

Right now, the Government is sneaking through legislation that is almost identical to Nanaia Mahuta's original plans with Three Waters, but relates to our homes, town planning, consenting, and natural environment.

The short point is, if you thought Three Waters was bad, the Government's proposed replacement to the Resource Management Act is much, much worse. 

While most New Zealanders looked at the Three Waters shambles with horror, Environment Minister, David Parker, was taking notes. He’s decided to replicate the worst elements of the water reforms in his proposed replacement to the Resource Management Act. 

But you won't have read much about this issue in the media. Unlike Three Waters, there's no taxpayer-funded Government ad campaign or even much of a public discussion.

Make no mistake: The Government is trying to sneak this one through. The bills – 891 pages in total – were dumped just before Christmas and the Government closed submissions on Waitangi weekend. That – plus the fact Ministers have deliberately not promoted the bills – has meant that the media is only just starting to wake up to the possible implications of these reforms.

Under this proposed law, powers over planning and when a resource consent is required will be stripped from local councils and handed to 15 new co-governed ‘Regional Planning Committees’. That means the decisions about the building consent for your deck, new home, factory, your farm's water take, and how your city or town is planned will be made by people you cannot vote out. 'Regional Planning Committees' will be tasked with enforcing a litany of costly new rules from Wellington to restrict the way you use your property. 

I need to be clear: The Resource Management Act is broken. Its planning rules have fuelled a housing and infrastructure crisis. But we need to get RMA reform right, and David Parker’s new Soviet-style planning regime is not the answer. Instead of cutting red tape, he's come up with a cure worse than the disease.

Local control will be lost: Instead of elected decision makers, town, city and environmental planning will handed to co-governed Regional Planning Committees before the end of this year

If you thought dealing with silly rules from your local council was bad, wait until it's a co-governed Regional Planning Committee that voters cannot sack making the rules. David Parker wants to take responsibility for planning rules away from our 67 democratically elected local councils and hand it to 15 new co-governed ‘Regional Planning Committees’.

That’s right: First your council lost its responsibility for water asset management, and now it’s losing responsibility for planning. At this rate your Mayor will be responsible for little more than the library collection and the annual Christmas parade! 

Unless we act right now, the law will be passed before this year's election. And with the election result looking so close, the only way to ensure we defeat this is to blow the whistle now, so these proposals become as unpopular as Three Waters.

Think of all the conversations in your local community about zoning rules, intensification, and planning priorities. I'm no fan of my local council, but at least under the current system, voters can hold the decision makers to account. Under this new system, the decision makers will be out of town, beholden to Wellington, and insulated from accountability by layers of bureaucracy.

Each local council – even large metropolitan ones – will have just one representative on the new regional committees. That also means that local voices in, say, Waitaki will be drowned out by other committee members. Decisions over say a proposed geothermal energy plant in Taupo would be made in Hamilton by a co-governed, unaccountable, committee.

The rules even allow the Minister (currently David Parker) to make his own appointments to the Regional Planning Committees so that Wellington has people to ensure that these committees dance to the Government's tune.

And the new committees will be bound by ‘National Planning Frameworks’ issued by the Minister every nine years, dictating comprehensive environmental targets and limits, and rules governing resource allocation from Kaitaia to the Bluff. That means environmental decisions and regional 'quotas' on things like CO2 emissions will be made by Wellington.

We need your support to stop this unaccountable co-governed centralisation by Wellington.

Even more co-governance will make public input meaningless 

Under the proposed regime, all persons exercising planning power must “give effect” to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. David Parker wants to strictly enforce this rule with three new layers of co-governance: 

1. Unelected appointees from local iwi/hapū will sit on the new Regional Planning Committees with full voting rights. 
    
   • David Parker is trying to say this isn't co-governance as the proposed legislation only requires a minimum of two iwi/hapū representatives and the exact number is up to local communities. But it's not as simple as that. The committees deciding on appointee numbers for local councils and those from iwi will be bound by the principles of the Treaty. A recent Waitangi Tribunal decision makes it explicit that, "nothing less" than a 50/50 split will do in order to satisfy the so-called "partnership" principle.
     
     
2. A new, unelected ‘National Māori Entity’ will put pressure on the new planning committees to ensure that they abide by Treaty principles, and will have priority over public consultation on the new National Planning Frameworks.
   
   
3. At any time, iwi or hapū can produce a Te Oranga o te Taiao (environmental wellbeing) statement, dictating how the Minister of Environment must uphold the “intrinsic relationship” between iwi/hapū and the environment in National Planning Frameworks for which there is no appeal process outlined in the bill.

David Parker is trying to say that these reforms don't involve co-governance, but, as you can see, that is blatantly untrue.

We need your help to make sure New Zealanders know about these Bills, and step up to protect democratic accountability before it is too late.

Higher costs for ratepayers due to bureaucracy and legal minefields

These reforms mean everything from building a new deck to constructing a new hospital or supermarket will be even harder.

The legislation's first reading was snuck through just before the Christmas break. The Government wants to have it passed before this year’s election and only gave the summer holiday period for formal submissions.

Of course, our team worked over summer to get their heads around the 891 pages of legislation and made a submission. But the real fight is the political one: We need to raise public awareness.

If New Zealanders were fully aware about the true implications of David Parker’s power grab, it could turn into a real political headache for the Government just like Three Waters. 

18 months ago, the Taxpayers' Union decided that we had no option but to take on Nanaia Mahuta's Three Waters. Back then the vast majority of Kiwis were backing the Government, as very few understood the downsides of what the Government was doing. It was only after a mammoth campaign, hundreds of events, and thousands of banners, signs, and an advertising blitz across TV, radio and online did the National Party (and the media) catch on to the costs of Three Waters. Three Waters would not be the thorn in the Government's side, had the Taxpayers' Union not led the fight (and supporters like you making the campaign possible with substantial financial support).

Just like we did not let Nanaia Mahuta get away with Three Waters, we cannot let David Parker get away with these even more radical proposals.

We need to put so much political pressure on the Government that David Parker's plans become a liability for Labour’s re-election prospects and are therefore scrapped by Chris Hipkins.

Thank you for your support.

David Farrar Co-founder New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

 

 

 

NEW POLL Labour takes lead over National while Hipkins's popularity continues to soar 📊💥

Exclusive to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of this month's Taxpayers' Union – Curia Poll and it’s a big one. On these numbers, October’s election is set to be a close one.

For the first time in a year, Labour has taken the lead on 35.5% up 1.1 points on last month while National is on 34.8% up 0.4 points on last month. 

ACT is down 2.4 points to 9.3% while the Greens have dropped 2.1 points to 5.7%. This is perilously close to the 5% threshold for getting seats in Parliament (unless Chlöe Swarbrick can hold onto her Auckland Central electorate).

New Zealand First, on the other hand, sees a boost of 1.3 points to the party to 4.2% – within striking distance of re-entering Parliament. The Māori Party is on 1.4 per cent – down 0.7 points – and will again have to rely on holding at least one electorate to get any list seats.

Other smaller parties were the New Conservatives on 2.5% (+1.7 points), TOP on 1.7% (-0.3 points), Vision NZ on 0.8% (+0.6 points) and Democracy NZ on 0.5% (-0.4 points).

Assuming all current electorates are held, this would mean 49 seats for Labour (up 3 seats on last month), 48 seats for National (up 2), 13 for ACT (down 2), 8 for the Greens (down 2), and 2 for the Māori Party (down 1).

This means that the Centre-Right bloc could just form a government on 61 seats while the Centre-Left pick up 1 seat to be on 57.

Chris Hipkins's net favourability rating continues to soar and now sits at +33% up 6 points from last month's poll. The prime minister also now has a positive net favourability rating with National voters of +13% up 17 points from -4% last month.
 
Christopher Luxon’s net favourability has increased by 3 points from -5% to -2%. ACT leader, David Seymour, sees a 12-point bounce to +1%. 

We've just released the key results on our website here.

TVNZ/RNZ merger board still meeting – weeks after merger was canned 📺💰

This week it was revealed that the board managing the TVNZ/RNZ merger was still operating – despite the merger having been scrapped in the Prime Minister's policy bonfire weeks ago. Reports suggest that this board costs a staggering $8,000 a day and will continue to to meet until the end of March to complete a final report.

Jordan spoke to Newstalk ZB earlier this week about quite how ridiculous this situation is that the taxpayer is continuing to have to stump up thousands of dollars a day for a board whose only responsibility now is to turn the lights out on their way out of their $1.19 million-per-year offices (the lease for which doesn't expire until May). 

While the Government has had the good sense to abandon the merger, after already wasting $19 million before ditching it, we say the Government should stop pouring more money down the drain.

Taxpayers funded Clarke Gayford's trip to Antarctica 🐧🛩️

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Rob Campbell and Jordan Williams on neutrality in the public sector 🎙️

On this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams speaks with former Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand Chair, Rob Campbell, to discuss political neutrality within the public service. 

Mr Campbell was publicly sacked from his high-profile position in the public service after making controversial comments about the National Party's Three Waters policy on his LinkedIn account. Campbell has doubled down on his comments and feels he should be free to give his opinion on controversial issues. Since recording this podcast, he has also been dismissed from his role at the Environmental Protection Authority but remains unremorseful.

Throughout this episode, Peter and Rob dive deep into the responsibilities of public servants, where professional responsibility ends and where personal opinion begins.

Later in the episode we are joined by Taxpayers' Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, to hear his perspective on the state of political neutrality within the public service. 

Also this week, we hear from our War on Waste team who have uncovered a million dollar truancy awareness campaign. But will it get kids to go to school? 

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

 

 

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Michael Wood to get a grip on his department, the Ministry of Transport.

After Monday’s transport policy U-turn, the New Zealand Herald today revealed that a new ‘The Future of Transport in Aotearoa New Zealand: Who should pay for what?’ had suggested public support for a raft of new taxes and the promotion of public transport over roads. The survey, however, had just 436 participants and was self-selecting with even the researchers acknowledging that it had a skew towards cyclists.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“It’s not good enough for Michael Wood to pass the buck here and refer questions on this paper that suggests new taxes and charges and deprioritizing roads back to the Ministry of Transport. In case he has forgotten, he happens to be the Minister of Transport. Mr. Wood has either had a change of heart since the Ministry commissioned this report or its authors have gone way outside their remit and he needs to get a grip on what his department is doing.

“The commissioning of this report simply confirms that the Ministry of Transport doesn’t understand New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme. Moreover, self-selecting surveys with emotive and loaded questions like these that are not representative of the New Zealand population are worthless and do not support good policy making. If the Ministry of Transport wants to find out what New Zealanders actually think on these issues, they would be better commissioning a scientific poll, which would probably be a lot cheaper too.”'

Government U-turn highlights confused transport policy

Yesterday’s quick U-turn from the Government on the reported shift to an emissions reduction focus for the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) highlights a more fundamental problem with transport policy making. 

Forcing road users to subsidise walking, cycling and other activities is not only unfair on them, but will not achieve its desired goal of reducing emissions.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The Fund was set up with a very simple principle: The amount you pay towards the upkeep of our roads should be linked to the effect your vehicle has on them. The money raised from these taxes and charges goes into a pot that pays for roads maintenance and investment.

“But road users are now subsidizing non-road projects through the Fund, including walking and cycling routes, uneconomical railway lines, and the ‘Road to Zero’ advertising campaign too. All the while, our roads – which will always be necessary for Kiwis – continue to deteriorate

“And while the Government might have the noble motivation of reducing emissions, it misses the crucial point that our Emissions Trading Scheme means any reduction from cuts to road projects or increased public transport investment will be offset by greater emissions in other areas.

No new taxes? Say hello to the Government's 'app tax'📱🧾

For a Government that committed not to introduce new taxes, they seem to be doing a good job of coming up with innovative ideas for how to pinch more of your hard earned dollars.

Remember the furore last year about plans to introduce GST on KiwiSaver fund managers that was dropped within 24 hours? Turns out the parliamentary bill that was set to bring that in had another tax hidden within it.

On Thursday, the Financial and Expenditure Select Committee reported back to Parliament on the Government's latest Taxation Bill. National's minority report (opposing the Bill) highlights the proposal to change the rules for GST on digital services.

At the moment, if a sole trader or business makes less than $60,000 a year, they do not have to register for and charge GST on their services. The bill proposes to remove this threshold and charge GST on any and all services provided on or though a digital platform. It's not a new tax on the foreign-own corporations such as Uber or Airbnb – it's a tax grab from the small business owners who occasionally rent out a spare bedroom through an online app, or those who drive part-time for a ride share service.

So what does this mean for you? Well, your Uber driver, your takeaway delivery person or your Airbnb provider will now have charge 15 percent GST and this will push up the price you pay for all of these services.

This 'app tax' would mean a $20 Uber fare would cost $23 while an Airbnb stay that currently costs $300 will now cost $345. Across the year, these increases will add up.

The Government tax take has continued to increase in recent years while Kiwis have been squeezed as a result of record levels of inflation. This app tax will simply make the situation worse.

Chris Hipkins said that he would keep to the Labour's commitments on tax. If he really means that, he should drop this 'app tax' immediately. 

Public service neutrality: Why Rob Campbell had to go 🪑❌

Here at the Taxpayers' Union we believe public service neutrality is important. We need to be able to trust the civil service machine to act impartially and deliver on the policies of whichever party is in office regardless of their own personal political beliefs. Officials are accountable to democratically elected politicians, and it should never be the other way around.

Countries such as the United States allow incoming presidents and governments to sack incumbent officials and put their own trusted advisors into the senior positions of government agencies. But, in general, New Zealand governments do not have the power to remove senior public servants, thus the need for neutrality.

Unfortunately over the last few decades, the public service has becoming less and less neutral. On cultural issues in particular, many of the positions departments and ministries take are overtly political. Wellington is something of a woke bubble, an echo chamber of employees who all agree with each other but who can become detached from wider public opinion. In the UK, we refer to this ‘the blob’.

As soon as we became aware of the Rob Campbell social media rant, we wrote to the Public Service Commissioner asking him to investigate the remarks as a likely breach of the Public Service Commission's Code of Conduct. We can't think of a more blatant breach of political neutrality in recent history – the leader of the Government's health department abusing the Leader of the Opposition and accusing him of 'dog whistle' politics on a matter that is subject to intense political debate (co-governance and the delivery of public services).

Credit where credit is due, the decisions taken by the Ministers of Heath and the Environment (apparently encouraged by the Prime Minister's office) were the rights ones. 

On Thursday, Rob Campbell defended his outburst in an interview with Peter Williams on Taxpayer Talk. You can listen to that podcast interview here.

Fancies of murdering James Cook: Your taxes funding fringe activism 🎭💵

This week it was revealed that a stage show called ‘The Savage Coloniser’ received $107,280 in Creative NZ and Foundation North funding. The play is based on a book of poems of the same name, which includes a poem for the 250th anniversary of James Cook's arrival in New Zealand.

You can read an extract above and, if you are struggling to grasp the beauty of the piece, The Spinoff – also taxpayer funded – have put together a helpful 'How to read a poem' guide to explain what you should think and feel when reading it. 👀

New Zealanders will have different views on the value of arts funding. You can make a case for it being used to widen access to the arts or support cultural projects that might not otherwise be viable.

What it shouldn’t be used for is to fund fringe activism that arguably promotes racial hatred and violence.

With a shortage of ICU nurses, and communities still cut off due to Cyclone Gabrielle, we say there is better things to fund than a stage show about murdering James Cook and other white people.

Some have criticised those of us who have called out the funding, questioning our commitment to free speech and arguing that the withdrawal of funding would amount to censorship. 

There are two problems with this argument. First, Creative NZ appear to only ever fund Left-wing projects. When was the last time you saw them fund a play about the benefits of capitalism, freedom, or free trade? Given the funding decisions are brazenly political (remember the gushing documentaries about Chlöe Swarbrick?), the blob can't claim this is purely about art. 

Secondly, the Taxpayers' Union is a staunch defender of free speech. We are certainly not suggesting the poem or the show should be banned. The point is that if people want to go and see a show like this, that's up to them, but we shouldn't all be forced to pay for it.

Why the rush? The dangers of passing new laws too quickly ⚖️💨

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Nick Stewart on the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle 🎙️

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams sits down with Nick Stewart to discuss the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle. The recent cyclone devastated many parts of the country, particularly Hawke's Bay and Gisborne on the East Coast of the North Island. Along with claiming lives and livelihoods, the cyclone exposed serious problems with the adequacy of our infrastructure.

Nick is the Chief Executive of Stewart Group, a Hawke's Bay based financial services firm. Being from the area, Nick is understandably interested in the effects this event will have on the region, and country, over many years to come. He shares his perspective and insights as to how we can recover and different ways this rebuild could be paid for. 

Also in this podcast, our War on Waste team target exorbitant spending by government departments on catering.

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Newshub Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ chair Rob Campbell unrepentant after claims comments breached political impartiality

Kiwiblog The consensus for a Three Waters model

Stuff More trust National's leaders on the economy - Taxpayers' Union Curia Poll

Newstalk ZB Afternoon Edition: 28 February 2023 – Economy Poll

Newstalk ZB Barry Soper: ZB senior political correspondent on the Taxpayers Union/Curia poll saying National is more trusted on the economy

The Working Group with Matthew Hooton, Brooke Van Veldon and Damien Grant

Stuff MP labels environment ministry outrageous and hypocritical over flight use

NBR Campbell's sacking, National's policy, cyclone recovery

On this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams speaks with former Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand Chair, Rob Campbell, to discuss political neutrality within the public service. 

Campbell was publicly sacked from his high-profile position in the public service after making controversial comments about the National Party's Three Waters policy on his LinkedIn account. Campbell has doubled down on his comments and feels he should be free to give his opinion on controversial issues. Since recording this podcast, he has also been dismissed from his role at the Environmental Protection Authority but remains unremorseful.

Throughout this episode, Peter and Rob dive deep into the responsibilities of public servants, where professional responsibility ends and where personal opinion begins.

Later in the episode we are joined by Taxpayers' Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, to hear his perspective on the state of political neutrality within the public service. 

Also this week, we hear from our War on Waste team who have uncovered a million dollar truancy awareness campaign. But will it get kids to go to school? 

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

Urgency motions have increasingly been used over the past few years to enact law which bypasses the usual public consultation procedure. It’s a power that can severely undermine the integrity of our legislative process. Governments of all stripes must commit to being restrained in their practice of this power to ensure public trust in our democracy is maintained.

Last year, the government moved an urgency motion which expedited over 20 bills through various stages of the legislative process. 4 of these bills were completed from start to finish, and shockingly included in the assortment was the Water Services Entities Bill where, extraordinarily, a 60% entrenchment clause (since revoked) was proposed to prevent the privatisation of water assets. There is a long history of urgency abuse within our parliament, but this obvious overreach, in combination with a bundle of other recent abuses, has brought this issue firmly back into focus.

Enacting successfully scrutinized legislation is paramount for maintaining trust in our parliamentary system and ensuring that New Zealand remains a democratic nation which dependably responds to the greater public interest. In ensuring this occurs, proposed bills usually go through a process of extensive assessment where public engagement and in-house deliberation are fundamental customs, valued and respected by all. With urgency motions however, that general process can be unreasonably accelerated which, at times, can vehemently damage the integrity of any law passed under them.

The urgency motion is an extremely powerful mechanism at the hands of Parliament. Bills moved under it may be rushed through up to all stages in just a couple of days. Not only are extra-sitting hours permitted, but critical periods of consultation such as the select committee can be completely side-stepped. This means that chances for public input are often taken away, and time for reflection and review by academics is largely not possible. For that reason, the use of urgency is meant for unprecedented circumstances where the government is left with no choice but to act with haste.

Currently, due to their majority, Labour has the ability to instate urgency motions in spite of objection. That is exactly what happened late last year when then leader of the house Chris Hipkins moved 24 bills under urgency - much to the dismay of all non-Labour parties. For some of these bills, one might concede that their technical nature provided enough justification for their inclusion. Though the same certainly cannot be said for the insertion of the Water Service Entities Bill, which saw the Government attempt to ram through one of the most contentious pieces of legislation this generation has ever seen.

Though unfortunately, misuse of urgency motions is nothing new within New Zealand’s Parliament. We need only take a brief look at the history books to realise just dangerous a tool urgency was and certainly can still be. A study conducted by staff at Victoria University of Wellington back in 2011 revealed that urgency motions were conducted 230 times on more than 1600 bills from 1987 to 2010. Staggeringly, over half the bills introduced to Parliament during that time were accorded urgency at least once in their enactment process. And the lack of justification, which became widespread around the political room, offered another critical element of concern. Reasons given for issuing the motion were consistently dubious and vague in their nature and, although valid motives cropped up sporadically, it was evident that a significant number of urgency motions passed were based on either freeing up the order paper or, occasionally, an element of something more sinister.

In the University review, many politicians and staff were interviewed on how they felt about urgency motions and when they would be appropriate to employ. The majority acknowledged them as being a legitimate tool for engineering extra sitting hours and prioritising legislation. According to the report, very few expressed any discomfort in urgency being used in this manner and some older politicians even openly admitted to using urgency as a means of political stealth, a way to game the opposition and buy time to reset and push back criticism. Clearly the reasons for bringing about urgency motions are still just as questionable, why shouldn’t we think our current politicians will act any more reputably?

A significant increase in the use of urgency motions under John Key’s 2008 term as well as an emergent raft of criticism through the late 2000s saw an amendment to the standing orders in 2011 which brought in extended hours motions. This allowed less urgent bills, which simply required more house time, to be passed under longer hours rather than subjecting them to an unnecessarily truncated process. And initially, it appeared there had been a positive reaction. Urgency was used just 9 times the following term which represented over three times less than the previous parliament. Though, unfortunately, that initial spark has clearly fizzled out because urgency use is back on the rise. Subsequent National (51^st) and Labour-led (52^nd and 53^rd) parliaments have since been responsible for 12, 18, and 21 (so far) uses respectively – Still reasonable figures, but displaying a worrying upsurge over recent years.

This increase is concerning on its own, but it doesn’t help that the content of bills coming under these motions are often highly contentious. In 2020 we saw urgency accorded to the Tax (Income Tax Rate and Consequences) Bill, which saw it pass through all legislative stages. The façade was that it provided an increase to the top tax rate, though underneath it stealthily granted the IRD with new powers, ones that put a substantial dent into Kiwis’ privacy rights. In 2021, the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation bill, which saw the introduction of the traffic light system, was also shuttled through from start to finish, and other recent question marks include the mishap in May 2020, when Parliament enacted the wrong legislation under urgency, as well as the Local (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, which went to the select committee for just 6 days before it passed shortly after.

The excessive use of urgency motions has been a continual problem in Parliament for decades, but this doesn’t make it any more acceptable now. The opportunity for bills to be scrutinized is vital in providing high quality legislation. We have seen time and again recently that this is not happening, and often times, its impact is undemocratic and against the public interest. We understand that the Government wants to get through a number of bills before their next term, but this should never trump the importance of proper parliamentary and public scrutiny. The common excuse of “clearing up the order paper” or “tying up some loose ends” is never an appropriate reason to bypass important stages of enquiry. Unless a bill must be passed quickly, there is no reason why it should come under an urgency motion. With the election in October a fast-approaching deadline, we sincerely hope that the Government doesn’t succumb to ramming through legislation unduly.

With the Taxpayers’ Union’s mission change reflecting the need for more accountability across our government departments, we now more than ever believe that strong scrutiny of proposed legislation must be at the forefront of debate to ensure that those in power are held to account.

The Taxpayers’ Union had called for the Government to stop allowing taxpayer dollars to be spent on funding fringe activism. The call comes after a stage show called ‘The Savage Coloniser’ received $107,280.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, said:

“People will have different views on the value of arts funding. You can make a case for it being used to widen access to the arts or support cultural projects that might not otherwise be viable.

“But what it certainly shouldn’t be used for is to fund fringe activism of which this ‘The Savage Coloniser’ stage show about murdering James Cook and white people is a particularly extreme example. Many New Zealanders will see this as funding an overtly political project that will likely offend and which should not be supported by taxpayer money.

“The Government needs to withdraw this funding immediately and introduce new guidance for arts funding agencies to prevent such misuse of taxpayer dollars in the future.”

NEW POLL: Kiwis still trust Luxon/Willis marginally over Hipkins/Robertson on economy

A new Taxpayers' Union – Curia poll found that New Zealanders narrowly preferred Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis (43% of respondents) to Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson (39%) as the most trusted team to manage the economy. 18% of respondents were unsure.

This result comes after the regular Taxpayers' Union – Curia monthly poll released earlier this month found that economic issues continue to be at the forefront of voters’ minds with the cost of living being the most important issue to them when voting on 35% followed by the economy more generally on 13%.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“Which prime minister and finance minister pairing that voters most trust to manage the economy is often a strong indicator of how they will vote in an election. While National’s top team is marginally ahead, this poll confirms that the general election in October is set to be close."

“This result is similar to what it was back in December when Jacinda Ardern was still in post. While the new prime minister and his policy ‘refocus’ seem to have given Labour a bounce in voting intention, it seems the party still has work to do to demonstrate it can be trusted to manage the economy."

“A good place to start would be by ruling out any new taxes to fund the cyclone clean up and restoration works and instead focus on getting wasteful government spending under control.”

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams sits down with Nick Stewart to discuss the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle. The recent cyclone devastated many parts of the country, particularly Hawke's Bay and Gisborne on the East Coast of the North Island. Along with claiming lives and livelihoods, the cyclone exposed serious problems with the adequacy of our infrastructure.

Nick is the Chief Executive of Stewart Group, a Hawke's Bay based financial services firm. Being from the area, Nick is understandably interested in the effects this event will have on the region, and country, over many years to come. He shares his perspective and insights as to how we can recover and different ways this rebuild could be paid for. 

Also in this podcast, our War on Waste team target exorbitant spending by government departments on catering.

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

Position of Health NZ Chair untenable

Highly political comments by Rob Campbell — who is Chair of both Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand and the Environmental Protection Agency —  make his continued employment as one of the Government’s most senior public servants untenable, says the Taxpayers’ Union. The Union has written to the Public Service Commissioner asking him to investigate Mr Campbell for what appears to be a serious and clear breach of the The Standards of Integrity and Conduct applicable to civil servants.

Over the weekend, Mr Campbell published a news report about Christpher Luxon’s alternative model to the Government’s controversial Three Waters policy and commented:

I was so amused by this that I thought it needed to stand alone. Leaving the solution to the major issues we can all see to the very bodies that have failed to avert the issues can only evince [sic] a John McEnroe “You cannot be serious!” cry.
What on earth would make anyone think this was a sensible idea for debit raising alone, let alone the managment [sic] and delivery of the tasks. Geographic and social inequities deepening while the infrastructure rots.
Ican[sic] only think that this is a thin disguise for the dog whistle on “co-governance”. Christopher Luxon might be able to rescue his party from stupidity on climate change but rescuing this from a well he has dug himself might be harder.

The post can still be viewed at: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7035415822630088704/
(Screenshots are also available on request)

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“For one of New Zealand’s most senior bureaucrats to publish a diatribe attaching the Leader of the Opposition and suggest his opposition to co-governance is a ‘dog whistle’ is the most serious departure of public sector neutrality I have ever seen.”
 
“The political attack, and inclusion of inflammatory language, shows a worrying lack of judgement from someone who is supposed to be looking after the reputation of the public sector organisations he leads.”
 
“No matter your view on Three Waters, every New Zealander should be concerned with such a flagrant disregard to the long held rule that our civil service is to be, and seen to be, neutral.”
 
“This is one of those rare instances where it appears untenable for the individual to continue in his role.  To protect the integrity of Health New Zealand and the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr Campbell has no option but to resign.” 

"If Mr Campbell can't see the error in his ways, and if the ethical standards applicable to the civil service mean anything, he should be sacked."

 The Code of Conduct for Crown Entity Board Members issued by the Public Service Commissioner states:

 “We act in a politically impartial manner. Irrespective of our political interests, we conduct ourselves in a way that enables us to act effectively under current and future governments. We do not make political statements or engage in political activity in relation to the functions of the Crown entity.”

 The Code of Conduct for Crown Entity Board Members goes on to say:

“When acting in our private capacity, we avoid any political activity that could jeopardise our ability to perform our role or which could erode the public’s trust in the entity. We discuss with the Chair any proposal to make political comment or to undertake any significant political activity.”

Taxpayers’ Union Welcomes National’s Three Waters Alternative

National’s ‘Local Water Done Well’ alternative to Three Waters is bang on what the Taxpayers’ Union and local councils have been calling for. It meets the Taxpayers’ Union’s red lines of respecting property rights, retaining community control, ensuring local accountability, giving councils the ability to opt into shared models of their choosing, and the efficient delivery of water services.

“This policy is almost identical to the model developed by Communities 4 Local Democracy, which the Taxpayers’ Union has been promoting,” said Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams.

“This is a serious challenge to Chris Hipkins who has said he wants to ‘refocus’ Three Waters. Here is the solution.”

“Three Waters will mean higher waters costs, more bureaucracy, no local control, and less democracy. Poll after poll has shown that the reforms face overwhelming opposition from Kiwis.”

“But everyone accepts that doing nothing is not an option. Now the Government can not claim ‘there is no alternative’.”

“This alternative to Three Waters is now a consensus among the Taxpayers’ Union, 31 provincial councils, the Mayors of our two largest cities, and the opposition National Party. There is just one more person to convince: Mr Hipkins.”

It's been a tough few weeks. Like so many, our team in Wellington have family and friends who have lost their homes and livelihoods following Cyclone Gabrielle and our thoughts continue to be with all of those who have been affected. 

Government must cut wasteful spending – not hike taxes – to fund cyclone clean up ✂️💰

The clean up and restoration works following the devastation of the cyclone will cost a lot of money, but the knee-jerk reaction to hike taxes is not the solution. People are already struggling with the cost of living and a new tax could not come at a worse time. 

Worryingly, this week both Chris Hipkins and Grant Robertson refused to rule out a ‘cyclone levy’ or other new taxes.

Borrowing more – an option the National Party signalled it was open to – is not the solution either. It will simply serve to drive up inflation further and force the Reserve Bank to whack up the Official Cash Rate even higher than the 4.75% it was set at yesterday.

The answer is actually quite simple but it may be a difficult pill for politicians to swallow: The Government needs to get a grip on its spending. 

Unnecessary projects such as Auckland's proposed tramway that Treasury officials estimate could cost up to $29 billion – equivalent to $14,842 for every New Zealand household – should be scrapped. The over $1 billion annual spend on consultants should be slashed, and the explosion in the number of public service mangers could easily be reduced without impacting on frontline public services.

Chris Hipkins keeps talking of a shift towards 'bread and butter politics', but refocussing policies isn't enough, the Government needs to refocus its spending too.

🔍 Taxpayers' Union Investigation: Ministry of Education wasted $1 million on truancy 'awareness' campaign under Chris Hipkins 🏫❌

With much fanfare, the Prime Minister announced funding for new truancy officers to tackle the attendance crisis in our schools. While the funding may be welcome, we were curious as to why it had taken the Government so long to take serious action to tackle the problem.

It turns out Chris Hipkins did take action on truancy when he was Minister of Education. A Taxpayers' Union investigation this week revealed that the Ministry allocated $1 million last year for an 'awareness' campaign about the truancy crisis. 

Unclear about what this actually meant, we asked the Ministry to explain how the campaign addressed the problem of declining attendance and how it improved it. Shockingly, the Ministry said it “was not expected to have a direct, quantifiable, impact on attendance rates itself.”

In short, instead of working to fix the problem (kids not going to school), taxpayers have been made to foot the $1 million bill for an advertising campaign to make them aware about something the media had already done a very good job of covering. You couldn't make it up! 

You can read the full details of our investigation on our website.

High Court confirms Government's Three Waters is an asset grab from local councils and ratepayers ⚖️🚰 

This week the High Court issued its decision on the Three Waters case brought by Timaru, Waimakariri and Whangarei District Councils. They had asked the Court to make declarations on the rights and interests that property ownership entails. You will recall the comments the then Local Government Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, made last year that under her Three Waters scheme councils would still 'own' the assets.

The High Court said

"local councils will lose central incidents of ownership that they presently hold... that local councils’ ability to control the use of their assets will be materially diluted through the WSE governance structure, and... that local democratic accountability for the provision of the Three Waters services in local communities is essentially lost."

This confirms what we have known all along: That the Government's claims that councils retain ownership of water assets are just plain wrong. What will the Government say now?

The judgement also noted that the Government:

"has deliberately decided that [the Three Waters funding package] is not intended to compensate local councils for the value of the infrastructure assets"

But ultimately, our constitutional framework and parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make these changes to water service delivery regardless of the impact on local governance and accountability. The way to stop this is through the ballot box, and that is why we continue to work hard to raise public awareness and force the Government to Scrap Three Waters!

Far North District Council spends $2.4 million on pound that can house just 10 dogs 🐶

Our friends in the Far North are having a tough time of it as it is with money desperately needed to fix the roads and flood-damaged infrastructure.

So it's raised some hackles that the Far North District Council has spent $2.4 million on a pound to house just ten mutts. The Northern Advocate reports:

An existing dog kennel bought by Far North District Council to use as a dog pound has ballooned from a $200,000 upgrade project into a “bizarrely expensive” $2.4m facility that will house fewer dogs.

The council bought Melka Kennels near Kaikohe in 2020 with the aim of converting the commercial dog kennels into a dog shelter that would serve the district’s busy southern area.

The original plan was to spend $200,000 to upgrade the site to meet national animal welfare codes to house up to 24 dogs.

Now the new Southern Animal Shelter has morphed into a purpose-built facility that has cost $2.4m and will house just 10 dogs.

That's nearly a quarter of a million dollars per dog that can be housed at any one time and nearly three-and-a-half times the average value of a house in the district. 

The Council is defending the decision, saying that it's value for money, and was partly funded by a Covid "shovel-ready" Provincial Growth Fund grant.  So, taxpayers across the country paid up too...

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Dr. Oliver Hartwich And Callum Purves On The Future Of Local Government 🎙️

In the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk, the focus is on local government. A review into the future of local government has been commissioned but it fails to address the main issues affecting the sector, in particular the way it’s funded and what its main functions should be.

New Zealand Initiative Executive Director, Oliver Hartwich, explains to host Peter Williams why more localism is such an important concept and why it can be great for a country’s economy. I also speak to Peter about what was wrong with the recent local government review and how the Taxpayers' Union thinks local government could be improved.

Also in the podcast, our War on Waste team focus on some silly spending by the Wellington City Council.

You can still make your voice heard on the Review into the Future of Local Government's consultation report using our easy submission tool at www.protectlocaldemocracy.nz

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

NZ Herald National and Labour tied, but Chris Hipkins way ahead of Christopher Luxon - poll

The Spinoff New poll puts Labour and National neck and neck

RNZ Labour closes gap with National in new poll

Newstalk ZB Jordan Williams: Taxpayers' Union says Eleanor Catton should pay back her subsidies

Newstalk ZB The Huddle: Curia poll results and Auckland Grammar staying open despite Cyclone Gabrielle

Newstalk ZB Barry Soper: senior political correspondent on Chris Hipkins announcing $11.5 million in support for cyclone affected regions

Te Ao Māori News Labour closes gap with National in new poll

The Kaka by Bernard Hickey National emergency declared for Gabrielle

The Working Group with John Tamihere, David Seymour and Damien Grant

The Platform Jordan Williams on Eleanor Catton’s swipe at the NZ Tax Payers' Union

Kiwiblog Journalist complains polling question wasn’t leading enough

 

 

 

Government needs to tighten its belt following latest OCR hike

The Taxpayers’ Union has called on the Government to tighten its belt as the Reserve Bank announces a 50 basis points increase in the Official Cash Rate (OCR).

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“Kiwis needing to renew their mortgages will bear the brunt of this rise, but the Bank really had no option given the Government’s irresponsible spending and its own bond-buying bonanza that have both driven inflation."

“Given the need for funds to support reconstruction efforts after the cyclone, the Government needs to tighten its belt and reduce non-essential spending such as Auckland light rail, its bungled reform programme, and the excessive number of managers and consultants.”

New Zealand’s new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins recently announced a $74million package that would bring back “truancy officers” with 82 new roles established in a bid to curtail the dismal school attendance statistics that are now widely acknowledged to be at crisis point. While this pragmatic measure will be welcomed by many, it is fair for Kiwis to question what took so long.

The media has been reporting on the crisis since kids returned to school after Covid-19 lockdowns and opposition parties have been banging the drum too. At the end of last year, Newshub reported that just 40 per cent of Kiwi kids are attending school regularly and that there is a correlation between poor attendance and regions with high rates of ram raids. 

The Prime Minister might well want to enquire with the man who was Minister of Education until very recently. He need only look in the mirror.

[Chris Hipkins is familiar with this meme]

The man in the mirror would advise the Prime Minister that in fact he did dedicate considerable resources to the truancy crisis in 2022; about $1million in fact. It was spent on a campaign called All In For Learning and was created by the agency Stanley St. You may recognise the name as Kris Faafoi’s new PR gig sits under the Stanley St umbrella. As does the agency Tatou run by Minister Peeni Henare’s partner.

According to Stanley St:

The Ministry of Education approached us with a challenge. Over the last few years in Aotearoa, attendance and participation at school had been in steady decline. With COVID further contributing towards this downwards trend, by August 2022 almost half of our tamariki were not regularly attending school.

The value of in person learning had taken a hit with parents across New Zealand who had forgotten that the value of physically being at school extended far beyond the books for their children. Kids were missing out on all the other moments that play such a critical role in shaping their futures.

Of the “around $1 million of baseline funding”, the Parnell ad agency was paid $774,000 (inclusive of media costs of $480,000) by the Ministry of Education. Also included in the more than three-quarters of a million dollar fee was $98,500 for focus groups, $70,000 for impact assessment reports, and $56,600 for baseline research. The campaign was in market for just over a month from 23 Aug – 30 Sept 2022.

Keen to find out how this expensive campaign improved truancy rates in New Zealand, the Taxpayers’ Union sent an Official Information Act request to the ministry asking for the goals, KPIs, briefing documents, and results of the campaign. The response we received had jaws hitting the floor.

The first shock came with the answer: “We did not provide Stanley St with any briefing documents”. No instructions were written down. No parameters set for a campaign worth $774,000 to the agency.

That was nothing compared to what we would learn next. 

In our OIA, we asked for: An explanation or summary as to how this campaign addresses the problem of declining attendance in New Zealand and in what ways this campaign improved attendance.

And we were told that for a million dollars, the campaign had no impact on attendance rates. The ministry informed us it “was not expected to have a direct, quantifiable, impact on attendance rates itself.”

Stanley St developed 167 creative assets to support a “multi-channel, multi-lingual approach, deployed across: 521 Television Spots, across 16 TV channels, 688 National Radio Spots, 43 Bus Backs, 3 In-School Full Video screens, 281 Posters in 7 key locations, and Digital Billboards & Adshels programmatically….”

All of this to “raise awareness and change perceptions about attendance and engagement as a national issue”.

The Ministry of Education says they sought to “make attendance a national priority by:

1. helping parents, whanau, ākonga and communities understand the importance of regular attendance and engagement at school
2. enabling one story to be consistently and repeatedly heard; and
3. enhancing awareness of regular attendance as an issue at a regional and local level.”

Awareness. It was an Awareness Campaign. To make New Zealand aware of an issue that was already being called a crisis. Instead of dropping a million dollars on the truancy officers Prime Minister Hipkins has announced nearly six months later, Education Minister Hipkins oversaw a million dollars being spent to tell Kiwis that kids aren’t going to school as often as they should.

This was an exercise in spending money aimlessly and without regard for the taxpayers who earnt it and the inflationary environment Kiwis are dealing with currently. The Prime Minister needs to answer as to whether he was aware of the cost of the campaign and its wishy-washy objectives. Did it cross his desk in his capacity as Minister of Education? Did he consider it to be a million dollars well spent?

The truancy crisis is serious and Kiwi parents don’t begrudge public education spending that shows value for money, but this campaign is clearly gratuitous and has been developed with more focus on creating something trendy than doing something practical to address a problem.

The response to our information request can be found here.

Government should cut wasteful spending – not hike taxes – to fund cyclone clean up

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Government to rule out raising taxes to fund the cost of the Cyclone Gabrielle clean up after earlier today Chris Hipkins refused to rule out a ‘cyclone levy’ similar to that used after the Queensland floods.

Instead, the Government should use this as an opportunity to cut back on wasteful spending and prioritise clean up costs and investment in necessary infrastructure going forward.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“While rebuilding after the devastation of the past week will undoubtedly come with a cost, the last thing Kiwis need now is a tax hike during a cost of living crisis."

“The Government can’t just refocus its policies, it needs to refocus its spending too. The over $1 billion spent on consultants each year, the significant increase in managers in the public service, and the expected nearly $9 billion central government contribution to Auckland light rail would be good places to start.”

In the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk, the focus is on local government with guests Dr Oliver Hartwich and Callum Purves. A review into the future of local government has been commissioned but it fails to address the main issues affecting the sector, in particular the way it’s funded and what its main functions should be.

New Zealand Initiative Executive Director, Oliver Hartwich, explains to host Peter Williams why more localism is such an important concept and why it can be great for a country’s economy. Taxpayers' Union Campaign Manager, Callum Purves, himself a former councillor in Scotland, explains what was wrong with the recent local government review.

Also in the podcast, our War on Waste team focus on some silly spending by the Wellington City Council.

Submit on the Review on the Future of Local Government at www.protectlocaldemocracy.nz

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

First and foremost, our thoughts are with those who are facing yet more severe weather across the North Island with Cyclone Gabrielle.

Last week was a big week for the Taxpayers' Union with multiple policy victories announced by the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins: The jobs tax was put on ice, the RNZ/TVNZ merger was scrapped, and tax relief for motorists was extended for a third time. None of this would have been possible without supporters like you. Thank you for fuelling our work and forcing Wellington to respond.

The new Prime Minister has said he wants to focus on bread and butter politics, including tackling the cost of living. The results of our first poll since Chris Hipkins took office reveal what effect this is having on how New Zealanders plan to vote in October's election. 

NEW POLL: Labour bounce but Centre-Right remains ahead – just 📊

Exclusive to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of this month's Taxpayers' Union – Curia Poll.

The two largest parties are tied at 34% – Labour is up two points on last month while National is down three points. ACT is up one point to 12% while the Greens are down three points to 8%.

The smaller parties are NZ First on 2.9%, Māori Party on 2.1%, TOP on 2.0%, NZ Outdoors & Freedom on 1.0%, Democracy NZ on 0.9%, New Conservative on 0.8%, and Vision NZ on just 0.2%.

The two biggest parties are on 46 seats each with Labour up five seats on last month and National down three. ACT is up one seat to 15 while the Greens are down four to 10. The Māori Party is up one seat to 3.

As with other recent public polls, Labour has clearly seen a bounce under Chris Hipkins's leadership, but based on this poll, the increase in support has primarily come at the expense of the Greens.

The means only a slight uptick in the combined total for the Centre-Left to 56 seats – up one from last month. While the Centre-Right dips to 61 seats – down two seats – but still has just enough to form a government. 

Net Favourability: Voters like Chippy 

Over on our website is further polling information and details on how to get access to the full report.

Taxpayer Victory! TVNZ/RNZ merger scrapped 📺🔥

Last week was a great week for taxpayers! The Government was forced to drop its expensive plans to merge TVNZ and RNZ on which it planned to spend $3 million on rebranding alone. 

The Taxpayers' Union has been at the forefront of the campaign against the merger. Far from creating a more diverse media landscape, the merger would have served to concentrate power, and erode diversity and trust in media sources. 

Our former Chairman, a former TVNZ board member, Barrie Saunders was among the first to ask the fundamental question about what problem the proposed merger intended to solve, and point out the disgraceful process in which this reform was hatched.

While one of our Board Members and former TVNZ presenter, Peter Williams, called out the merger for being a waste of money, saying: "The question I've had right from the time of the idea of merging TVNZ and Radio NZ was first mooted is 'just what problem are you trying to fix?' Is there not a better use of $370 million?"

Now TVNZ and RNZ can get back to the day job of good public service broadcasting. That means a rejection of polarization and striving to serve a wider audience rather than creating a safe space for the intellectual or metropolitan elite.

Jobs tax put on ice 💰🧊

Another taxpayer victory last week was the decision to scrap plans to introduce an unemployment insurance scheme during this parliamentary term. This proposed jobs tax would have cost the median worker more than $800 a year at a time when people are already struggling with the cost of living.

But it isn’t just the wrong time to bring in the policy. It’s the wrong policy too. Paying 80% of someone’s salary not to work for six months would have created terrible incentives for people to stay unemployed for longer, been open to abuse (by making redundancy more attractive than resigning), and would have failed to address skill shortages for sectors that are struggling to find employees. We say Labour shouldn't just delay this policy, it should be consigned to the scrap heap.

While Chris Hipkins is undoubtedly getting rid of unpopular policies to boost Labour's re-election prospects, the work of the Taxpayers' Union – supported by hardworking Kiwis like you – has been vital to ensure that voters are aware of just how bad Jacinda Ardern's policies were. 

Three Waters: How far is Hipkins prepared to go? 💦❓

While last week's bonfire of policies was a step in the right direction, we still await an announcement about Three Waters. Chris Hipkins has said his Government plans to 'refocus' the reforms – whatever that means.

Any changes must ensure that the property rights of councils are respected and that those making decisions on water infrastructure remain accountable to ratepayers. The biggest risk, however, is that the Government makes some changes that might seem big on the surface but fail to meet these key criteria. 

With the support of thousands, we have made Three Waters an albatross around the Government's neck, but we need to keep up the pressure to make it clear that cosmetic changes – such as renaming 'co-governace' to 'mahi tahi' – will not be enough. Our new 'Scrap Three Waters' banners have been doing just that with supporters across the country putting them up in recent weeks. You can get yours here. 

While we await the Government's amendments, stay tuned for a big announcement about the next step in our Scrap Three Waters campaign in the coming weeks.

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Fed Farmers' Paul Melville and Mark Hooper on the resource management reforms 🎙️

In the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams talks with Federated Farmers’ Paul Melville and Mark Hooper about the proposed new planning and environmental legislation to replace the Resource Management Act.

While there is almost unanimous agreement the much maligned RMA needs to be updated and changed, Federated Farmers have serious doubts the new Natural and Built Environments Bill and its companion Spatial Planning Bill is the way forward.

Also in this edition, a new segment called War on Waste where a member of the Taxpayers' Union staff exposes profligate spending by government or local authorities. This time researcher Alex Murphy has Auckland Council in his sights.

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

NZ Herald PM Chris Hipkins’ bonfire of the policies - refocus sees RNZ/TVNZ merger gone, income insurance scheme to change

Newstalk ZB PM's policy bonfire- what you need to know
 
NZ Herald Chris Hipkins’ ‘policy bonfire’: Government cops criticism for refocus with more changes to come

NZ Herald Damien Venuto: The slow, painful death of the TVNZ-RNZ merger leaves media vulnerable

The Front Page Why does housing remain such a problem in New Zealand?

Eleanor Catton should put our money where her mouth is and pay it back

The Taxpayers’ Union is hitting back against Eleanor Catton’s cheap shots aired on Radio NZ over the weekend, where she labeled the Union 'sinister' for publishing the generous subsidies Ms Catton had received following her earlier attacks on the NZ Government being run by 'money hungry politicians' who do not care for culture. Despite its commercial success for Ms Catton, the Taxpayers’ Union exposed that New Zealand taxpayers even generously funded the The Luminaries to be translated into three languages.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman, Jordan Williams, said:

“We are surprised that all these years later Eleanor still harbours such bitterness for us pointing out her hypocrisy.”

“We said it then, and we’ll say it again, Ms Catton should use some of the substantial royalties to pay the money back. This would mean that more up and coming artists could be funded and she would not attract the ire of taxpayer groups like ours every time she complains about New Zealand not helping the arts.”

In the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams talks with Federated Farmers’ Paul Melville and Mark Hooper about the proposed new planning and environmental legislation to replace the Resource Management Act.

While there is almost unanimous agreement the much maligned RMA needs to be updated and changed, Federated Farmers have serious doubts the new Natural and Built Environments Bill and its companion Spatial Planning Bill is the way forward.

Also in this edition, a new segment called War on Waste where a member of the Taxpayers' Union staff exposes profligate spending by government or local authorities. This time researcher Alex Murphy has Auckland Council in his sights.

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

Taxpayer Victory! Government scraps jobs tax (for now)

The Taxpayers’ Union has welcomed the Government’s decision to take the proposed social insurance scheme off the table for the rest of this parliament but has warned against bringing back similar proposals in future.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The Government’s unemployment insurance scheme would have hit Kiwi families and businesses hard. This proposed jobs tax would have cost the median worker over $800 a year at a time when people are already struggling with the cost of living."

“The Taxpayers’ Union welcomes the decision to take this scheme off the table, which will come as a great relief to taxpayers."

"But it isn’t just the wrong time to bring in the policy. It’s the wrong policy too. Paying 80% of someone’s salary not to work for six months would have unsurprisingly created perverse incentives for people to stay unemployed for longer, been open to abuse by making redundancy more attractive, and failed to address skill shortages for sectors who are struggling to find employees."

Policy victory for the Taxpayers’ Union: Hipkins scraps the media merger no one wanted

The Taxpayers’ Union is delighted at the news that the TVNZ/RNZ media merger is to be scrapped.

Taxpayers' Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, said:

“Our former Chairman, a former TVNZ board member, Barrie Saunders was among the first to ask the fundamental question about what problem the proposed merger intended to solve, and point out the disgraceful process in which this reform was hatched."

“Far from creating a more diverse media landscape, the merger would have served to concentrate power, and erode diversity and trust in media sources."

“We welcome the policy being scraped, and look forward to an increased focus by both TVNZ and RNZ on serving all Kiwis with good public service broadcasting and current affairs.  That must mean a turning of the page, rejection of polarisation, and striving to serve a wider audience than a safe space for the intellectual or metropolitan elite.”

“The Government budgeted $3 million on contract work for branding the new entity. The Taxpayers’ Union did it for $300. Let’s hope that money isn’t wasted.”

Quite rightly, the focus of the media this week has been the terrible flooding situation in Auckland – for those affected by the flooding, our thoughts are with you.

It's also been a a busy week in politics. We are delighted that more than 11,000 of our supporters have written to Chris Hipkins to tell him which policies they think he should drop using our online tool: BriefThePM.com

While decisions on Mr. Hipkins's full "policy reset" are still being made (especially on Three Waters!) – the signs this week suggest that he is responsive to people power.

Taxpayer Victory: Hipkins extends tax relief at the pump ⛽💸

You will recall last year that your humble Taxpayers' Union exposed Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson for their outrageous price gouging at petrol pumps around the country. While the Government blamed the Ukraine war for high petrol prices, we pointed out that more than half the cost of petrol is tax!

Since Grant Robertson announced in December that the Government planned to hike fuel taxes back up, we have been campaigning hard to change his mind. 

And it worked! Earlier this week, the new Prime Minister announced that the diesel-road user charges reduction and petrol excise tax cut would be extended. This will come as a welcome reprieve to families and businesses who are already struggling with the cost of living given the record high levels of inflation. 

Fact check: Petrol tax is used to pay for roads ⚠️

New Zealand's fuel taxes go into a big pot called the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), which was set up to fund roads maintenance. Opponents of the fuel tax cut argue that the extension will force non-drivers to subside drivers, but, in fact, the opposite is true.

Drivers are actually subsiding non-drivers. Under this – and the last National-led – Government, more and more of the NLTF has been being spent on public transport, uneconomic rail services, walking and cycling routes, and even the Road to Zero advertising campaign. Drivers of electric vehicles do not currently contribute into the Fund. 

Currently, the Government is siphoning off almost a third of the funding from fuel taxes for pet projects like cycleways and advertising campaigns!

We are calling on the Government to return the NLTF to its original purpose – paying for our roads. This would allow for fuel taxes to be kept lower than they were before, and still increase investment in our roads.

What's next? 🗳️

The fresh extension lasts until 30 June, which just a few months out from the election... Will Wellington really hike taxes then? 

A new Local Government Minister, a new approach? 💼💦

Whether it is seizing water assets or removing planning powers from councils, denying ratepayers in Tauranga the right to choose their local representatives or abolishing district health boards, the current Government's record on localism is poor.

This week's new cabinet saw a new Local Government Minister appointed. As was widely expected, brief was removed from Nanaia Mahuta and handed to Kieran McAnulty. We hope that this new minister signals a new approach from the Government but remain sceptical. 

The first big test will come when the Government announces what it plans to do with Three Waters in the coming weeks. The current proposals must be ditched: They will lead to water services that cost more and that are managed by unelected and unaccountable entities.

But there are viable alternative models of water reform like the one put forward by "Communities4LocalDemocracy" that would keep water assets in community control and ensure that they remain accountable to ratepayers. This proposal already has the backing of 31 councils and the mayors of our two biggest cities.

If the Government thinks it can get away with a few cosmetic changes, it should think again – we will oppose any proposal that does not meet our red lines of ensuring local ownership, control and accountability while driving efficiency and allowing councils to opt out of multi-council models in the long term if they do not deliver for their ratepayers.

Turning taxpayer dollars into stone 💰🪨

Our research interns scour the public service for examples of wasteful and excessive government spending. One of the oddest examples recently has come from Callaghan Innovation. If, like me, you had never head of this obscure Government agency before, its purpose is to provide grants to hi-tech businesses to support innovation opportunities. 

Examples of funding awards included $2,000 for a paint brush and sleeve wash system, $3,000 for the development of a low-calorie, refreshing, non-alcoholic RTD, and $4,375 for a pre-mixed cava beverage company. But the prize for sending taxpayer dollars up in flames has to go to the $5000 grant to a company that will turn the ashes of a deceased pet or family member into a stone.

The amounts here might be small but the lesson is a simple one. If these proposals were viable and enough people wanted to buy these products, they should be able to secure private investment without the need for Government support. Especially given the current cost of living crisis, it is difficult to see why this is deemed to be a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Stephen Franks 🎙️

In our first episode of Taxpayer Talk for 2023, Peter Williams is joined by lawyer Stephen Franks. Stephen is a founding director of the commercial and public law firm Franks Ogilvie, a former member of Parliament and spokesperson for the Water Users' Group. 

Stephen joins Peter to discuss why the Water Users' Group, backed by the Taxpayers' Union, is taking a Government minister to the Court of Appeal and what any alternative Three Waters legislation might look like. The Government has claimed that Crown Law told the former Minister for Local Government Nanaia Mahuta that co-governance of our water services is required under Treaty of Waitangi. The new Water Services Entities Act means the country’s water infrastructure will be co-governed by iwi and local authority representatives, but at what cost to water users?

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

NZ Herald Prime Minister Chris Hipkins extends fuel tax cuts, half-price public transport: ‘It’s been a lot’

Stuff PM Chris Hipkins set to reverse petrol tax hike, retain half-price public transport fares
 
TodayFM Tova: 30 January 2023 – Recall Elections (1:47:00)

Stuff Deposit guarantee scheme in place for 2024? Don't bet on it.

NewstalkZB Morning Edition: 26 January 2023 - Fuel Taxes (00:42)

Stuff Could Three Waters be on the chopping block? Here's what Prime Minister Chris Hipkins could do

NZ Herald The Front Page: What to expect from new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins (07:20)

In our first episode of Taxpayer Talk for 2023, Peter Williams is joined by lawyer Stephen Franks. Stephen is a founding director of the commercial and public law firm Franks Ogilvie, a former member of Parliament and spokesperson for the Water Users' Group. 

Stephen joins Peter to discuss why the Water Users' Group, backed by the Taxpayers' Union, is taking a Government minister to the Court of Appeal and what any alternative Three Waters legislation might look like. The Government has claimed that Crown Law told the former Minister for Local Government Nanaia Mahuta that co-governance of our water services is required under Treaty of Waitangi. The new Water Services Entities Act means the country’s water infrastructure will be co-governed by Iwi and local authority representatives, but at what cost to water users?

If you would like to contribute towards the Three Waters legal challenge click here 

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

Right call to end blanket Auckland school closure

The Taxpayers’ Union has welcomed the decision to lift the Ministry of Education’s directive on Auckland schools and other learning facilities, which means schools can open from tomorrow at their discretion.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves said:

“It has been a difficult time for Aucklanders but enforcing a blanket school closure for a whole week would have just made things worse with pupils missing out on vital classroom time and parents having to take more time off work.

“Wherever possible, decisions on whether to open should be up to individual schools and other learning facilities who can make an assessment based on local circumstances and the safety of their pupils and staff."

Taxpayers’ Union welcomes decision to extend fuel tax cut

The Taxpayers’ Union – which has been campaigning for an extension to the diesel road-user charges and petrol excise reductions – has welcomed the Government’s announcement today that the fuel tax cuts will continue until 30 June.

They have, however, called on the Government to stop using the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) to fund non-road programmes so fuel taxes can be kept down in the future while continuing to invest in and maintain our roads. 

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“Today’s announcement will come as a welcome reprieve to families and businesses who were facing steep price increases at the pump in addition to all the other inflationary pressures driving up the cost of living.

“Opponents of the fuel tax reduction argue that those who use our roads should pay for their maintenance and improvement. We agree. But the reality is that road users are subsiding public transport services, walking and cycling routes, loss-making rail services, and advertising campaigns through the NLTF.

“The Government should return the NLTF to its original purpose – paying for our roads. If it wishes to continue to fund these other programmes, it should do so by finding savings elsewhere rather than force road users to pick up the tab. This would allow for fuel taxes to be kept lower than they were before the cut, increased investment in our roads or some combination of the two.”

In the last government financial year to 30 June 2022 (including 3.5 months of the fuel tax cut), the breakdown of income to the National Land Transport Fund was as follows:

• Road user charges: $1,904m
• Fuel excise duties: $1,783m
• Vehicle regulation / licensing: $235m
• Track user charges from KiwiRail: $7m
• Road user charges – Gov funding to replace lost income due to fuel tax cut: $186m
• Fuel excise duties – Gov funding to replace lost income due to fuel tax cut: $189m

While the spending from the fund was as follows:

• State highway improvements: $1,010m
• State highway maintenance: $796m
• Local road improvements: $105m
• Local road maintenance: $720m
• Investment management: $60m
• Road policing programme: $394m
• Public transport services: $429m
• Public transport infrastructure: $304m
• Walking and cycling improvements: $104m
• Road to zero: $285m
• Rail network investment programme: $287m

 

Taxpayers’ Union welcomes new Minister for Local Government

The Taxpayer’s Union has welcomed the appointment of a new Minister for Local Government and encouraged Kieran McAnulty to press pause on the Three Waters reforms.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“A new Minister for Local Government presents an opportunity for the Government to prove that it values local democracy. Whether it has been seizing water assets from councils or depriving Tauranga residents of an election, we have seen local democratic accountability significantly undermined in the past few years.

“The strongest signal Mr. McAnulty could send that the Government means business when it talks of a reset is by pressing pause on Three Waters. Now is the time to consider alternative models for water reform such as the one proposed by Communities4LocalDemocracy and backed by 31 councils and the mayors of our two largest cities.”

Fuel tax rises should be scrapped as inflation remains stubbornly high

The diesel road-user charge reduction scheme, which reduced rates by 36 per cent, is due to end with charges going up significantly tomorrow (1 February 2023).

The charge hike will mean a large increase in the cost of transport for diesel-powered vehicles, which is most of our heavy transport fleet. This will flow through to prices for consumers, manufacturers, and primary producers, fuelling already high levels of inflation.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“New Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has said all the right things when it comes to getting back to bread-and-butter politics and focussing on the cost of living, but actions speak louder than words.

“Tomorrow’s diesel road-user charge hike will hit Kiwi families and businesses hard at a time when persistently high inflation is already hurting. With petrol excise hikes looming in the coming months, it’s still not too late to have a rethink and keep fuel taxes down.” 

Let our Schools Decide: Taxpayers’ Union launches petition

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has launched a petition calling for schools to have the authority to make their own decisions about emergency closures based on local circumstances rather than be beholden to bureaucrats in Wellington.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager Callum Purves says:

“The blanket shut down of all schools in Auckland following the weekend’s flooding has highlighted how tactics that were used during the worst of the Covid-19 pandemic have been normalised

“One-size-fits-all shut downs disadvantage students in areas unaffected by the emergency, impact kids’ education, and force parents to take time off work unnecessarily.

“Education is a core public service and it is funded by our taxes. Taxpayers are right to expect that closing schools should be a very last resort and should be informed by the circumstances of each school.

“It is time to stop the edicts from Wellington dictating what they think is in the best interests of our communities and let our local schools make the best decisions for their pupils, parents and staff."

Aucklanders can sign the petition at www.taxpayers.org.nz/let_schools_decide

 

Following Thursday’s surprise announcement by Jacinda Ardern that she will be stepping down as Labour Party leader, the Taxpayers’ Union commissioned a snap poll asking a thousand New Zealanders who should take over as Prime Minister and whether leading candidates will make voters more or less likely to vote Labour in this year’s election.

Name recognition

The percentage of participants who had heard of the following potential Labour leadership candidates: 

1. Chris Hipkins 92%
2. Grant Robertson 88%
3. Nanaia Mahuta 77%
4. Megan Woods 72%
5. Michael Wood 71%
6. Kiri Allan 67%

Net favourability

Poll participants were asked if they had a favourable or unfavourable opinion of potential candidates. The net favourability score is the percentage of those who have a favourable opinion of a candidate minus the percentage of those who have an unfavourable opinion. The results, in order, are:

1. Chris Hipkins +15%
2. Grant Robertson +12%
3. Kiri Allan +7%
4. Michael Wood -7%
5. Megan Woods -10%
6. Nanaia Mahuta -26%

Net impact (more or less likely to vote Labour) 

Participants were also questioned about whether the leading candidates would make them more or less likely to vote for Labour this year. The net impact score is calculated by taking the percentage of those who said the candidate would make them more likely to vote Labour minus the percentage who said the candidate would make them less likely to vote Labour. The results, in order, are:

1. Chris Hipkins +7%
2. Grant Robertson -5%
3. Kiri Allan -6%
4. Michael Wood -16%
5. Megan Woods -19%
6. Nanaia Mahuta -28%

Who should lead Labour?

Overall, when participants were asked who they want to replace Jacinda Ardern, 30% said Chris Hipkins followed by Kiri Allan on 10% with Nanaia Mahuta on 8%, Michael Wood on 6% and Megan Woods on 5%. 41% of respondents were unsure.

Jacinda Ardern’s policies (new leader retain or scrap)

The poll also asked whether the new leader should retain or scrap signature policies of Jacinda Ardern's Government such as Three Waters, KiwiBuild, and merging TVNZ and RNZ.  The net retain score (percentage of people favouring retention of the policy minus percentage of those favouring scrapping the policy) for each policy is:

1. Auckland Light Rail +18%
2. Kiwibuild +15%
3. Compulsory Unemployment Insurance -4%
4. Reduction in speed limits -21%
5. Expanding co-governance -21%
6. TVNZ/RNZ Merger -23%
7. Three Waters -40%

The full polling report includes breakdowns by gender, age, geographic area, and party vote at the last election. You can download it here.

---

The scientific poll was conducted by Curia Market Research and commissioned by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. The full polling report is being released exclusively to members of our Taxpayer Caucus. As is well known, but for full disclosure, David Farrar is a member of the Board of the Taxpayers' Union and also a Director of Curia Market Research Ltd.

The Taxpayers’ Union – Curia Poll was conducted from Thursday 19 to Friday 20 January 2023. The median response was collected on Friday 20 January 2023. The sample was a random selection 1,000 eligible New Zealand voters from an online panel. The results are weighted to reflect the overall voting adult population in terms of gender, age, and area. Based on this sample of 1,000 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 3.1%, at the 95% confidence level. Results for sub-groups such as age and area will have a much higher margin of error and not seen as precise.

This poll should be formally referred to as the 'Taxpayers’ Union – Curia Labour Party Leadership Snap Poll'.

Welcome to the first Taxpayer Update of 2023! I hope you had a good break.

Yesterday's shock announcement of Jacinda Ardern's resignation as prime minister is likely to improve Labour's chances of re-election later this year, based on numbers we're releasing today in the first political poll of 2023.

We don't yet know who will be facing up against Christopher Luxon on 14 October, but if Labour drops some of its unpopular policies, it could be back in the game. 

Our job at the Taxpayers' Union this year is to ensure that the issues we all care about – protecting democratic accountability, scrapping wasteful government spending and keeping our taxes low – are at the heart of the general election campaign. 

Last year, we put Three Waters squarely onto the political agenda. With your support, we can do it again and ensure taxpayers are front and centre of the political debate.

NEW POLL: Labour reaches new low 📊

Available exclusively to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of our January Taxpayers' Union – Curia poll. 

Here is how these results would translate to seats in Parliament, assuming all electorate seats are held:

This means a narrowing of the gap between the two major blocs with the Centre-Right down one seat on last month to a combined 63 seats and the Centre-Left up three seats to a combined total of 55.

The one number that ended a Prime Minister? Ardern's net favourability goes negative for the first time 📉

The outgoing Prime Minister's net favourability rating (that is the percentage of New Zealanders who tell our pollsters they have a 'favourable' view less the percentage who say 'unfavourable') has been gradually declining for quite some time. Back in September 2021, she was on +32% but this month, her ratings went negative for the first time. She leaves office with a score of -1%.

Christopher Luxon similarly scores a result of -1% this month, but his trend over the same period has been upwards. In September 2021, before he took on the National leadership, he was on -33% and he has slowly managed to turn this around.

This month, with much media speculation about New Zealand First re-entering Parliament, we asked respondents for their favourability towards Winston Peters. He scores a very poor -40% and does badly across voters of the four largest parties. 

But this year's general election remains on a knife edge 🗳️

While the Centre-Left have not been able to govern on their own in our poll numbers since March last year, the election remains close. The Centre-Right have never been more than three seats over the 61-seat threshold required to form government. 

A new prime minister, a new cabinet and potentially a new policy agenda means that everything is still to play for over the next 9 months. 

Visit our website for more information and find out how to get access to the full polling report.

Taxpayers spending at least $75 million per year on additional days off for public servants 🏖️💰

Over the break, our research revealed that public servants are receiving additional days of paid leave, beyond their statutory entitlements, amounting to more than $75 million per year!

In the year that’s been, taxpayers paid public servants for over 167,000 days that they weren’t even at work, excluding the normal four weeks leave and public holidays. It’s a struggle to believe that public servants are working so much harder than the non-government workers who pay their salaries that they need all this additional time off.

While the money spent could have paid for 1,000 extra nurses, instead it was wasted paying a whopping 457 years' worth of leave total for bureaucrats to sit at home.

We fear how high the total number of extra leave days may be, as the data we obtained only account for 36,400 members of the public service when we know there are more than 60,000 employees. Almost all public servants receive an additional three ‘department days’, but some public servants are receiving up to 30 additional days annual leave, which is absolutely ridiculous. We are calling for leave entitlement to be brought in line with the private sector. 

Jordan was interviewed on Newstalk ZB about the findings. Click here to listen. 

POLL: Kiwis not fans of the reverse Robin Hood Clean Car Discount 🏹💸

Last month, we asked our pollster to find out whether New Zealanders support funding the Government's Clean Car Discount of up to $8,625 on the purchase of some electric and hybrid vehicles by taxing the purchase of non-electric cars up to $5,175 depending on the level of their emissions. 

Just 33% of Kiwis supported taxing the purchase of non-electric vehicles to fund the Clean Car Discount. Outright opposition to the scheme was at 47% with those who were unsure at 19%. 

Most support for the car tax comes from Green Party voters, Wellington, and younger demographics. And it won't come as a shock that rural New Zealanders, on the other hand, are not fans.

We say the 'clean car discount' is a tax on low and middle-income Kiwis, who are shelling out their hard earned tax-dollars so that wealthier, inner-city residents can buy Teslas. With the cost of living crisis continuing to bite, the Government needs to scrap this unfair tax. 

Airing $475 of Minister Damien O’Connor’s dirty laundry 🧺🧼

At the end of last year, one of our student researches spotted a peculiar charge on the Minister’s expenses. While staying at a London hotel in July, Minister O’Connor and his staffer spent $475.00 on laundry services for just two days' worth of clothes.

The Minister appears to be a serial clothes-spoiler. His own receipts show that just two days prior he had used the laundry services of another hotel, this time in Belgium. The Minister's office declined to give us the name of the hotel that the Minister was staying in at the time so that we could verify that the charge was an accurate reflection of the laundry charges of that hotel, citing that “for security reasons, it is not the policy of my office to release the names of hotels used while travelling overseas.” 

This is completely at odds with all of the Minister’s previous releases where every hotel the Minister has stayed at was named. It appears that this policy was adopted after we exposed the Minister earlier in the year when one of his staffers bought themselves a $100 breakfast!

Travel sounds grand when it's other people's money...

Kainga Ora spends more than $200,000 on koha between 2019-2021 😲💵

Giving a koha is the Māori custom of gifting to show appreciation. In 2022, this tends to be in the form of a monetary contribution. It’s become common for government departments to give koha when they interact with marae or have someone perform a ceremonial role.

While most agencies that reported comprehensive information about koha in their Annual Reviews had spent less than $10,000 in the financial year 2020/21, Kainga Ora blew all other agencies out of the park with a whopping $123,377.00 spent on koha.

Between 2019 and 2021, the public housing agency spent $204,897.00 on customary monetary gifts, many at $1,500 and $2,000 a pop.

We say Kainga Ora's spending on koha is way out of line. Most other agencies got by just fine with more modest spends. The Ministry for the Environment, The Human Rights Commission, and Waka Kotahi all spent less than $500 on koha over the same period.

Kainga Ora needs to explain to taxpayers why they are such a glaring outlier in this area. The agency is completely out of control, spending over $200,000 on koha between 2019 and 2021 alone. Taxpayers should be able to expect that government spending is prudent and accountable. Kainga Ora is achieving neither of those objectives.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

NewstalkZB Taxpayers' Union Executive Director wants Government to remove additional leave entitlements for public servants

NewstalkZB Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance spokesperson on AT replacing HOP Cards with National Ticketing Solution

NewstalkNZ Midday Edition: News Fix [from 01:38]

Autofile Kiwis 'not behind' clean car discount

Auckland Council discriminates against vegetarians in $46,000 giveaway to meat eaters

Auckland Council spends $46,227 on a giveaway coercing meat-eating households to convert to vegetarianism. 

Around 2 months ago, one of our supporters notified us of an email they received where participants had the chance to obtain a free giveaway by completing a survey in relation to their food consumption.

The survey came from the ‘Different Dinners Trial’; an investigation into the eating habits of Auckland residents for the Council to ‘understand more about what types of interventions work best to support willing Aucklanders to make more food choices with a lower carbon impact.’ In other words, Auckland Council wants to know how to turn people vegetarian.

It should be mentioned this was no ordinary survey either. If anything, it was more of a recruitment procedure, directed on finding willing subjects that were open to trying a plant-based diet. Surveys were sent out to many Auckland residents, but only those who met specific criteria could finish the survey. The Council tells us they received 732 of these ‘completed surveys’ where participants all obtained at least one of the giveaway options. That’s a cost of $63 per response.

The list of criteria to complete the survey was the following:

• The person/household eats meat for dinner 5 or more times per week
• The person/household is willing to try eating one or two more vegetarian dinners per week
• The person is not extremely confident in cooking vegetarian meals
• The person does not live alone
• The person generally eats dinner with at least one other person in their household
• The person is interested in taking part once trial has been explained

Listed below are the costs of the survey, showing just shy of $50,000 was spent on providing the project. We can only applaud Auckland Council’s self-restraint on purchasing just 300 MyFoodBag vouchers.

Giveaway Cost MyFoodBag vouchers (300 @ $123ea.) $36,970 Plant Powered Recipe Booklet (750) $2,625 Different Dinners fridge magnet and meal planner (750) $3,937.50 People’s Panel e-gift voucher (4) $400 Additional   Text Message Capability $1595 Other admin $700 Total $46,227.50

 

It should be reiterated that only completed surveys (ones that met all the criteria) received a giveaway. This meant that vegetarians, light-meat eaters, those who live alone, plus confident vegetarian cooks were all effectively shunned from getting taxpayer funded free giveaways. It is almost comical that the meat-eating individuals this project actively frowns upon are the ones who were rewarded with free meals.

It is clear Auckland Council are shockingly indifferent towards this blatant discrimination. But regardless of this inequity, thousands of ratepayer dollars have been squandered on a council pet project that as I will explain, will not work and is completely unnecessary.

The main goal of this project is to achieve New Zealand’s emission goals through decreasing our meat consumption. As they put it, “This survey forms part of a broader programme of work looking at how Auckland Council can respond to its commitments to address climate change.” This specifically refers to NZ’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which aims to reduce emissions 50% by 2030 and to be net-zero by 2050.

Though, whether or not one agrees with these goals and how much prioritisation should be given to them, collectively having a more plant-based diet here won’t do anything to offset our emissions. If the Council does manage to convert a significant portion of Aucklanders to vegetarianism, which seems unlikely, they will hardly put a dent into NZ’s production of high carbon-emitting red meat. Being an export driven agricultural nation, NZ doesn’t rely on local consumption. 88% of beef and 95% of lamb is sold overseas, and this ratio will only increase if we reduce our meat consumption. When you take into account that demand for meat has generally risen worldwide, foreign consumers certainly won’t be hard to come by.

However, even if our diet did have a large effect on emissions, it’s hardly as if Kiwis' diets are in dire need of an intervention. In general, we have already started transitioning to a more plant-driven diet. We’re actually one of the only nations to have decreased our meat consumption since 2000. And with vegetarianism significantly on the rise, alongside a shift over to the consumption of leaner meats such as low-carbon emitting chicken and pork, it demonstrates that New Zealanders are already strongly line with this project’s intent.

Thus this might be one of the most unnecessary projects Auckland Council has managed in a long time. Not only will it explicitly discriminate against minorities (vegetarians), but the greater project of transforming our eating habits is needless intervention which won’t work to reduce New Zealand’s export-driven agricultural emissions. Overall, this vegetarian conversion project is undeniably the wrong approach to reaching our climate targets.

Agriculture makes up around 50% of our emissions, so it is crucial we look into how the industry can reduce its carbon footprint. Yet it is equally important to get everyone on the same page. Stunts like this will continue to divide people, and this will seriously affect the prosperity of New Zealand in future years. New Zealand farmers are already some of the most carbon-efficient in the world thanks to their ingenuity and adaptability. Their emissions per unit have decreased by around 1% for at least the last 20 years. They should be backed with a manageable framework where they can adapt and prosper, because the status-quo will only continue to push them out of the industry.

In closing, although this project doesn’t cost the Earth on its own, it does reveal Auckland Council’s persistent intent to waste taxpayers’ dollars on ideological projects that don’t achieve anything. Councils are in no position to lecture the public on their eating habits regardless of the cost, but spending tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on what is clearly an attempt to pressurize meat eaters to align with their agenda is completely unacceptable and should be called out.

You can find our OIA response here and a link to the survey format here

This story came as a tip from one of our supporters. If you think you have your own tip relating to government waste or extravagant spending, feel free to drop us a line here.

Recent media coverage in the UK, showing that people sticking things up their bums is costing the NHS approximately £350,000 a year led the Taxpayers’ Union to question how much these awkward antics are costing Kiwi taxpayers and ACC levy payers.

Usually we have our eyes on how the Government is wasting taxpayers' money, however in this case taxpayers are being rear-ended by their fellow countrymen and women. Kiwi taxpayers are paying more per annum and per capita for people putting objects up their bottoms than their equivalents in Great Britain.

The Union has uncovered through the OIA that in the past five years the cost for active ACC claims related to foreign objects being inserted into anuses is about $302,660.00 excluding GST. The 2018/19 financial year was the most expensive costing $110,505.00; this is more than 2020/21, 2021/22, and the 2022/23 year to date combined. Despite the costs being higher in 2018/19, the number of individual incidents of objects in anuses was highest in 2019/20 followed by 2020/21 and 2021/22.

Unsurprisingly, with so much of the population based in Auckland, the largest number of claims came from New Zealand's largest city – 67 in total. Although in 2018/19 Canterbury saw the most claims. Manawatū-Whanganui is punching above its weight as the region with the third most numerous claims across the board. Nelson can proudly boast zero claims from 2019/20 to the present day. Taranaki had fewer than 4 claims in 2020/21 and zero cases at any other time in the past few years.

It appears Kiwis are even more kinky than our British cousins – on a per capita basis, foreign objects in places they ought not be are costing Kiwis more. In Britain, the £350,000 figure is a per annum amount derived by averaging out the spend across the years 2010-19. On a per capita basis (British population = 67.33 million) that comes to £504.97 which is NZ$963.66. The average per annum cost in New Zealand between 2017 and the current financial year to date is $50,443.00 and on a per capita basis this comes to $984.64 - even more than the Brits!

Taxpayers might be curious to find out what was happening in 2018/19 when the cost of anal insertion ACC claims adds up to more than the next three years combined. The mind boggles at what was happening down in Canterbury that same year as the largest number of cases were from incidents in that region.

What people get up to in their own time is up to them, but when their hi-jinx are hitting taxpayers in the back pocket perhaps they should reconsider their activities lest they become the butt of the country's jokes.

The OIA response, including a regional breakdown, is available here.

Reference: https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/12/people-sticking-objects-up-their-bums-costs-the-nhs350000-a-year-15589353/

*Location is based on where an accident occurred and may differ to where a client was residing at the time.

Note ACC is funded by taxpayers though ACC levies.

Revealed: Taxpayers spending at least $75 million per year on additional days off for public servants

New research from the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union reveals that public servants are receiving additional days of paid leave, beyond their statutory entitlements, amounting to more than $75 million per year. This year, taxpayers paid public servants for over 167,000 days that they weren’t even at work, excluding the four weeks that they are legally entitled to and public holidays.

This equates to more than 457 years.

We struggle to believe that public servants are working so much harder than the non-government workers who pay their salaries that they need all this additional time off.

The money spent could have paid for 1,000 extra nurses*, but instead it was wasted paying bureaucrats to sit at home.

The data obtained account for only 36,400 members of the public service when we know there are more than 60,000 employees.

We fear how high this number might be. Almost all public servants receive an additional three ‘department days’, but some public servants are receiving up to 30 additional days annual leave, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The worst offenders are the Ministry of Social Development and MBIE who spend more than $14 million and $12 million, respectively. The Department of Corrections, Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry for Women have not yet provided a response while the GSCB, NZSIS and Serious Fraud Office refused to provide a monetary value. The cost of this doesn’t even include productivity losses from the days the public servants are not working such as delays in processing times for visa and passport applications.

The Government should remove all leave additional entitlements for bureaucrats. If four weeks annual leave and 11 public holidays is good enough for those in the private sector, it is good enough for backroom bureaucrats.

Tell Grant Robertson to Freeze Fuel Taxes ⛽💲

After a very successful Taxpayers' Union campaign earlier this year, the Government cut fuel taxes by 25c per litre (that's 29c once you include the GST). This policy victory saw a $1.39 billion ($715 per Kiwi household) saving at the pump.

But as an early Christmas present, Grant Robertson has announced that the Government will hike taxes in two stages in February and March next year. With inflation still at more than 7 percent, we say this tax hike will hit New Zealanders hard and simply push the cost of living up further.

Based on the current price of oil and processing, these tax hikes will see Kiwis return to paying more than half the cost at the pump in tax.

Grant Robertson and other opponents of the reduction make the claim that non-road users are 'subsidizing' the cost of petrol for car drivers, but this is nonsense on stilts. Actually, road users are subsiding the costs of rail travel, walking, and cycle ways, and ineffective campaigns like Road to Zero through the National Land Transport Fund (which fuel taxes are paid into).

Demand the Government to freeze fuel taxes until inflation is back under control and the tax is used for motorists

We've set up an online action form to make it easy for taxpayers to write to Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, and tell him how a fuel tax hike now will affect you and your family.

New Zealand used to pride itself in ring fencing money raised from fuel taxes to spending on roads. But as politicians have raided the National Land Transport Fund to fund their pet projects, you're now paying for everything from advertising campaigns Government 'Road to Zero' propaganda to expensive cycleways no one uses. We say that until motorists' money is spent entirely on roads, taxes should not be hiked.

>> Send the Government a message at www.fueltax.nz <<

Stop the Clock: Government debt continues to climb 💰⏰

Last week, the Treasury opened the books as part of the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update. The Update reports on progress against the fiscal and economic projections published in May's Budget.

We sent our economist down to Treasury to go through the fine detail in the media and analyst lock up. His analysis was damning: Despite tax revenue being at record-high levels, and above projections, Grant Robertson continues to spend even more money than budgeted, and far more than is being raised in taxes. That means the Debt Clock is running hotter than ever.

While it is easy to understand why government might have expanded during the pandemic, there is no justification for the current high spending. The public service has ballooned in the past five years but the growth in managers has far outpaced frontline workers and New Zealanders have seen no improvement in the delivery of public services.

With the Official New Zealand Government Debt Clock updated to reflect the latest figures, you can watch in real time how much the Government is adding to your household's mortgage.

It'll be our kids and grandkids who will be forced to pay for all this spending in the years to come – plus interest on top. We say the Government needs to tackle its addiction to spending – and quickly.

Ahead of next year’s election, we will be putting pressure on all parties to show how they will balance the books and set out exactly how they will pay for new spending pledges or tax cuts.

>> Click here to view the New Zealand Government Debt Clock <<

ACT and Indexation: An Apology 🥺🙏🙇

In our last newsletter, we shared an opinion piece by our one of our interns, Connor Molloy, which outlines why we think ACT has got it wrong with its opposition to tax bracket indexation. In that opinion piece, Connor mentioned David Seymour's support for Simon Bridges's indexation bill as an example of how ACT's policy on this issue has shifted.

David Seymour got in touch to point out that he made clear in his speech that his support for Bridges's bill at first reading was conditional on an amendment that would use the revenue earnt from fiscal drag to lower the top tax rate and flatten the tax system. He is quite correct and this particular criticism was unfair and we apologize for the oversight. 

No taxation without indexation 💸 ‼ 🪧

Looking into this issue a bit further, however, we did come across remarks made by one David Seymour in an earlier parliamentary debate back in 2016 when he posited the question 'since when did a centre-right government support fiscal creep as a means of raising revenue?' and stated that 'This Government should be indexing tax brackets to inflation'.

We also stumbled across a 2017 ACT press release where Seymour has another go at National for 'refus[ing] to permanently tie brackets to inflation'.

Now that ACT are resolutely opposed to tax bracket indexation, we will leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide whether or not its position has changed. Was our young researcher wrong to allege a U-Turn?

Either way, until ACT reverts back to its previous policy of a flat tax, bracket creep will continue under whatever reformed tax system it proposes. The principle therefore still stands and your humble Taxpayers' Union still believes ACT is mistaken to oppose indexation.

End of year Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Hon. Ruth Richardson and Jordan Williams 🎙️

In this year's final episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams hosts fellow Taxpayers' Union board members Hon. Ruth Richardson and Executive Director, Jordan Williams, to review the highs and lows of 2022.

As a former Minister of Finance, Ruth is well placed to provide analysis of the political year, the state of the economy and the Reserve Bank.

Jordan provides an insight of the year inside the Taxpayers' Union and gives his predictions on what the big issues will be in 2023. 

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

This is my last Taxpayer Update for the year so may I take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very merry Christmas. 

Thank you for your support throughout 2022 and best wishes for the new year. 

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Contractor Should the Government apologise for Dome Valley?

NZ Herald National and Act in government on latest poll

Stuff National and ACT remain in strong position to govern, poll suggests

RNZ New poll continues downward trend for Labour

Newstalk ZB Barry Soper: political editor on the Government making decisions on oil and gas exploration

In this year's final episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams hosts fellow Taxpayers' Union board members Hon Ruth Richardson and Executive Director, Jordan Williams, to review the highs and lows of 2022.

Peter sits down with Ruth and Jordan to discuss everything from the economy to education to Winston Peters.

As a former Minister of Finance, Ruth is well placed to provide analysis of the political year, the state of the economy and the Reserve Bank.

Jordan provides an insight of the year inside the Taxpayers' Union and gives his take on what the big issues will be in 2023.

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

We were right: Three Waters = Higher Water Costs 💦💰

The NZ Herald has confirmed what your humble Taxpayers' Union has been saying all along – Three Waters means higher water costs. Now that the first bill to implement the Three Waters reforms has passed Parliament, the Government is moving onto the next stages. The latest bill gives powers to the four new super entities to bill ratepayers directly for water usage. This is despite the fact that these entities are not accountable to the ratepayers who pay those bills. 

In documents published alongside the new draft legislation, officials have said that "some prices could increase significantly", which completely undermines the Government's repeated claims that Three Waters is essential to reduce water costs to ratepayers. With this confirmed, it is all the more important that the next government Scraps Three Waters.

Over the summer break keep an eye out for stage two of our campaign to keep this issue in the forefront of the public's mind. If you or someone your know has a good roadside sight, click here to order your own banner.

NEW POLL: Centre-Right reaches new high in seats forecast 📊

Available exclusively to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of our December Taxpayers' Union – Curia poll. 

Here is how these results would translate to seats in Parliament, assuming all electorate seats are held:

The Centre-Right reaches its highest combined level in our poll of 64 seats and could form government. The Centre-Left drops back four seats from 56 to 52.

More good news for Luxon 👍

There is also some good news for Christopher Luxon who has closed the gap in the favourability stakes.

Jacinda Ardern’s net favourability has dropped five points compared to last month from +8% to +3%. This is a new low for the Prime Minister in our poll. 

Christopher Luxon is now almost level with the prime minister with an increase in his net favourability of five points from -3% to +2%.

But "undecided" voters not keen on the National Party leader 👀

As a note of caution, however, when it comes to undecided voters, the Prime Minister maintains a strong lead on net favourability on +1% compared with Christopher Luxon on -29%. 

This month, we also asked how people viewed Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, and Finance Minister, Grant Robertson. It seems that voters blame them equally for the current economic situation. Both have very low net favourability ratings of -14% each.

Visit our website for more information and details of how to get access to the full polling report.

ACT is wrong on indexation 💸

The Taxpayers’ Union has long supported the indexation of tax brackets to inflation. This is to stop the Government from taking a higher share of your income each year by stealth without a single vote having been cast in Parliament.

Until recently, ACT supported this approach too. Last month ACT put out a newsletter to say it had changed its mind. One of the reasons ACT gives is that it would apparently lock in Labour’s current tax rates and would not bring about the more radical reform ACT wants to see.

Now ACT’s proposals are the most thorough of what parties are offering, and the closest to what we want to see long term. But ACT is proposing two tax brackets rather than a flat tax and therefore its own policy will still be subject to bracket creep.

One of our young researchers, Connor Molloy, has written a great op-ed that looks into the issue of fiscal drag in more detail and explains why ACT have got this one wrong. Read Connor's op-ed here.

POLL: Kiwis back lobbying cooling off period for former ministers 🥶

In the past few months, the revolving door from cabinet table to political lobbying has been in the spotlight thanks to the switch made by former Cabinet Minister Kris Faafoi. Such quick moves undermine trust in our democratic system.

Unlike in Australia and the United Kingdom, there is nothing to stop former ministers from jumping straight into the world of lobbying and monetising their recent intel and contacts. We have been calling for a cooling-off period to be introduced to prevent this.

Last week, we released polling showing that 62% of New Zealanders supported a two-year cooling-off period for former ministers. 14% of respondents were opposed while 24% were unsure.

It is a privilege to represent New Zealanders in Parliament: Former politicians should not be using their positions to make a personal profit.

We now need to see action—not just words. We have called on all parties to work together on a Parliamentary Bill to bring New Zealand into line with other Westminster-style parliaments and ban the revolving door of former ministers going straight into for-profit lobbying.

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Andrew Bayly + Dr James McDowall MP🎙️

     

There have been two editions of Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams since our last update. 

In the first episode, Peter speaks to National Party MP and Revenue Spokesperson, Andrew Bayly. They discuss the Inland Revenue Department's new powers to request information from individuals. 

In 2020, while all the attention was focused on the new 39% top tax rate, another clause was added into the Tax Administration Act 1994 that gives the IRD Commissioner the power to demand any information from individuals that they consider relevant for a purpose relating to the development of policy for the improvement or reform of the tax system.

Listen to the episode here.

In the second episode, Peter hosts ACT Party MP Dr James McDowall to discuss his candidacy for the Hamilton West by-election. 

The three highest polling candidates for Hamilton West were all invited to appear on this podcast but only Dr McDowall agreed to appear. Peter and James discuss the issues facing the electorate, his background before politics and why he wants to be Hamilton West's local MP.

Listen to the episode here.

Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Newshub Ratepayers unsure of mayor Wayne Brown's proposal to sell Auckland International Airport shares

Hawke's Bay Today Hawke's Bay councils plan to hike rates for years to come – but can we afford it?

Stuff Majority of people don't want RNZ and TVNZ to merge, survey says

Waikato Times National holds double-digit lead over Labour in Hamilton West poll

NZ Herald Poll: National's Tama Potato leads Hamilton West byelection race

Pacific Mornings Jordan Williams Interview 

The Working Group with Gerry Brownlee, Matt McCarten and Taxpayers' Union

Otago Daily Times Tear down this wall

RNZ Media Merger meets mounting resistance as clock ticks

CLARIFICATION: In this opinion piece, Connor mentions David Seymour's support for Simon Bridges's indexation bill as an example of how ACT's policy on this issue has shifted.

David Seymour got in touch to point out that he made clear in his speech that his support for Bridges's bill at first reading was conditional on an amendment that would use the revenue earnt from fiscal drag to lower the top tax rate and flatten the tax system. He is quite correct and this particular criticism was unfair and we apologise for the oversight. 

The following is an op-ed by Taxpayers' Union Researcher Connor Molloy

ACT claims to be the party of principle, but when it comes to indexing income tax brackets to inflation, it appears they have lost their way. After rightly criticising the National Party for their U-turn on abolishing Labour’s 39% top tax rate last month, ACT has now done a public U-turn of their own.

Last year, David Seymour supported Simon Bridges’s member’s bill to index tax brackets to inflation. Then, in August this year, Mr Seymour said that tax bracket indexation is “a good start” but that it didn’t go far enough. And now ACT has said they don’t support the policy at all. That’s quite a shift in the space of a year.

But Seymour and ACT have it wrong this time.

When inflation occurs, the prices of goods and services increase, which diminishes the purchasing power of each dollar we earn. This means that if you receive a pay rise in line with inflation, you are not actually earning more income in terms of what you can buy but you end up paying more tax.

Governments of all stripes have been happy to cash in on inflation when individuals’ tax bills increase as a result of being pushed into higher tax brackets or paying a higher proportion of their income at their top marginal rate. Without any consultation or justification, the government is able to receive automatic, unlegislated tax hikes by stealth. This is known as ‘tax bracket creep’ and it makes us all poorer.

ACT’s November newsletter argues against tax bracket indexation on the basis that focusing on taxes without reducing spending leads to more government debt, which is effectively just higher taxes in the future. We agree that tax relief should be funded by savings in government expenditure, but ACT misses the point.

Indexation is not a tax cut. Without indexation, governments get a free pass to increase spending because it is already paid for through bracket creep. Indexation does not reduce the total tax take, it simply doesn’t increase it.

ACT’s new found opposition to indexation stems from confusion because they wrongly conflate different policy issues that should be looked at separately – indexation, distribution of the tax burden, and government spending.

In a system that has indexation, there is nothing to prevent a party from implementing policies that shift the tax burden or cut spending.

ACT’s alternative budget addresses the latter two issues by proposing cuts to government spending, significant tax reductions and a simplification of income tax rates. We support the principle of their proposals but the problem of bracket creep will persist.

ACT argues that “[b]racket creep is not a problem in itself, it is a symptom of progressive taxation.” It’s true that if we all paid a single income tax rate, we would not need indexation. But ACT’s proposed tax system is not flat. Mr Seymour has abandoned his own  2019 tax policy of a single income tax rate. Mr Seymour’s 2022 policy is designed in a way that, over time, taxes would steadily increase year on year.

If ACT’s new tax proposal had been in place since 2017, someone earning $80,000 today would be paying $1050 more tax each year than someone on the same real income in 2017.

ACT could easily advocate for their newly proposed two-tier income tax regime to be implemented and then be indexed to inflation to ensure that the real tax rates remain constant unless changed by Parliament.

It is difficult to understand how ACT reached their current position on this policy when they accept that bracket creep is a tax increase by stealth. Each of their concerns arise from other factors that can be addressed through policies that are not incompatible with tax indexation.

If Seymour truly thought his proposed tax settings were the best for New Zealand, he would commit to indexing them. Otherwise he needs to show some courage and campaign for his 2019 flat tax proposal that would fix this issue completely.

Seymour is clearly positioning himself to play a major part in the next Government. But this U-turn is wrong both in terms of principle and in politics. He should rejoin the cause that even the Nats agree with us on: ‘No taxation without indexation!’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Live at the Hamilton West candidate debate we are cohosting with the Working Group (click here for live stream).

It's been another eventful week in Wellington with U-turns from National and constitutional game-playing from Labour and the Greens.

But before we get to that – the team are off to Hamilton on Monday for our Hamilton West by-election debate jointly hosted by the Taxpayers' Union and our friends at The Working Group podcast.

Also in this edition – we're hiring! If you, or someone you know, would be a good fit to join us at the Taxpayers' Union, keep reading.

Hamilton West By-Election Debate 🗳️

If you are in Hamilton, come along to SkyCity Hamilton (346 Victoria Street) and put your questions to the candidates this coming Monday, 5 December at 7pm. You can RSVP here.

Entrenchment a new low for Three Waters: Labour/Greens try to change the rules of the game 💦

Just when we thought things couldn’t get any worse with Three Waters, Green Party MP Eugenie Sage tabled a surprise Supplementary Order Paper. Her proposal would mean that the parts of the bill relating to the ownership and control of water services and significant assets could only be repealed by 60 percent of MPs or a referendum. 

The concept is known as entrenchment and such provisions are seldom used here in New Zealand. In fact, there are only six instances of its use and all relate to electoral matters, such as elections every three years, and the voting age for general elections. Essentially, entrenchment is reserved for laws on the democratic process where it would be unfair for one side to change the rules of the game with a simple majority. 

But the Greens – supported by the votes of Labour MPs – are trying to tie the hands of future governments. They argue this is necessary to stop the privatisation of water assets, but what this will actually do is make it more difficult for a future government to break up the four super water entities created under the reforms and pass water assets back to councils. 

Exposing the Government's nefarious tactics ☠️

It’s fair to say that the response to this move has been overwhelmingly negative and it has been condemned across the political spectrum.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree with Three Waters – or even privatisation of public assets for that matter – it’s about whether your vote in an election can actually change policy when you elect a new Government.

PM distances herself but hasn't fully backed down 🤫

Seeing the justified backlash, the Prime Minister and Labour are trying to distance themselves from the proposal. In a standard response to our supporters, Labour MPs stress that the ‘…suggested amendment to the main legislation [was] put forward by Green MP Eugenie Sage, not Labour’ and that they only voted for the amendment because they were ‘…concern[ed] to prevent privatisation’.

Rather than simply withdraw Labour’s support  – which would kill it stone dead – the Prime Minister has kicked the issue to Parliament's Business Committee to 'consider the principles of entrenchment more generally'. That's political speak for 'we're not sure yet whether we can get away with this'.

The Business Committee meets on Tuesday – so on the same day, we'll be publishing full page ads in major newspapers to ensure the Labour MPs (who hold the majority on the Committee) make the right decision...

U-turn if you want to: Where do National stand on tax? 💸

The National Party need to understand they won't win next year by trying to be Labour or by not putting up a better vision for New Zealand.

Take for example their stance on their tax policy. Over the past year they have flip-flopped time and again on whether to adopt or scrap indexation as their policy. Now they have dropped their policy of abolishing the 39 percent top rate of income tax. 

In an opinion piece for the NZ Herald, Jordan picks apart the opposition’s indecision.

On what should have been a day squarely focused on Grant Robertson’s fiscal mismanagement, the dramatic expansion of government spending, and resulting high inflation, there was instead an awful lot of talk about what seemed to be yet another U-turn by the Leader of the Opposition.

It’s becoming harder and harder to keep up with National’s tax policy.

[...] Where is the ambition for New Zealand? We already know that the doctors, engineers, IT professionals and others that New Zealand desperately needs to attract are picking Australia because of higher take-home pay. One of the few areas we can be competitive is in tax rates. This isn’t “trickle-down” – it is the harsh reality that New Zealand cannot compete for the world’s knowledge workers with beautiful landscapes alone. Continue reading on the NZ Herald (requires subscription).

Maybe the National Party don’t quite get it, but the Key family is staying on message!

 

Shock result in TVNZ/RNZ Logo Poll 🎨🤯

Following the news that the Government is spending $3 million to develop new branding for their proposed Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media super entity, we launched our competition to design a logo at a fraction of the cost.

And we can now reveal the results.

The top-placed design on first preferences was the (surely, tongue-in-cheek?) 'Ministry of Truth' logo featuring Broadcasting Minister, Willie Jackson.

But in a shock — under the Single Transferable Voting rules (details of the voting and preferences on our website here), which all local councils will be moving to if the Government's "Future of Local Government" proposals go through — the 'winner' is actually the logo that came second. After all the preferences were allocated, the Green Ferns design by supporter Andy Dunn takes home the $300 prize. Congratulations to Andy! Just goes to show what STV can do...

This was really a bit of fun, but it was to make a serious point. The TVNZ/RNZ merger will cost the taxpayer millions while undermining the range of different voices in New Zealand broadcasting. We need more diversity of opinion in our media—not less. 

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Author Alan Duff 🎙️

In this edition of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams’s guest is author Alan Duff, the creator of the hugely successful and influential book and movie Once Were Warriors and the founder of the Duffy Books in Homes programme. 

Duff's best known book and the movie came out around thirty years ago and shocked middle class New Zealand who hadn’t seen the less privileged represented in such a way. Yet three decades on has the situation around domestic violence, alcoholism and welfare dependency improved? Most statistics point to no, but why has the country not taken responsibility for fixing such social ills when the issue has been in front of us for so long? Duff is a passionate believer in education as a pathway from poverty but expresses his frustration that this pathway is just not travelled enough.

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

We're hiring: Come and work at the Taxpayers' Union 🧑‍💼

Have you ever fancied working in the thick of Wellington bureaucracy but on the side of virtue? Does fighting for lower taxes, less waste and more transparency sound like you? Or do you know someone who is politically minded and looking to take the first step in their career. We are currently looking to recruit as we build our team in Wellington for the forthcoming election year:

• Grassroots and Communications Co-ordinator (Full Time): This is a hands-on role liaising with our tens of thousands of volunteers, supporters, and financial supporters who make our work possible. You’ll respond to email queries, load and monitor social media posts, coordinate petitions and support our communications and campaigns team. You'll also be organizing and attending our public meetings, road shows, and A&P type-events to build our community engagement activities.

• Graduate Researcher (Full Time): You'll work with our Economist and researchers on research policy projects to support our work, including preparing briefing papers, parliamentary submissions, conducting literature reviews and drafting media release and blog posts. Your research will help to provide the substance to back our campaigns that drive improvements to public policy. 

• Admin Support (Part Time): This is a varied role supporting the team dealing with membership queries and correspondence, database management, and fulfilling merchandise sales. You should be communicative, organised and computer literate with a firm grasp of Word and Excel. You won’t mind doing whatever is needed; you’re just keen to get stuck in and support others to make a difference. 

You can find the full job adverts by clicking on the job titles above. Feel free to share this e-mail with anyone you think might be interested.

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

RNZ The Panel with Dr Ella Henry and Phil Taylor (Part 1)

Stuff Which parties would a voting age lowered to 16 likely favour in Parliament?

Stuff Wayne Brown could become Auckland's first $5 million mayor

SunLive Council to borrow $2M to replace water pipes

NZ Herald Jordan Williams: Christopher Luxon wrong to U-turn on tax policy

Democracy Project Josh Van Veen: Wayne Brown’s first month

Newstalk ZB The Huddle: Police pursuit policy reform and the state of the retirement age

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams hosts ACT Party MP Dr James McDowall. Peter sits down with James to discuss his candidacy for the Hamilton West by-election. 

The three highest polling candidates for Hamilton West were all invited to appear on this podcast but only Dr McDowall agreed to appear. Peter and James discuss the issues facing the electorate, his background before politics and why he wants to be Hamilton West's local MP.

Later in the podcast, Peter is joined by Taxpayers' Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, and Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, to discuss the by-election, Three Waters entrenchment and u-turns by National and ACT on their tax policies. 

The Taxpayers' Union is co-hosting an election debate with The Working Group at 7pm on Monday 5 December in Hamilton. The top five highest polling candidates will be present. You can RSVP by clicking here.

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

In this edition of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams’s guest is National Party MP and Revenue Spokesperson, Andrew Bayly. Peter and Andrew sit down to discuss the Inland Revenue Department's new powers to request information from individuals. 

In 2020, while all the attention was focused on the new 39% top tax rate, another clause was added into the Tax Administration Act 1994 that gives the IRD Commissioner the power to demand any information from individuals that they consider relevant for a purpose relating to the development of policy for the improvement or reform of the tax system. While this clause sounds well-intentioned, it was snuck through under urgency with no public consultation or expert evidence. We highlight some of these issues in our article about what these new powers mean for you.

Also discussed in this podcast is the National Party position on tax bracket indexation and the 39% top tax rate. 

To find out more information about our Nosey Parker campaign and to send Minister David Parker a letter, head to noseyparker.nz 

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

In this edition of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams’s guest is author Alan Duff, the creator of the hugely successful and influential book and movie Once Were Warriors and the founder of the Duffy Books in Homes programme. 

Duff's best known book and the movie came out around thirty years ago and shocked middle class New Zealand who hadn’t seen the less privileged represented in such a way. Yet three decades on has the situation around domestic violence, alcoholism and welfare dependency improved? Most statistics point to no, but why has the country not taken responsibility for fixing such social ills when the issue has been in front of us for so long? Duff is a passionate believer in education as a pathway from poverty but expresses his frustration that this pathway is just not travelled enough.

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

This week, Peter Williams hosts free speech campaigner Jacob Mchangama, a Danish lawyer who recently visited New Zealand. His visit was prescient as the Justice Minister Kiri Allan has recently promised that hate speech legislation will be in our Parliament by the end of the year.

Jacob is the founder and director of Justitia, a Copenhagen-based think tank focusing on human rights, freedom of speech, and the rule of law. Jacob's book 'Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media' was released earlier this year which provides and insightful overview of how free speech has been viewed in different societies across history. 

Peter also has a piece of correspondence regarding last week’s guest Dr Claire Charters and wonders if that letter would be able to see the light of day under Kiri Allan’s new laws.

This podcast is made possible by our generous supporters. To support this podcast click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected]

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

The Inland Revenue Department now has the power to force anyone to reveal personal information about themselves and their family. The Government says that this change is just to help inform tax policy, but as we have seen overseas, this could have more wide-reaching implications.

In 2020, under urgency, the Government passed an amendment to the Tax Administration Act (1994) sneaking in section (17GB) which allows IRD to force New Zealanders to provide personal information regarding their spending matters. At the time, Revenue Minister, David Parker, explained that the amendment was only to solidify the powers which the IRD already had. If that was the case, however, why did this need to be passed under urgency?

Quick use was made of the alteration. A compulsory survey was sent out to some of the wealthiest New Zealanders shortly after the bill was passed, asking probing questions to gain insight into the spending habits of both them and their families. You might wonder why you should be bothered about these changes—the project does after all only affect 400 individuals—but given the power that the IRD now holds, there is no reason why this won’t rapidly expand. We know what dangers can occur from politicizing the tax department just by looking overseas. 

Efforts to weaponize the USA’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were rife throughout the 60s and early 70s and the service has seen continued abuses even in recent history. John Andrew’s book ‘Power to Destroy’ outlines numerous breaches of the IRS across the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon years where he explains how the department evolved into a political vehicle used as a defense against any dissidents of the administration.

The abuse consisted mainly of auditing individuals and organizations who spoke out against the administration. This would usually be to reveal fraudulent activity, or to simply bombard opponents with lengthy processes and in-person investigations. Through the Kennedy administration, under what was known as the Ideological Organizations Project (IOP), right-wing groups were explicitly targeted, where audits were used to defund these organizations by revoking their tax exemptions.

“Despite the cover of tax audits, the IRS was certainly aware that ideology and political activities rather than tax liabilities had singled out these organizations as targets.” (Andrew, 27, on IRS abuses under Kennedy).

This IRS behaviour continued after Kennedy’s assassination and into Johnson’s term, but Richard Nixon took it to an extraordinary level, aiming for widespread ‘ideological conformity.’ His enemy lists go down as perhaps the most well-known abuses of the Internal Revenue Service in American history. Their inception and operation represented a large portion of continued IRS abuse throughout the late 60s to early 70s in which audits were used to harass any opponents of Nixon and his administration. This, in addition to the discouragement of tax audits on his close allies, revealed a process of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. In general, it was an attempt to demonize his critics, ‘turning differences of opinion into matters of state security’.

“Attempts to politicize the IRS began almost as soon as Nixon took the oath of office. His first objective was to find a compliant individual for the office of IRS commissioner. Politics and Ideology were his chief concerns…”  (Andrew, 180).

Andrew’s book also discusses the much lesser-known and even more shocking Secret Service Staff (SSS). The group managed a far more extensive exploitation of the department, where the service dug into the territory of mass information gathering, rather than enforcement of tax laws. It continued to target dissidents of the Nixon administration as well as critics of the IRS, though unlike the enemy lists, it was primarily an IRS-led exercise.

“More than any other IRS program, the SSS exemplified an abuse of the income tax system. It focused more on intelligence gathering than it did on enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.” (Andrew, 251).

How does this relate to the New Zealand context? Section 17GB doesn’t allow for subsequent prosecution from any findings under the law, but with such a broad scope for questioning, it opens the door for governments of any stripe plus the IRD to gather more and more personal data related to things further and further away from the purposes of the revenue service. While this may start off as a well-intentioned data-compiling effort to ‘inform future tax policy’, there is little in the way of protection to prevent the rule from turning the IRD into a partisan weapon.

As we see in America, political targeting and nontax-related investigations by the IRS were continuously used in one form or another, whether it was against the left or the right. There is no reason why the same won’t happen here. The importance of the IRD being apolitical is paramount and the relationship between Government and the department must be managed carefully.

Listen above to a recent episode of Taxpayer Talk discussing the issues with these new powers.

Regardless of any sinister intentions that may reveal themselves, the enactment of this law presents a clear attempt to gather information on an enormous scale. The extent of what data can be obtained is egregiously broad, and this means that extremely sensitive material could be vulnerable. However, while this may be through intentional Government prying, there is a far greater risk of breaches through IRD incompetency, negligence, or maleficence. In the US there were significant issues with unauthorized access by staff through the 90s in which service suffered serious security deficiencies and provided inadequate attempts to solve these problems according to a GAO report.

This Government has shown it will do anything to gain insight into people’s lives. Just a few years ago we saw IRD inquiring into where Kiwis sat on the political spectrum. Intelligence gathering is becoming a larger part of society more generally, with sensitive data less and less protected. We should be able to expect IRD to act independently from Government and other intelligence departments when so much power is at stake.

“The IRS often shared the results of its intelligence gathering with other intelligence agencies, congressional committees or the White House. Sometimes this was done at its own initiative; other times it stemmed from specific requests or political pressures.” (Andrew).

It is unclear exactly what Minister Parker and the Government’s intentions are more broadly with the enactment of this new power, but there is no reason to be certain that the IRD won’t be exploited in the future if this clause is not revoked.

In closing, let’s be clear: This change gives the IRD too much power. There is no viable cause for the taxman to be inquiring about your spending habits when you’ve done nothing to be suspected of being unlawful. And when family members including partners and children are also being probed, it becomes a completely inappropriate use of the powers of the department. It has started with those at the top, but there is no reason why this overreach won’t trickle its way down the pyramid.

It should not be underestimated what governments are capable of, especially when they have a powerful institution such as the IRD at their fingertips. That’s why we at the Taxpayers’ Union are opposing this change with our Nosey Parker campaign. You can help stop future violations of privacy by using our email tool to let David Parker know exactly what you think.

This week Peter Williams is back on Taxpayer Talk with a highly anticipated interview with Auckland University's Dr Claire Charters.  Claire's research has focused on indigenous peoples’ rights in international and constitutional law, including how the Treaty of Waitangi should interact with our legal system.

Claire was one of the authors of the Government's controversial He Puapua report that, among other things, recommends a separate  Māori court system, health system and parliament. Peter sits down with Claire to discuss what path New Zealand's constitution should be taking and whether co-governance has a place within New Zealand. 

Also this week, Peter discusses some of the correspondence sent through to him by the listeners.

This podcast is made possible by our generous supporters. To support this podcast click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected]

As Peter is away this week, the latest Taxpayer Talk podcast is hosted by Taxpayers' Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams (no relation), with something of a UK special.

Jordan sits down with the Taxpayers' Union's most recent hire, Callum Purves, who is our new Campaigns Manager. Callum has a background as a political advisor, party staffer and district councillor, and has recently moved from Scotland to fight for taxpayers in New Zealand.

Jordan also interviews John O'Connell, the Chief Executive of the UK TaxPayers' Alliance who chairs World Taxpayers Association while he was in New Zealand. 

This podcast is made possible by our generous supporters. To support this podcast click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and where all good podcasts are sold.

The latest Taxpayer Talk podcast, hosted by Peter Williams, features Wairarapa farmer and ram breeder Derek Daniell with his take on the proposed farming tax -  like most men and women of the land he is vehemently opposed. It’s not just the money that farmers will have to pay that bothers Derek, it’s the cost to local communities and the country’s economy too.

Also in this edition, the Taxpayer Talk panel of Taxpayers' Union chair Laurie Kubiak and board colleague Casey Costello talk about the big swing to the right in local body elections and also offer their take on the farmers' emissions tax.

This podcast is made possible by our generous supporters. To support this podcast click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected]

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps.

This week on Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams is joined by David Round, a former Canterbury University law lecturer, to discuss the Treaty of Waitangi and co-governance. As an expert in the fields of Legal History, Constitutional Law, Jurisprudence and Environmental Law, David is well equipped to comment on some of the most pressing debates of our time. 
 
Also this week, Peter discusses some of the correspondence sent through to him by the listeners.

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions feel free to email [email protected]

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps.

In the middle of a cost of living crisis, key economic indicators are more important to track than ever. This week on Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams sits down with Dr Christoph Schumacher, Professor of Innovation & Economics and Director of the Knowledge Exchange Hub at Massey University. Dr Schumacher and the Knowledge Exchange Hub have developed a tool that tracks Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in real time to monitor how the economy is performing and forecast future performance. This powerful tool can be used to gain a better understanding of our economy quickly, rather than waiting for Statistics New Zealand to publish the figures two and a half months out of date. Following the success of this tool, the next project to be released will be one that tracks inflation in real time potentially revolutionising the way we respond to inflationary pressures.

The Knowledge Exchange Hub’s GDP tool can be found at gdplive.net

Also this week, Peter gives his thoughts on the proposed RNZ-TVNZ mega-merger and asks "what problem are trying to fix?" As a veteran broadcaster, Peter knows a thing or two about media and fears this model may make our public broadcasting less independent and impose higher costs on hardworking taxpayers. 

To get in touch with Peter, email [email protected]

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union calls on Government to provide greater transparency over their crime prevention fund for local shop owners.

In May earlier this year, the Government announced their “Crime Prevention Package”, a $6 million programme aimed at preventing ram-raids and other forms of retail crime. Since then, however, there has been a complete lack of initiative in rolling out the fund.

The announcement of the package responded to a significant increase in ram-raid numbers through 2021 as well as further surges across early 2022. Its purpose was to ensure security upgrades such as the bollards, fog cannons and toughened glass were distributed to those most vulnerable to retail crime and who would otherwise lack the resources to upgrade security on their own. Around 500 stores across the country were identified as being likely eligible for the fund, with each store set to receive an assessment to determine what measures would suit them best.

The announcement at least revealed signs that the Government was taking the problem seriously. Although nearly 4 months on and retailers are still suffering from the same flurry of occurrences. Auckland had an incident a few days ago, the third time this year the shop had been hit, and just a few weeks back, Hamilton saw 4 ram-raids happen on the same night with another one just several days later. For owners, it’s no longer a matter of if but when they will next get hit.

Retailers were told that help was on the way, that the Government was going to provide some much-needed backing. Yet after sitting helpless for weeks on end, there are no signs that any relief is on the horizon. Astonishingly, it was revealed recently that just 5 stores had received any security upgrades since the announcement, and out of the $6 million fund designed for the package, not a cent of it had been spent.

Ram-raids have devastating effects on retailers. Many are left traumatized, terrified and in deep financial hardship. Those who fall victim to these attacks are often from small family businesses who work long hours just to stay afloat. They cannot afford to keep dealing from these setbacks, especially coming out of a worldwide pandemic. With many of them living in the same building as their stores, some are even being woken up in the middle of the night to the destruction of their shop before them. These people are living in absolute fear and the Government is barely trying to help.

Photo credit: supplied to Newstalk ZB

Countless efforts have been made by retailers to speak with the ministers, yet in most cases, their concerns are met with silence. There is now widespread confusion within the retail community on what to do about their situation. Some have taken it into their own hands, spending thousands just to ‘feel a little bit more secure’ and others have held off from upgrading their security altogether as they wait patiently for Government’s promised support.

David Lynch, acting assistant police commissioner, says police are working on a procurement plan and are training a dozen officers to carry out security assessments over the coming weeks. But why wasn’t this done sooner? With ram-raids being one of New Zealand’s most prominent forms of crime, this surely must have been prioritized more strongly than it has been.

Lynch also mentioned that the focus is on ‘past victimizations’, but this could exclude some of the shops that need help the most. These include the hundreds of retailers who might not have been targeted before, but nonetheless live in vulnerable areas known for ram-raids. The criteria for receiving support are clearly ambiguous, and it starts to seem like the only way to get help is to get hit. Furthermore, if only some retailers are upgraded, it leaves those who don’t receive upgrades even more vulnerable than before, considering they will now be the easier targets.

A lack of connection between Government and those affected doesn’t help the process either. Why hasn’t Chris Hipkins sat down with any of these retailers to truly understand the pain and fear they are experiencing? If National MP’s Shane Reti and Mark Mitchell can spend time to meet victims, ministers can and should too. These people are crying out for some transparency, and they are having the door slammed in their faces.

Ram-raids are a growing problem too, up 500% since 2018, and shockingly, the vast majority are being committed by kids, despite a stark decrease in youth crime over the last decade. There are certainly more appropriate long-term solutions than to simply barricade every shop. Government’s recent ‘Better Pathways’ package for instance, aimed at preventing youth crime, might provide some relief in the future. Still though, programmes like this will take time to implement, and retailers don’t have that kind of time.

Chris Hipkins and Government need to provide more transparency on which retailers are receiving the fund and when they should expect to have their new security installed. It is cruel enough that shop owners have had to wait this long for upgrades, at least provide them with the information that lays out the process.

This is an excerpt from our long-form podcast released weekly by host Peter Williams. You can listen to the full podcast here. 

In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams sits down with retiring Hutt City Councillor Chris Milne to discuss the state of local government in New Zealand. Chris reflects on how the role of a councillor has changed over his 18 years in office and the role the Local Government Act has had in these changes. 

To get in touch with Peter, email [email protected]

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps.

 

On this week's episode of Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams is joined by Eric Crampton, Chief Economist at the New Zealand Initiative, to discuss the Government's Three Waters reforms and his alternative proposal for how local councils can finance long-term infrastructure investment more effectively. Peter and Eric also discuss the Emissions Trading Scheme and outline why additional emissions reduction measures beyond the ETS are costly regulations that will not reduce emissions any faster.

Also this week, Peter sits down with fellow Taxpayers' Union board member and retiring Hutt City Councillor, Chris Milne, to discuss the state of local government in New Zealand.

To get in touch with Peter, email [email protected]

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps.

In the wake of the Queen’s passing, the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk focuses on the British Monarchy. Host Peter Williams is joined by Canadian-born, Australian domiciled law Professor James Allan who reflects on why the British Monarchy is the most successful anywhere and why having a queen or king on the other side of the world as our Head of State is still the best system for New Zealand - and other Commonwealth countries.

Also in this edition, Taxpayers' Union co-founders David Farrar and Jordan Williams reflect on the political week and discuss the results of the latest Taxpayers' Union Curia poll. Is luck finally running out for the government? Or will the poll prove disheartening for the opposition? 

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps.

To view this newsletter online, click here. To share it on Facebook, click here.

Dear Supporter,

Elizabeth the Great

This week's newsletter is a bit longer than usual. We were set to release the September Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll (see below) on Friday, but hit pause when we woke up to the news that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of New Zealand, had passed away. 

Queen Elizabeth personified leadership through action and demonstrated remarkable grace and dignity in her service to the Commonwealth. The outpouring of grief from all over the globe is testimony to the high esteem in which she was held. We join the whole nation in thanking her for a life of exemplary service.

As with other taxpayer groups around the Commonwealth, the Taxpayers’ Union suspended its campaign activities during a period of mourning (you can read our public comments here: Taxpayers’ Union Pays Tribute To Her Majesty The Queen Of New Zealand, Suspends Campaign)

Public holiday yes, but who should pay?

Here at the Taxpayers' Union, sometimes our role is to be "Scrooge McDuck" – after all, who else will push back against politicians giving away other people's money?

I'm a stanch royalist (my co-founder David Farrar is a republican) but was pleased to support Chris Milne's take that no public holiday is "free":

The Taxpayers’ Union supports the principle of a day where New Zealanders can come together to pay their respects. However, taxpayers are being told by the Government to foot the huge bill for another day of leave in the public sector.

For small businesses—who are still trying to recover after the pandemic—this is yet another cost loaded on. The owners of these businesses, many small family enterprises, are being told to pay not only for their own respect for the Queen, but also for all the respect shown by their staff. This is inequitable. The Queen was the queen of us all and the cost should fall on all of us.

Rather than rejecting the idea of an observance to recognise the Queen, the Taxpayers’ Union believes that New Zealanders should, if they wish to do so, take a day of annual leave to mark this historic occasion and an extraordinary life.

ACT follows our lead

Less than 24 hours later, ACT was on board with the idea with David Seymour saying that workers should have a right to take a day of either annual or unpaid leave on the public holiday, but without costing our businesses another day of wages. See Day of recognition without the costs is the answer – David Seymour 

NEW POLL: Centre-Right would govern alone 📊

National has leapt forward from 34% last month to 37% in September while Labour has dropped 2 points to 33%. ACT is up 1 point to 12% and the Greens are static on 10%.

The poll was taken in the nine days up to last Thursday evening (thus the Queen's death delayed the publishing of the results).

The smaller parties are the Maori Party at 1.5%, NZ First at 1.6%, New Conservatives 1.5%, and TOP 0.7%.

Unlike last month, the centre-right could govern alone with these numbers (and not need the Maori Party). The centre-right crosses the 61 seat victory threshold going from 58 seats to 63 and the centre-left drops from 57 seats to 55.

On preferred Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern drops 3 points to 37% while Luxon bounces up from 20% to 26%. David Seymour is on 6.6%

Chloe Swarbrick is in fourth place as Preferred PM on a respectable 3.2%. Notably, that is higher than both Green co-leaders combined with Marama Davidson on 1.4% and James Shaw on 1.0%.

Head over to our website for more.

$95,450 up in smoke for brand tweak 😮‍💨 

If ever you needed an example of the good life contracting for the Government, our research team have uncovered a doozy. Tatou NZ - a well-connected marketing agency - was paid $95,450 to “rebrand” the Government's "2025 Smokefree Action Plan".

We asked what the Government received for nearly nine years of income tax for the average worker. All officials could point to was a few pages of logos and instructions on how to use it. This isn't a new government agency: it's for what officials call a 'plan'. And taxpayers have paid for branding already! 🤦

An invoice dated 21 February 2022 from Tatou NZ Ltd breaks down the costs as:

• Discovery: Te Wāhanga Whakapapa – we learn everything we can about you – how you work, who you work with, your goals; (You have done a lot of the work here already – work that we will build upon) and your audience – who they are, what they need. - $13,750

• Define: Te Wāhanga Tautuhi – We distill what we learned and articulate succinctly the brand fundamentals – which will build on the work you have already done. Objectives, vision, mission, and how you will achieve them. This will include your brand values and personality. Then, we look at what that means for your audience. We will share, and work with you to achieve the final expression. - $20,000

• Develop: Te Wāhanga Whakarite – We write a creative / design brief. Once approved our team will conceptualise what your brand might look like, and how it might sound. We’ll share concepts, listen to your feedback and refine. Co-design. Test. Includes feedback process and making changes. - $30,000

• Deliver: Te Wāhanga Mahi – The creation of the brand assets, and implementation. Includes feedback process and making changes. - $19,250

Nice work if you can get it!

Breakfast room service for one? 😉

Your humble Taxpayers’ Union continues to do what the media are not and regularly audits what Minsters and Beehive officials are spending your money on.

One of our student interns has dug out a mysterious "breakfast" at Boston Harbor Hotel belonging to someone who works for Minister of Trade, Damien O’Connor. While on a recent trip with the Minister, the staffer spent $100 (60USD) on a hotel breakfast.

But here's the thing – based on the menu (available online) – it appears the staffer was either one very hungry official, or our generous mandarin was ordering for two.

We asked the Minister's office who the other breakfast was for – but the Office refused to provide the information to protect the an official "from improper pressure or harassment" (section 9(g)(ii) of the Official Information Act allows for this as a reason for refusal to release official information). I've only seen this section used one other time since 2013.

We hear around the traps (but are unable to confirm) that our mysterious official was entertaining a new found friend on tour. Of course, no one objects to an overseas romance, but putting a Tinder date's breakfast on the taxpayer is rather raunchy.

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Professor James Allan + analysis of latest poll 🎙️🎧

In the wake of the Queen’s passing, the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk focuses on the Monarchy and our constitution. Peter Williams interviews Canadian-born, Australian-domiciled law Professor James Allan who reflects on why the Commonwealth Monarchy is the most successful anywhere and why having a queen or king on the other side of the world as our Head of State is still the best system for New Zealand, and other Commonwealth realms.

David and I join Peter too to reflect on the political week and discuss the results of the Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll. Is luck finally running out for the government? 

You can listen to the episode online here, or via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and where all good podcast are sold.

Thank you for your support.

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Stuff Should NZ follow the US example of forgiving student loan debt?

Newstalk ZB The Huddle: Health NZ, Jan Tinetti, Cost of Living Payments

Newstalk ZB Barry Soper on OCR, latest poll and Gaurav Sharma

NZ Herald Kate MacNamara: Three Waters and Jacinda Ardern's contention that ownership matters, not control

NZ Herald Bruce Cotterill: Three Waters doesn't pass the sniff test

Exclusive to members and supporters, we can reveal the results of the eleventh Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll.

The polling period was Thursday 1 - Friday 9 September 2022. 

Here are the headline results:

Party	Support	Change from last month
National	37.0%	↑3.0
Labour	33.4%	↓1.8
Greens	9.9%	↑0.4
ACT	12.4%	↑1.9
Māori	1.5%	↓2.0
NZ First	1.6%	↓1.0
Other	4.2%	↓0.5

National bounces back from 34% in August to 37% in September and Labour drop 2 points to 33%. ACT up 1 point to 12% and Greens static on 10%.

The smaller parties are Māori Party at 1.5%, NZ First at 1.6%, New Conservatives 1.5%, and TOP 0.7%.

Here is how these results would translate to seats in Parliament, assuming all electorate seats are held:

The projected seats for the centre-right crosses the 61 seat majoirty threshold going from 58 seats to 63. The centre-left drops from 57 seats to 55. This means National and Act would be able to form a Government.

Ardern drops 3 points to 37% while Luxon bounces up from 20% to 26%. David Seymour has 6.6%

In fourth place as Preferred PM is Chloe Swarbrick on a respectable 3.2%. That is higher than both Green co-leaders combined with Marama Davidson on 1.4% and James Shaw 1.0%.

Preferred Prime Minister	This month	Change from last month
Jacinda Ardern	36.5%	↓3.0
Christopher Luxon	25.9%	↑6.4
David Seymour	6.6%	↓1.1
Chloe Swarbrick	3.2%	-
Winston Peters	2.6%	↓1.6
Marama Davidson	1.4%	-
James Shaw	1.0%	-

The cost of living at 22% (-1%) remains the most important issue followed by the economy more generally at 15%. Health is in third place at 7% closely followed by Law & Order on 6%.

The net country direction drops to a record low of -23%. 32% of New Zealanders think the country is heading in the right direction and 54% say the wrong direction.

For the full polling report, covering the detailed insights the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are used to receiving, join our Taxpayer Caucus – our club of most generous financial supporters who make our work possible.

---

The scientific poll was conducted by Curia Market Research and commissioned by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. The full polling report is being released exclusively to members of our Taxpayer Caucus. As is well known, but for full disclosure, David Farrar is a member of the Board of the Taxpayers' Union and also a Director of Curia Market Research Ltd.

The Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll was conducted from Thursday 1 September to Friday 9 September 2022. The sample size was 1,000 eligible New Zealand voters 800 by phone and 200 by online panel. The sample selection for the phone panel is from those who are contactable on a landline or mobile phone selected at random from 20,000 nationwide phone numbers. The results are weighted to reflect the overall voting adult population in terms of gender, age, and area. Based on this sample of 1,000 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 3.1%, at the 95% confidence level. This poll should be formally referred to as the “Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll”.

This week’s Taxpayer Talk guest is former Attorney General Chris Finlayson. His latest book “Yes Minister” reflects on his time in Parliament and how the country was run during the John Key years. In a wide ranging discussion with host Peter Williams he expresses his frustration with the country’s civil justice system, explains why co-governance isn’t such a bad thing and why the National Party got it so wrong after Bill English stepped down as leader in 2018. Findlayson also pays tribute to an unsung hero of the National caucus whose foresight saved the country’s economy during the Covid era. Elsewhere on Taxpayer Talk the Panel discusses the week’s big political issues and Peter replies to some of your correspondence. 

You can listen to the episode online here, or via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and where all good podcast are sold.

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is disturbed to see the Human Rights Commission suggesting economic policies for which they clearly have no knowledge or understanding of. 

The Commission recently called for urgent action on rent control, an idea normally spouted by economically-illiterate far-left organisations such as the Green Party. 

There is strong consensus among economists, along with substantial real world evidence that shows rent controls reduce housing supply, cause deterioration in quality and harm those who are struggling to find accomodation. The government's own advisors warn against rent controls stating that "evidence from overseas shows that there are significant adverse consequences in the housing market, such as disincentivising supply, driving up prices in parts of the market where rents are not controlled, and reducing incentives for landlords to maintain their properties."

Economist Assar Lindbeck famously said, "in many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city - except for bombing" – we agree.

Economics 101 will tell you that when you reduce the price of something, the supply of that thing will reduce. In the case of rental properties this is clear and can be logically explained.

Firstly, rent controls reduce the potential return that landlords and developers can get on their investment. This disincentivises them from investing in building new properties or renting out those that are currently vacant. At a time where we need to be building more houses, discouraging people from doing just that only makes our housing crisis worse. 

When the price for a good is below the market price, there are more people wanting to rent and less people willing to supply rental properties to the market. This creates a shortage of rental properties making it difficult for those who are not currently locked in to rent-controlled accomodation. This results in reduced mobility in the rental market as people know they will be unable to find new accommodation.

Because people are unwilling to leave their current properties, we end up with a large number of people in living situations that are neither suitable or efficient. Families who have more kids or people getting into relationships stay in their small overcrowded houses, not willing to risk being thrown onto the street. Similarly, empty nesters are less likely to move out of their rent controlled properties and end up living in larger properties that would be better suited to more people. This has other wider societal effects such as people not moving to areas with more job opportunities or for education. 

Landlords are also more likely to sell their properties to owner-occupants in order to realise the full market value of their property. This results in the supply of housing moving away from those most in need of affordable housing towards young professionals who are fortunate enough to afford a deposit, perhaps with some help from the bank of mum and dad.

Some may argue that the impacts of this can be mitigated through exemptions for new builds or certain kinds of property. This is also a bad idea because, in a rent controlled market, any properties not subject to controls face high rental prices, pushed up by the spill-over of people unable to win the lottery of a rent controlled house. Furthermore, overseas analysis says that when these kinds of exemptions are in place, landlords convert properties to be compliant with exemptions or even demolish them completely to rebuild as uncontrolled new builds.  

The final point is that the conditions of homes will deteriorate. When landlords get less return on their properties, they invest less in them. When there is a shortage of housing it is easy to find new tenants so anyone complaining will be turfed out, tenants are unlikely to risk this. 

If the price of groceries is too high, we don't put a cap on the maximum price for a loaf of bread. Instead, we look for ways to increase competition in the market such as by reducing barriers to entry as recommended by the commerce commission. The same thinking should be applied to renting.

If you want cheaper rent and better conditions, the simple fact of the matter is that we need more houses. We want a renters market where landlords are competing for tenants, undercutting each other with lower prices and higher quality. In the mean time, we can create more competition in the market by significantly reducing the regulations on rental properties.

Allowing people to rent out properties that are not compliant with current standards provides lower cost alternatives to those who want it. These kinds arrangements won't be suitable for everyone but provide a low cost alternative to those who are willing to accept it while simultaneously reducing the demand (and cost) of all other available properties. Reducing red-tape on constructing and renting out 'tiny houses' on vacant land also provide quick, low-cost solutions in the short term.   

We invite anyone from the Human Rights Commission, the Green Party or any other organisation advocating for rent controls to join us for a debate on our podcast. In the mean time the Human Rights Commission should stick to their remit and take some time to listen to our podcast on this issue with Brad Olsen. 

 

 

Dear Supporter,

New Poll: Māori Party recapture balance of power

Exclusive to supporters like you, this month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll shows an overall gain for the Labour/Green centre-left parties at the expense of the National/ACT centre-right bloc. Applying the results to seats Parliament, neither has the 61 seats required to govern without the Māori Party.

With five seats, the Māori Party would determine who will form a Government next year on these numbers.

We've just released the key results on our website here.

Not good news for Luxon

Christopher Luxon's Preferred Prime Minister results continue their slide. Mr Luxon was on 28% in June is now on just 19.5% today. Jacinda Ardern is at 39.5%.

Cost of Living (22.7%) is by far the issue most Kiwis are thinking about when considering who to vote for, followed by the economy. Despite what the media would have you believe, just 4% of Kiwis rank the environment as their most important voting issue right now.

Most Kiwis want the Government to cut taxes...

As part of this month's poll, our polsters asked voters whether they support a temporary 10% reduction in overall income tax for all families to help with the increased cost of living. 59% said yes.

Something that the Beehive should take note of is that Labour voters are the most in favour of a temporary package for across-the-board tax relief!

...and cut spending!

Our pollsters asked 1,200 Kiwi voters if the Government should be increasing, decreasing, or maintaining spending levels in response to high inflation.

The most popular response – 45% – was that Government should decrease spending. Only 12% of respondents thought increasing spending was the right idea and 27% said spending should be kept the same.

The poll suggests that Kiwis know very well that the Government's record spending is driving up prices across the board. So next time Labour MPs try to troll National Party leader Chris Luxon with claims his Party will 'cut spending' Mr Luxon should say yes!

Information about access to the full report, and methodology, is on our website.

Taxpayer Talk's new host: Peter Williams

Former TVNZ broadcaster (now Taxpayers' Union Board Member) Peter Williams has taken over as host of our new weekly Taxpayer Talk podcast. In this week's episode, he speaks to author and social commentator Ewen McQueen on his book One Sun in the Sky: the untold story of sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi. He also hosts our first of what we plan to be a weekly political panel, this week covering the Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll and problems within National.

You can listen to the episode on our website here, or via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio or via any good podcast app.

Labour MP alleges misuse of taxpayers' funds

During our polling period, the National Party were dealing with allegations of historical bullying by new MP Sam Uffindel, but by the end it was Labour under the pump as they batted back accusations of bullying from one of their own, Hamilton West MP Dr Gaurav Sharma.

Buried in his lengthy allegations, was the assertion that a Labour MP and Parliamentary Service staff member were "misusing taxpayer's money". This could have been lost in the drama, but your humble Taxapeurs' Union is determined to get to the bottom of it.

We are calling on an independent enquiry into the claim by Dr Sharma. It isn't enough for Parliamentary Services (which reports to the Speaker) to conduct a secretive investigation. Remember that Parliamentary Services is one of the very few public agencies not covered by freedom of information laws.

And as we saw with Parliamentary Service's mishandling of Trevor Mallard's outrageous and false rape accusation against a Parliamentary staffer, that office can hardly be trusted with protecting taxpayer money... Luckily Parliament already has an officer tasked with protecting taxpayers, and we have called on the Auditor General to investigate.

If not the Auditor General, we know of a reputable independent organisation which has specialist expertise in throwing sunlight onto government waste. That's why we wrote to all MPs to remind them that (as the IRD used to say) "we're here to help". 

Leo Molloy calls it quits following Ratepayers' Alliance poll

Our sister group, the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance has also been keeping the posters busy. In a first for the Super City, they've been tracking support of the leading mayoral candidates, and their poll released on Friday saw the self styled shockjock-come-restaurateur, Leo Molloy pull out of the race.

Labour-endorsed and sitting councillor Efeso Collins is the front-runner to take the Mayoral Chains from Phil Goff. But with just 22.3% of the decided vote, Aucklands are clearly wanting a change of direction at Auckland Council.

Ex-Far North Mayor Wayne Brown was a close second on 18.6% and with Leo out, C&R's Viv Beck (12.5%) in third place. Head over to the Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance website to read the full poll report.

Council elections, can you volunteer?

In the coming weeks we will be preparing "ratepayer voting guides" to increase transparency on local council election canididates' positions on rates, Three Waters and issues such as transport.

If you are in a position to help our student interns collate contact information and contact local candidates in your region, good with a phone (and on email) please drop me a line by reply email.

With your support, we'll be able to publish New Zealand's first online ratepayer voting guide covering the whole country.

Interest deductibility U-turn - but only if you're a big corporate

Last year the Government changed interest deductibility rules so landlords cannot claim interest for tax purposes on existing rental properties. However, now Housing Minister Megan Woods has decided to do a U-turn, but not for mum-and-dad-investors, rather only for the big end of town!

The Housing Minister has announced blocks of at least 20 new and existing build-to-rent flats will be exempt from interest deductibility tax changes in perpetuity if they offer 10-year tenancies.

“We’re providing an exemption from the interest limitation rules to certain types of new and existing build-to-rent developments in perpetuity,” Housing Megan Woods said.

This makes little sense. The removal of interest deductibility breaches the fundamental principle that tax law should treat like for like. Giving tax favours to well connected big property developers while still hammering those less close to Megan Wood's officials is Muldoon-style tax policy. Yuck.

One more thing

We are 100% funded by our members and supporters like you, who make our work holding the Government (and councils) to account. To back the mission of Lower Taxes, Less Waste, and More Transparency, click here to donate via our secure website.

Thank you for your support.

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

PS. Is the first newsletter this year that doesn't mention Three Waters!? If you follow that campaign (i.e. signed our Stop 3 Waters petition, or used our select committee submission tool) we'll be in touch separately later this week on the next steps for that campaign...

Media coverage:

Newstalk ZB Taxpayers' Union crying foul on Kainga Ora's plans to hire more staff

Newstalk ZB Taxpayers' Union banned from Local Government NZ Conference

Newstalk ZB The Huddle: Taxpayers' Union vs LGNZ, overseas investors, mask use

Newstalk ZB Barry Soper on cost of living payment, unemployment and Three Waters

Newstalk ZB Heather du Plessis-Allan re Commerce Commission 

Today FM: Do you believe that Nanaia Mahuta lied to the NZ public about Three Waters?

Exclusive to members and supporters, we can reveal the results of the eleventh Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll.

The polling period was Sunday 03 - Thursday 11 August 2022.

Here are the headline results:

Party	Support	Change from last month
National	34.0%	↓3.0
Labour	35.2%	↑0.5
Greens	9.5%	↑1.0
ACT	11.0%	↑1.0
Māori	3.5%	↓0.2
NZ First	2.6%	↓0.7
Other	4.7%	↑1.4

Support for the governing Labour Party has risen 0.5 points to 35.2%, while the opposition National Party has dropped 3 points to 34.0%. ACT has risen 0.5 points to 10.5%. The Greens have risen 1 point to 9.5%. No other parties reach the 5% threshold. Te Pāti Māori has dropped 0.2 points to 3.5%.

Here is how these results would translate to seats in Parliament, assuming all electorate seats are held:

For the fourth consecutive month in the Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll, the Centre-Right bloc is ahead of the Centre-Left. However, the Centre-Right no longer has enough seats to govern without the support of Te Pāti Māori.

Centre-Left (Lab/Green) = 57 (+2) Centre-Right (Nat/ACT) = 58 (-2) Centre (NZF/Māori) = 5 (0).
This puts Te Pāti Māori in the position of King/ Queen maker with whichever coalition they choose becoming Government. This assumes all electorate seats are held.

Support for Jacinda Ardern as preferred Prime Minister has dropped by 0.7 points to 39.5%. Luxon’s slide continues from 28% in June 2022 to 22.4% last month and this month a drop of a further 2.9 points takes him to 19.5%. David Seymour has risen 1.8 points to 7.7% and Winston Peters has almost doubled his support going from 2.3% to 4.2% (+1.9).

Preferred Prime Minister	This month	Change from last month
Jacinda Ardern	39.5%	↓0.7
Christopher Luxon	19.5%	↓2.9
David Seymour	7.7%	↑1.8
John Key	1.9%	↓1.8
Winston Peters	4.2%	↑1.9

In terms of what issues respondents identify as their major voting issue, COVID-19 continues to fade in importance. Focus on the cost of living has also eased off.

For the full polling report, covering the detailed insights the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are used to receiving, join our Taxpayer Caucus – our club of most generous financial supporters who make our work possible.

---

The scientific poll was conducted by Curia Market Research and commissioned by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. The full polling report is being released exclusively to members of our Taxpayer Caucus. As is well known, but for full disclosure, David Farrar is a member of the Board of the Taxpayers' Union and also a Director of Curia Market Research Ltd.

The Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll was conducted from Wednesday 3 August to Thursday 11 August 2022. The median response was collected on Sunday 07 August 2022. The sample size was 1,200 eligible New Zealand voters 800 by phone and 400 by online panel. The sample selection for the phone panel is from those who are contactable on a landline or mobile phone selected at random from 20,000 nationwide phone numbers. The results are weighted to reflect the overall voting adult population in terms of gender, age, and area. Based on this sample of 1,200 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 2.8%, at the 95% confidence level. This poll should be formally referred to as the “Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll”.

Former TVNZ broadcaster (now Taxpayers' Union Board Member) Peter Williams has taken over as host of our new weekly Taxpayer Talk podcast. In this week's episode, he speaks to author and social commentator Ewen McQueen on his book One Sun in the Sky: the untold story of sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi. He also hosts our first of what we plan to be a weekly political panel, this week covering the Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll and problems within National.

You can listen to the episode online here, or via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and where all good podcast are sold.

Earlier this year, the Taxpayers’ Union financially supported a judicial review of Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta’s advice to Cabinet that her Three Waters proposals were required for the Crown to comply with its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.  On 4 August, the first ‘in chambers’ hearing was heard in Wellington. Jordan sat down for an update with one of the two Queens Counsels leading the matter, Gary Judd QC.

Subscribe to Taxpayer Talk podcast via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and wherever good podcasts are sold.

The following is our update to supporters who have lodged their objection to the Government's Three Waters - either through the official Stop Three Waters petition, or submission tool:

Subject: Tackling the culture of dishonesty in Wellington re three waters 

Dear Friend,

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

PS. For those of you who have marked the date - the Water Users Group is finally in Court tomorrow! They are there to argue that the official advice provided to and relied upon by Minister Mahuta (the advice that she claims says that Three Waters is necessary for the Crown to comply with the Treaty) should be made available for public security. To my immense frustration the High Court has prohibited those who are funding the cause from sitting in on or listening to the hearing. I am hoping to sit down with one of the two QCs who are arguing that case tomorrow or Friday, and will update all of those who have chipped into that cause just as soon as I have news to give you. You can read the memo from the Court on the reason we cannot watch here, and the latest update from the Water Users' Group here.

---

MEDIA RELEASE

Legal Opinion: Three Waters Bill “calculated to deceive” – Minister’s professional advisers possibly liable as party to the fraud

Like tens of thousands of New Zealanders, the Taxpayers’ Union submitted to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee on Three Waters (Water Services Entities Bill). With the Union’s submission was a bombshell legal opinion.

Ministers have repeated assurances that councils will continue to own water assets under the proposed ‘Three Waters’. But those claims are utterly false. Public law firm Franks Ogilvie, in an opinion reviewed by Gary Judd QC, lay out the extent to which these claims have been "calculated to deceive Parliamentarians, and when it becomes law, to deceive New Zealanders generally". The opinion is being released publicly today.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “It is clear the Government realised that they could not convince New Zealanders that handing over ownership of local assets was a good idea. So they’ve instead redefined 'ownership' to mean nothing, so they can promise continued community ‘ownership’ in an incredible display of contempt for the public, the truth and the law.”

The legal opinion is very detailed, but it is not hard to understand. It calls the claims of retention of local ownership “false, misleading and deceptive” as “councils are expressly denied the rights of possession, control, derivation of benefits, and disposition that are the defining attributes of ownership”. Gary Judd QC comments in his review of the legal opinion: “When all the lying statements are put together, as [the] opinion does, the government’s effrontery is breath-taking.”

The legal opinion concludes that despite the obvious dishonesties, ministers are immune to prosecution under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 as they are not ‘in trade’.

Mr Williams continues, “But that defence does not apply to people assisting the Ministers in a professional capacity. That would include, for example, members of the Working Group on Three Waters governance that could be held liable as they operated ‘in trade’ as professionals providing a service and could be deemed complicit in making the untrue claims.”

“Additionally, legal experts found that Local Government New Zealand ‘could be found to be acting in trade in its provision of representation and advisory services', so their public statements promoting the lie that councils will ‘own’ water assets under Three Waters, could make them also liable to prosecution.”

The authors of the legal opinion do not mince words in their assessment of the situation stating: “Ministers appear to have cold-bloodedly decided to confuse Councils and ratepayers with false statements.”

Mr Williams says, “Ministers might dodge prosecution because they’re in politics, not ‘trade’, but the lawyers note the expectations in the Cabinet Manual and Standing Orders. They must not mislead the House and they must act to ‘the highest ethical standards'. However, the consequences for our elected members will not come from the courts, but at the ballot box.”

“It is difficult to see how the Government can proceed with such a discredited abuse of legislative process. The huge public opposition to the Bill came without knowing of such damning conclusions from respected legal experts. This is not a careless, technical, or understandable mistake in legislation. It is intentionally deceptive. The lies have been actively promoted by ministers, Working Group members, LGNZ, and various elected and non-elected officials."

“We’ll be seeing if anything effective can be done to restore customary honesty among those drawn into this ministerial cheating. If officials were forced to be complicit, they may need better support against ministerial pressure. We’ll be considering carefully whether authorities who punish and deter calculated dishonesty by business people, can do their job when the cheating comes from the top."

Access legal opinion at www.taxpayers.org.nz/calculated_to_deceive 

ENDS

 

Dear Supporter,

Our lastest Taxpayers' Union Curia poll has just been released. We summarise the results at the end of this update – and what would happen if this poll was reflected in an election and we ended up with a hung Parliament.

More taxpayer funding for the media: Will this affect election coverage?

The Government has doled out another $4 million to media from the 'Public Interest' Journalism Fund this week.

The latest announcement includes $1.2 million for Allied Press, $374,245 for iwi news, $160,000 for The Spinoff to write about the 2022 local body elections and $39,380 to Metro Media Group to write a four-part series on how the arts get funded, and $800,000 for a programme introducing young people to journalism as a "viable career".

Check our website for the full list of funding recipients from the PIJF.

In his last blog post for the Taxpayers' Union, Louis explained how this funding damages media independence, no matter how much the journalists deny it:

Significant funds have been allocated for struggling outlets to train and employ new journalists. But with the $55 million soon set to run dry, the Government will face immense pressure from the media to top up the funding, lest they have to lay off their new young journos.

New Zealand media bosses and editors are protective of and loyal to their staff, and financially invested in keeping their outlets afloat. This presents an obvious conflict of interest in next year's general election campaign: media figures have a personal and financial interest in electing a Government that will protect their funding. New Zealanders will rightly view their election coverage with this in mind.

Click here to read the full piece.

Only a week left to have your say on Three Waters

Time flies: it's now just one week until Parliament stops accepting written submissions on the Water Services Entities Bill (a.k.a Three Waters).

If you haven't already made a submission, click here to use our tool.

Alternatively, you can spend a bit more time making a submission through Parliament's webpage.

Already, 16,000 New Zealanders have made submissions through our website. That's a stunning effort. And thousands of you have requested to have your submission heard orally – this is crucial to delaying the legislation, and we know that each day the Three Waters debate drags on, the more the Government suffers politically.

Waiting an Adernity: When will taxpayers see housing at Ihumātao?

Eighteen months after the Government forked out $30 million in housing funds to purchase the paddocks of Ihumātao, there is still no sign of progress towards construction.

In fact, the group of iwi and government representatives meant to make decisions about the land have only had one meeting with Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson, who has given them another three and a half years to just to stump up a plan for housing on the land.

The ACT Party has described the amount of time it's taking to get houses build at Ihumatao as an 'Ardernity' – a label that could just as easily be applied to the wait for 100,000 KiwiBuild homes, or progress on Auckland light rail...

New Taxpayers' Union Chair

We're delighted to have Laurence Kubiak appointed as the new Chair of the Taxpayers’ Union Board.

Laurence is a high tech entrepreneur, a recent Chair of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and former CEO of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Here's what he told media:

I’m delighted to have been asked to chair New Zealand’s leading voice for government transparency and fiscal prudence.

The Union stands for public spending that is efficient, transparent, and subject to appropriate accountability: values that are the heart of any robust system of governance. The Taxpayers’ Union gives a public voice to these values, a voice that will become stronger and even more important as we chart our course through these unsettled times.

I'd like to thank Casey Costello, our Acting Chair since the launch of our ‘Stop Three Waters’ campaign late last year. Anyone who saw her speech against co-governance at our town hall event in Auckland will know she's a star.

New poll: Labour/National-blocks neck and neck

Our latest Taxpayers' Union Curia Poll was released just a few moments ago. 

While there are no significant shifts in support for the major parties, a boost for the Māori Party means that this month's result would likely translate to a tie on election day.

National and ACT win 60 seats, Labour and the Greens win 55, and the Māori Party nets 5 seats.

You can read more on the poll's findings on our website. But we better answer the obvious question...

Hung Parliament – What happens in a tie?

It’s election night 2023. The centre-left bloc of Labour and the Greens, joined by the Māori Party, has won 60 seats. National and ACT have also won 60 seats. In a 120-seat Parliament, neither side has the majority required to form a government. What happens?

Josh Van Veen (a member of the Taxpayers' Union team and a part-time political historian) lays out potential scenarios:

Scenario 1: Labour and National could put aside their ideological differences to form a ‘grand coalition’. There is precedent. In Germany, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, the centre-right Christian Democrats governed with the centre-left Social Democrats on three separate occasions. Back home, we can see parallels with the United-Reform Coalition that governed New Zealand between 1931 and 1935. The Coalition eventually led to the formation of the modern National Party. What about a NatLab Government?

If this seems far-fetched, remember that Jacinda Ardern once personally picked Christopher Luxon to chair her business advisory council!

Scenario 2: Labour and National could agree that the party with the most seats should govern. This would mean that the ‘loser’ abstains on confidence and supply while otherwise fulfilling the duties of Opposition. But such an arrangement would leave a "lame duck" Government unable to pass any laws without consent from the Opposition. On the other hand, New Zealanders might welcome this kind of consensual politics as a positive and constructive innovation.

Scenario 3: To make Scenario 2 work for the full three-year term, Labour and National could agree to govern on a ‘rotational’ basis. Christopher Luxon would serve 18 months as prime minister before handing back power to Jacinda Ardern (or another Labour leader) to see out the Parliamentary term. The arrangement would require both parties make significant policy concessions and perhaps sign up to a joint legislation programme. Scenario 3 is a grand coalition in all but name.

Scenario 4: Of course, National could dispense with Labour and attempt to win over the Māori Party. This would likely see National abandon its stance on co-governance and might complicate relations with ACT. But if he pulled it off, Christopher Luxon could go down in history as our wokest prime minister – changing the country’s name and perhaps establishing a separate Māori parliament or upper house.

Scenario 5: If the first four options are ruled out that leaves only one alternative: a new election. This scenario regularly plays our in Israel, where four general elections were held between 2019 and 2021. With Jacinda Ardern cast in the role of Benjamin Netanyahu, she would remain Prime Minister through the new election. And so on. While it could be the tidiest option, it is the most expensive.  In 2020, it cost $160 million to run the election (though this included two referenda).

Re-doing an entire election might sound like banana republic stuff, but frankly it seems more realistic than the alternatives.

Thank you for your support,

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Timaru Herald  South Canterbury mayors urge people to have their say on Three Waters reforms

Waikato Herald  Three Waters Reform: Waipā mayor Jim Mylchreest says it's time to speak up and share your thoughts

Politik  Everybody is worried about Groundswell

Hawke's Bay Today  Hawke's Bay rates issues highlighted in annual increases

Homepaddock  7 questions on 3 waters

Stuff  Beware of fish-hooks in free trade deals

1 News  NZ Maori Council further distances itself from Matthew Tukaki

Southland Times  Three Waters advocacy group to front Invercargill City Council

Rotorua Daily Post  Three Waters Rotorua protest: 120 turn out to oppose ‘loss of local control’

SunLive  WATCH: Three Waters: NZ’s hot topic

SunLive  Three waters roadshow stopping in Tauranga 

Stuff  Polls diverge on voter direction as left and right blocs neck and neck

The Working Group  The Working Group Podcast with Jordan Williams, Maria Slade and Brooke van Velden 

The Daily Blog  Winners & Losers in latest Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll: NZ Political Spectrum is splintering

Stuff  The Ardern Government is in a death spiral with no hope … or is it? 

Marlborough Midweek  Stop Three Waters turnout ‘amazing’ 

Stuff  Turnout draws praise at Stop Three Waters roadshow in Blenheim 

RNZ  Auckland councillor appalled at national cycleway project blowouts

Dominion Post  Contract of NZSO board chairperson not renewed after Taxpayers’ Union appointment

Offsetting Behaviour  Thou shalt not suffer a conservative on your Board

Timaru Herald  Timaru stop for five-week nationwide roadshow rallying opposition to water reforms

Otago Daily Times  Strongest turnout yet at latest Three Waters roadshow meeting

Otago Daily Times  Three Waters plan ‘undemocratic’

Otago Daily Times  Hundreds at 3 Waters reforms protest meeting

SunLive  Three Waters protest to oppose “loss of control”

Oamaru Mail  Lower rates with Three Waters 

Otago Daily Times  Three Waters meeting packed

RNZ  Political commentators: Brigitte Morten and Lamia Imam 

The Platform NZ  Sean Plunket speaks with former New Zealand broadcaster Peter Williams 

Stuff  Fired up crowd heckle Gore’s mayor at Groundswell’s 3 Waters meeting 

RNZ  Groundswell, Taxpayers’ Union roadshow in Gore

The fourth round of 'Public Interest' journalism funding was announced by NZ on Air this week, costing taxpayers $4,144,909.

So far $43,968,004 of the $55 million fund has been paid out to media organisations to fund a variety of projects, journalism roles and industry development. 

The latest announcement includes $1.2 million for Allied Press, $374,245 for iwi news, $160,000 for The Spinoff to write about the 2022 local body elections and $39,380 to Metro Media Group to write a four-part series on how the arts get funded, and $800,000 for a programme introducing young people to journalism as a career. You can view the full list of Public Interest Journalism Funding (PIJF) to date here.

Results from a Taxpayers' Union commissioned Curia Market Research Poll

While media outlets recieving taxpayer funds deny that this biases their reporting, our scientific polling shows that Government funding undermines public trust and confidence in the media – something that is in itself harmful. Distrust in mainstream media pushes readers towards fringe information sources that may be perceived as more independent, but are less likely to provide accurate reporting. This risks a spiral effect: the more audiences turn away from mainstream media, the more politicians will be tempted to prop up the struggling outlets with more funding.

To be clear, New Zealanders are right to be concerned about the impact of Government funding on journalistic independence. One of the requirements of the PIJF is that recipients must "actively promote the principles of partnership, participation and active protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi".

Our board member and former broadcaster Peter Williams put it well in his speech on our Stop Three Waters roadshow when he said, "where I come from, journalism is not 'actively promoting' anything. Journalism is about offering all sides of the story, examining facts around the issues and leaving the reader, the viewer or the listener to make up her or his mind on an issue".

Despite the name, there doesn't seem to be much public interest in the a lot of the content being produced. Online magazine The Spinoff recently published an article begging for donations because "thousands of readers have stopped donating over the past year."

The Spinoff has so far recieved $1,686,122 from the PIJF and used it to write articles about furries and Efeso Collins' campaign song. Apparently, this has not inspired loyalty from readers.

A sample of Spinoff articles funded through the Public Interest Journalism Fund

One looming problem caused by the PIJF is that significant funds have been allocated for struggling outlets to train and employ new journalists. But with the $55 million soon set to run dry, the Government will face immense pressure from the media to top up the funding, lest they have to lay off their new young journalists.

New Zealand media bosses and editors are protective of and loyal to their staff, and financially invested in keeping their outlets afloat. This presents an obvious conflict of interest in next year's general election campaign: media figures have a personal and financial interest in electing a Government that will protect their funding. New Zealanders will rightly view their election coverage with this in mind.

We're calling on all parties to remove this dangerous conflict of interest and restore faith in the media by ruling out further funding for private media after the election.

We're also calling on those outlets who have recieved PIJF funding to commit to repaying it. Click here to sign the petition.

The New Zealand Transport Authority have targeted a Featherston family with threats of enforcement action over a "Stop Three Waters" banner erected on private property.

Here is a photo of the banner in question:

An email to the family from South Wairarapa District Council says NZTA have "raised concerns about the wording of the sign, specifically the large red STOP that could cause potentially safety issues along the State Highway":

The email finishes:

NZTA might be morons, but Kiwis are not.

The idea that motorists will slam on the brakes when they pass a 'stop three waters' banner is frankly laughable. NZTA need to pull their head in, and stop acting as lapdogs for their political masters trying to suppress New Zealanders' ability to express their views on a radical policy proposal that will result in high water costs and less democracy.

Any action that is taken against any one of our 180,000 subscribed supporters via NZTA relating to one of the Stop Three Waters signs purchased from our website will be defended, by judicial review if we must, by the Taxpayers' Union.

What makes this action particularly offensive is the fact that NZTA has not just a history of trying to suppress speech on the centre right, but actively promotes pro-government messages including on NZTA signage. Throughout 2020 NZTA allowed its digital signage networks to be misused with politically loaded “Be Kind” messages. That's to say nothing of the multi-million dollar ad campaigns they blast into Kiwis' living rooms promoting the Government's 'Road to Zero' policy.

Hundreds of fantastic New Zealanders have erected Stop Three Waters banners in every corner of the country. Is NZTA going to threaten every one of them?

The courts have been very clear that political speech is that which ought to be the most precious from a human rights perspective. If NZTA really wants to have this fight, we say bring it on.

New Zealanders with great roadside locations can purchase a Stop Three Waters banner of their own at www.taxpayers.org.nz/shop.

Laurence Kubiak has been appointed to Chair the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Mr Kubiak is a high tech entrepreneur (CEO and shareholder at Nautech Electronics), Chair of Trustees Executors Ltd, a Director of Northpower, and recent Chair of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.

Last year Mr Kubiak stepped down as CEO of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, and prior to returning to New Zealand served in executive roles at Shell, BP, and British Telecom.

Mr Kubiak said “I’m delighted to have been asked to chair New Zealand’s leading voice for government transparency and fiscal prudence.”

“The Union stands for public spending that is efficient, transparent, and subject to appropriate accountability: values that are the heart of any robust system of governance. The Taxpayers’ Union gives a public voice to these values, a voice that will become stronger and even more important as we chart our course through these unsettled times.”

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, "Laurie’s deep experience and connections within both the private and Government sectors are enormously valuable as we scale up our campaigns for lower taxes, less waste, and more transparency. His previous role with NZIER, regarded as one of New Zealand’s best economic consultancies, demonstrates his commitment to sensible public policy – a commitment we share at the Taxpayers’ Union."

“Casey Costello has been our Acting Chair since the launch of our ‘Stop Three Waters’ campaign late last year. In that period the Union has continued to grow and mature as a force for better public policy.  On behalf of all of our supporters, I want to thank Casey for her leadership and wisdom, and I am delighted that she is staying on the board to continue to guide the organisation.” 

The Taxpayers’ Union board is made up of the two founders, David Farrar and Jordan Williams, with former National Party Minister of Finance Hon Ruth Richardson, former ACT Chief of Staff Cr Chris Milne, broadcaster Peter Williams, businesswoman Casey Costello, and Laurence Kubiak. All non-executive board members are volunteers.

Former chairs of the organisation include former TVNZ political reporter John Bishop (2013-17), and government affairs expert Barrie Saunders (2017-21).

Launched in 2013, the Taxpayers’ Union has grown to become the largest taxpayer pressure group in the world on a per-capita basis with some 180,000 New Zealanders subscribed and active supporters. The Union is funded by more than 19,000 individual members and donors. The Union is a member of the World Taxpayer Associations with Jordan Williams serving on the WTA’s board.

Five weeks, 43 stops: Stop Three Waters roadshow wraps up

Josh, Annabel and I have now returned the campervan to Auckland after the final leg of the Stop Three Waters roadshow in Northland. After five weeks and more than 5,000km on the road, the team is knackered but hugely encouraged by the support New Zealanders have shown. We did what the Government has not: listened to the communities concerned about the centralisation of community water assets, loss of control, and affordability.

Below is a small sample of pictures from the road. You can find many, many more on our Facebook page.

(Bottom left: New Zealand's newest member of Parliament Sam Uffindell modelled our Stop Three Waters t-shirt, coreflute sign, and drink bottle. You can pick up any of these from our shop!)

More than 10,000 New Zealanders turned out at our events at roadsides, town squares, and town halls from Invercargill to Kerikeri. We were joined by dozens of councillors, mayors, and MPs who spoke up for local democracy and signed our Community Leaders' Appeal calling on Jacinda Ardern to protect local democracy and stop Three Waters.

While the newsrooms in Auckland and Wellington might not reflect the concerns of New Zealanders about Three Waters, provincial media are far more connected to their audiences – the image below speaks for itself.

At our Tauranga event, we secured a major win: National's Local Government spokesman Simon Watts made a new commitment that National won't just repeal and replace Three Waters, but that their replacement will not include undemocratic co-governance.

And if you thought we'd already plastered the country with 'Stop Three Waters' billboards, look again – supporters at our events picked up hundreds more to erect at prime roadside locations. Not to mention the thousands of stickers and coreflute signs now on car bumpers and fences in every corner of New Zealand. Again, you can pick up a banner for outside your place from our shop.

Click here to watch Jordan and I reflect on an incredible five weeks.

For all the team, one of the highlights of the Roadshow was the chance to meet Taxpayers' Union supporters up and down the country, put faces to names, and thank the people who make our work possible.

We want to thank the thousands of people – good and decent New Zealanders who believe in localism, democracy, and accountable, affordable water services – who have chipped in financially and made this effort possible. Our polling shows clearly that we are shifting the dial, with more and more New Zealanders now opposing Nanaia Mahuta's Three Waters.

We've succeeded in keeping local councils laser-focused on the Three Waters threat, and local representatives are now repeating our message to Parliament's Select Committee running public consultation: the MPs need to hit the road like we did, and hear submissions face-to-face in the communities affected.

How we Stop Three Waters: next phase of the campaign

It's now crunch time. Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee is now taking submissions from the public on the key enabling legislation for the Three Waters regime.

We've made it easy to submit on the Three Waters Bill:

👉 Click here to make your voice heard 👈

Submissions close on 22 July, and we're asking everyone who has signed the official Stop Three Waters petition to make their voice heard.

Our Three Waters submission tool makes it easy for you to write a basic submission, with suggested points that will be sent straight to the Committee. It takes as little as two minutes and we're encouraging everyone to customise and add your own comments so the Government can't write it off as a 'form submission'.

Alternatively, you can prepare a submission from scratch using Parliament's submission page.

It is crucial that we dominate this submission process so Nanaia Mahuta cannot claim to have popular support for her legislation.

Click here to make a submission to Stop the Three Waters legislation.

Once written submissions close, Parliamentary convention requires the Committee to hear oral submissions from those who've requested to speak. This is a major opportunity to slow down the legislation. In fact, we're calling on the Committee to travel the country and hear local concerns in the communities directly affected – just as we've done with our Stop Three Waters roadshow.

Even if Nanaia Mahuta is determined to push her legislation through Parliament, together we can maximise the political damage by ensuring that a newly-elected Government has a clear mandate to scrap Three Waters.

Thank you for your support,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

PS. We've been able to spearhead the campaign against Three Waters thanks to the thousands of New Zealanders who have chipped into the fighting fund so far. On behalf of all of us, thank you for making this work possible!

Roadshow media coverage:

Southland Times  Three Waters advocacy group to front Invercargill City Council

Rotorua Daily Post  Three Waters Rotorua protest: 120 turn out to oppose ‘loss of local control’

SunLive  WATCH: Three Waters: NZ’s hot topic

SunLive  Three waters roadshow stopping in Tauranga 

Stuff  The Ardern Government is in a death spiral with no hope … or is it? 

Marlborough Midweek  Stop Three Waters turnout ‘amazing’ 

Stuff  Turnout draws praise at Stop Three Waters roadshow in Blenheim 

Timaru Herald  Timaru stop for five-week nationwide roadshow rallying opposition to water reforms

Otago Daily Times  Strongest turnout yet at latest Three Waters roadshow meeting

Otago Daily Times  Three Waters plan ‘undemocratic’

Otago Daily Times  Hundreds at 3 Waters reforms protest meeting

SunLive  Three Waters protest to oppose “loss of control”

Oamaru Mail  Lower rates with Three Waters: mayor

Otago Daily Times  Three Waters meeting packed

The Platform NZ  Sean Plunket speaks with former New Zealand broadcaster Peter Williams 

Stuff  Fired up crowd heckle Gore’s mayor at Groundswell’s 3 Waters meeting 

RNZ  Groundswell, Taxpayers’ Union roadshow in Gore

You might have seen this full page ad from Mind the Gap in the Herald on Monday.

Mind the Gap is a left-wing lobby group that argues pay gaps are caused by discrimination, and that the Government should intervene by requiring employers to publicly disclose differences in salaries they pay to different ethnic and gender groups.

Mind the Gap's expensive ad-buy is clearly an example of political campaigning. And that is fine – so long as taxpayers aren't forking out for it.

However, Mind the Gap lists its "supporting partners" on the ad, and some quick research reveals that at least 13 of these organisations are funded by taxes, rates, or other sources of public money.

In a statement to the Union on Twitter, Mind the Gap says the support of these organisations is merely a case of "solidarity", without financial contributions. But of course, even without direct financial contributions, participating in a political campaign absorbs taxpayer-funded labour and resources.

We say that non-government organisations should choose between accepting public funding and undertaking political lobbying.

Here is the (likely incomplete) list of publicly-funded organisations backing Mind the Gap's campaign:

Organisation	Funded by
Socialink	Tauranga City Council, NZ Lottery
Good Shepherd NZ	Ministry of Social Development, AUT
Global Women NZ	ACC, Auckland Council, AUT, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Ministry for Women, NZ Police, NZ Trade and Enterprise, The Treasury
GenderTick	The Trusts
Diversity Works	Internal Affairs, Public Service Commission, Te Puni Kokiri
Pasefika Proud	Ministry of Social Development
The Period Place	Auckland Council + Local Boards, Dunedin City Council, NZ Lottery
Pride Pledge	Kainga Ora, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Open Polytechnic
Monte Cecilia	Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Oranga Tamariki
Rural Women NZ	Ministry for Primary Industries, Massey University
Women in Sport	Sport NZ, Auckland Unlimited, New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade
YWCA	AUT
E Tipu E Rea	Oranga Tamariki, Ministry for Women, Ministry of Health

Perhaps the government and council entities backing these groups were unaware of their participation in Mind the Gap's campaign. Now that we've raised the red flag, the agencies ought to be seriously reconsidering their support of these groups, lest they find themselves falling afoul of the Public Service Standards of Integrity and Conduct which require political neutrality.

At the very least, government and council entities need to implement a "no-surprises" clause in their support for external groups: if a publicly-supported entity wants to add its financial support or branding to a political campaign, it should have to flag this with its funders first.

The Government appointed a seven-member Matariki Advisory Group to provide advice on the ideal dates to mark Matariki and appropriate ways of celebrating the holiday.

Members were paid $780-$1035 per day for advisory services.

All up, $220,000 was paid to members in fees and reimbursements for travel expenses. Of that, $131,305 went to the Chair, Dr Rangi Mātāmua, for 123 days of advisory services.

An Excel breakdown of expenses is available here.

Below is the response to the Taxpayers' Union's Official Information Act request.

Dear Supporter,

We've just released the latest Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll.  In short, it continues to show a trend against the Ardern Government towards National/ACT. Headline results are at the bottom of this newsletter and over on our website.

Stop Three Waters roadshow draws big crowds in the South, now hits the North Island

We've been doing what Nanaia Mahuta wouldn’t: listening to the local communities who have actually paid for the local water assets Ms Mahuta wants to put under the control of unaccountable, co-governed, bureaucratic monster water entities.

After 19 events around the South Island, including sell-out events in Gore, Alexandra, Invercargill, and Wanaka, the Stop Three Waters Roadshow now hits the North!

The team have been humbled by the hundreds of people who are turning out – in particular those who have chipped in to cover the diesel costs and make this effort possible. It’s always great to put a face to the names.

While we were in Fairlie (a town of just 800 people – but with plenty of Taxpayers’ Union supporters!), we hit a real milestone – 100,000 New Zealanders have now signed the official Stop Three Waters petition. 

Along the way we’ve been documenting our trip:

> Christchurch here and here
> Rolleston here and with local MP for Selwyn Nicola Grigg here
> Ashburton here and here
> Fairlie here and with local Mayor Graham Smith
> Lake Tekapo toilet facilities review 👀
> Tekapo
> Queenstown here with Southland's MP Joseph Mooney and Marlborough MP Stuart Smith
> Alexandra event
> Wanaka event
> Gore event
> Balclutha event
> Invercargill event
> Dunedin
> Moeraki
> Oamaru
> Timaru
> Amberley
> Lewis Pass
> Nelson
> Blenheim
and our trip across the Cook Stright.

A huge thanks to those who brought the team home baking, coffees, (and even the odd beer!) for the interns. We gave them a day off in Queenstown, but even then they claimed they were hard at work! 

If there is one thing the team and I have learned from the South Island over the last few weeks, it’s that the newsrooms in Auckland and Wellington don’t have their head around the anger in small communities about the proposals to take away local control. But that’s OK. We win this through people power, not big PR budgets.

A simple but highly effective thing you can do is spread the word with our bold Stop Three Waters banners. So, I'm delighted to tell you...

A generous supporter has agreed to fund 60% of the cost for these roadside Stop Three Waters banners 🚩🚩🚩

Thanks to a generous supporter – we are now able to sell the banners for just $50 – less than half what they've been costing wholesale.

If you (or someone you know) live on a busy thoroughfare anywhere in New Zealand, for just $50 we’ll courier you a beautiful “Stop Three Waters” 2.4m x 1.2m banner. 

If you don’t want Nanaia Mahuta or her Three Waters regime coming to your house, we highly recommend hanging one of these on your front gate 😉

>> Get your banner for $50 <<

Buried in Mahuta's Bill: The Government has added a second layer of co-governance to the Three Waters regime!

Last week’s newsletter was sent just after the formal introduction to Parliament of the core Three Waters legislation – the euphemistically-named "Water Services Entities Bill". Back in the office, the team have now had a chance to work through the detail. 

You couldn't make this up: instead of listening to local councillors’ and community concerns about the reduced democratic control, Nanaia Mahuta has inserted a second layer of co-governence at the last minute!

It’s a bit sneaky, but it works like this: Clause 73 of the Bill requires the Boards of the new water entities ensure that the entity acts in a manner consistent with its objectives, functions, operating principles, and current statement of intent. 

That sounds fair enough, but among the 'operating principles' (Clause 13(d)) is: 

partnering and engaging early and meaningfully with Māori, including to inform how the water services entity can—

(i) give effect to Te Mana o te Wai; and

The meaning of "Te Mana o te Wai" refers back to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (here's a good summary) but in short, it is incredibly broad and includes matters relating to the spiritual or metaphysical well-being of water and water bodies and tangata whenua's relationship with the same.

Mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā (district) includes a freshwater body in the service area of an entity get to define the relevance of Te Mana o te Wai by making what are termed "Te Mana o te Wai statements" (see Clause 140).

The water entity board must respond to the statement and the response must include a plan for how the entity intends to perform its duty to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai.

So who is really in charge?

We understand from our sources within the Government that the Minister justifies the change on the basis that it placates small hapu who were concerned that with the enormous entities, smaller iwi groups would be "locked out".  In short, the ability for any iwi or hapu to issue a "Te Mana o te Wai statement" is seen as a feature not a bug.

And there’s also a new layer of bureaucracy

The Bill also adds yet another layer of bureaucracy: "Regional Advisory Panels".

The role of Regional Advisory Panels is to provide advice to the Regional Representative Group about how to perform or exercise its duties, functions, and powers within a geographic area.  But unlike Te Mana o te Wai statements, the advice is not binding, and the Regional Advisory Panels are themselves co-governed, with 50/50 mana whenua and democratically accountable representation.

We need to Stop Three Waters: here's what you can do

If you haven't already, please add your name to the official petition.  Or if you have some time this weekend, make a submission on the Bill.

That's right: written submissions are now open until 22 July, and we're making sure everyone knows it. Next week we release a submission tool to make it easy for tens of thousands of New Zealanders to have their say.

That said, please don't wait if you'd like to write your own submission directly to the Select Committee via the Parliamentary website.

After written submissions close, the MPs will then hear oral submissions. We (along with Councillors and Mayors we've met on our roadshow) say these submissions should be heard in person, up and down the country. We encourage you to include that suggestion in your written submission.

New Zealand is now halfway to a recession and stagflation – the hangover from Robertson's spending?

This week's GDP figures make tax relief even more pressing as the economy shrinks and households do it tough.

Gross domestic product (GDP) fell a seasonally adjusted 0.2 percent in the three months ended March, compared with a 3.0 percent rise in the previous quarter, StatsNZ data showed.

Inflation is the highest it’s been in my lifetime, incomes aren’t keeping up, and the GDP news confirms that we are halfway toward a recession: defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

But while household budgets are squeezed, Wellington is booming – inflation means the Government’s tax take is at record highs.

Rather than pile on inflationary government spending, we say New Zealanders need tax relief now. More money in Kiwis' pockets means debt can be repaid, some saved, and households have some breathing room.

Compared to Grant Robertson spending your money, tax relief doesn’t stoke inflation and would serve to address the economic challenges exposed by this week’s negative growth figures.

New Zealand's COVID economic response was second only to the United States in terms of government spending as a proportion of the economy.  Is it any wonder which economies are now paying the price?

Taxpayer victory: Government backtracks on costly tax changes

We’ve had a significant tax victory related to very concerning proposals by IRD to take company retained earnings for all non-listed companies at the time of shareholding changes.

The proposals included:

1. shareholders being taxed on the sale of shares in a company to the extent that the company (and its subsidiaries) has retained earnings; and
2. changes to the personal services company rules that effectively remove when small business can use the lower corporate tax rate.

See: NZ Herald, Government quietly backtracks on tax changes after outcry

Inflation bites: the cost of an Ardern ribbon cutting soars to $337,000 for Transmission Gully opening ceremony

When it comes to NZTA/Waka Kotahi's responsibility with public money, your humble Taxpayers’ Union has pretty low expectations. But even we were shocked to learn that opening a new motorway now costs as much as a cycleway! 

The March 30 opening ceremony for the 27km Transmission Gully came with a price of $336,712. According to officials the costs included planning, iwi blessing of the road, venue and equipment hire, traffic management, marquees, chairs and tables, temporary fencing, catering, photography and video, audiovisual equipment, lighting, stages, provision of electricity and buses for the 300 “special” guests.

As ACT’s Simon Court pointed out, $337,000 is enough to fund five nurses or 3 kilometres of asphalt. We know what taxpayers would prefer.

Regular readers will recall that only last month we had Waka Kotahi on the ropes for spending $30,000 on five of these illuminated zeros – justified as promoting to “Road to Zero”.

National/ACT gain a greater lead in our latest scientific poll

Finally this week, our latest poll was released just a few moments ago. 

The lead for the centre-right (National/ACT) has grown by one to 62 seats, vs the centre-left (Labour/Green) on 56 seats.

You can read more about the poll's findings on our website.

Thank you for your support.

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

ps. Louis and I been asked a lot on the road whether a change in Government is enough to Stop Three Waters.  Possibly, but we don’t need a change in Government, we need a change in direction.  So far the National Party have promised to repeal Three Waters, but we don’t know what they’ll replace it with.  A slightly watered-down co-governed model isn’t enough.  To retain local control, fight for democratic accountability, and push back against more bureaucracy and higher water costs, a strong voice for taxpayers is essential no matter the political colours in Wellington. Click here to support the efforts of the Taxpayers’ Union holding them all to account.

Dear Supporter,

We wouldn't usually send out a newsletter in the evening, but I wanted to share today's news (including an update on the Three Waters legal challenge) as soon as possible.

There's a lot of Three Waters material here, but if you scroll through you'll also find important updates on wacky spending at Creative NZ, and a dodgy Government-backed restructure at Fonterra.

Stop Three Waters roadshow launches with a bang 🎉

Despite it being a work day, and with only a few days' notice, more than a hundred local supporters turned out for the first event of our Stop Three Waters roadshow.

Local Councillors Sam MacDonald and Aaron Keown were first to sign the official "Community Leaders' Appeal" calling on the Prime Minister to protect local democracy and Stop Three Waters.

And local ACT MP Toni Severin got big applause for committing to reversing Nanaia Mahuta's co-governance 'reforms' if ACT are part of the next Government.

Click here to view footage of the event.

Tomorrow, Jordan, Connor, and Levi head to Rolleston, Ashburton, and Fairlie. On Sunday they're in Queenstown, before Peter Williams boards the "Mobile Campaign HQ" for the Alexandra–Wanaka–Gore–Balclutha–Invercargill legs. (Shout out to our friends at Groundswell who have put together the town-hall style meetings with Peter Williams!)

I'll be taking Jordan's place in the campervan for the Invercargill–Wellington leg, and I couldn't be more excited.

>> Click here to find out when we're in your town <<

Mahuta formally introduces Three Waters bill to Parliament

Our latest campaign push couldn't be more timely. Yesterday, Nanaia Mahuta formally introduced to Parliament the core Three Waters legislation – the euphemistically-named "Water Services Entities Bill".

Far from pulling back, the legislation actually doubles down on co-governance (more on that next week – it's technical, and quite sneaky). The other surprise is that yet another layer of bureaucracy has been added to the already convoluted governance structure. New "regional advisory panels" will sit below the co-governed Representation Groups. And the new advisory panels are themselves co-governed! We're beginning to understand what Mahuta meant when she said her reforms would create jobs...

Now that the Bill has been introduced, it could pass its first reading and be referred to Select Committee as early as next week. Public submissions are likely to open soon after.

We're calling on the Select Committee to take its consultation on the road and hear from communities directly affected, face-to-face, across the country. If your humble Taxpayers' Union can do it, so can the MPs!

Doing the media's job: we've released scientific polling on Three Waters

As part of the regular scientific polling we commission from Curia Market Research, we asked New Zealanders whether water entities should be directly accountable to voters.

Seventy-six percent agreed that voters should have the power to vote out water service providers who fail to deliver good value.

Click here to see how the results break down by location, age, and political party support.

Of course, Nanaia Mahuta's Three Waters regime would run roughshod over local accountability. The boards of the new water monopolies would be insulated from accountability by layer upon layer of-co-governed bureaucracy.

Have we already won the war?

Ideally, our efforts will force the Government to u-turn on Mahuta's proposals.

But if they force the legislation through, there's still a path to victory: Three Waters could do so much political damage that next year could see a change in Government, and Three Waters repealed.

So this is a major victory for our campaign:

Christopher Luxon is only making this promise because New Zealanders like you have stood up and shouted from the rooftops that local democratic control matters, and Three Waters cannot stand.

An update on the legal challenge

You may be aware that we are financially supporting the Water Users' Group's judicial review against Nania Mahuta's claims that co-governance is necessary for Three Waters for the Crown to comply with the Treaty. If you're one of the thousands of New Zealanders who've chipped in to the legal fund, thank you.

We have an update. This is from Stephen Franks, one of the lawyers leading the court challenge:

On Thursday 4 August, we are headed to the High Court. This interlocutory hearing is to argue for the Crown to release the advice the Minister relied upon to say co-governance is required for Three Waters.

You may recall that Crown released Cabinet Papers last year that disclosed some of this information. And then tried to get us to delete it once they realised that we had used the information in our Statement of Claim. 

The Crown is now arguing that they could disclose it, but only to our lawyers. You won't get to see it. We don't think that is right. If they are going to give co-governance over $185 billion, we think you should be able to see the reasoning (if there is any).

This won't be our only day in court. We still have the substantive argument to go - that co-governance is not required as part of the Three Waters scheme. We don't have a date for this hearing yet. But our legal team have made an application to the court to get this dealt with as soon as possible.

If you want to understand more about the background on this case (or read the Statement of Claim), check out the Litigation FAQs here.

You funded a ballet called 'The Sl*tcracker'

In light of Budget 2022 throwing even more money at arts grants, we decided to take another one of our regular looks at where this money ends up.

This time our Researcher, Levi, examined the "Creative Communities" grants funded by Creative NZ and doled out by local councils.

Here is a small sample, in this case all projects in Wellington:

I wish we were making this up: taxpayers are forking out for escort exhibitions, 'dismantling e-waste for fun', pictionary, queer and trans drawing classes, interpretive dance, music courses for 'womxn and femmes', a ballet called 'The Sl*tcracker', and a literal clown show.

Click here to view the full list, adding up to more than $400,000 in Wellington alone.

Law change for Fonterra could jack up prices and suffocate competition

Have you seen the price of cheese lately? Squeezed households may be alarmed to learn that the Government is considering a proposal that could send prices further into the stratosphere – and cripple our economy at the same time.

Click here for my summary of how Damien O'Connor is quietly changing the rules to shield Fonterra from healthy competition.

COVID “service recognition” awards cost $5 million

Have a great long weekend,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

Media coverage:

Stuff  Adrian Orr may be happy to speak up, but there's more we need to hear

Homepaddock  Public funding of political parties political poison

Stuff  Sci-fi won't help with hard calls on climate change

New Zealand Herald  Populism’s big dive across the ditch

New Zealand Herald  What Australia and NZ teach each other

RNZ  Political commentators Jones & Thomas - Budget, Climate plan & Aus new PM

Homepaddock  Bad timing for tax

Stuff  Forget Luxon's National, it's ACT which is set to make an impact

Stuff  'Is trippy-dippy Chloe Swarbrick actually the cool MP? I thought I was'

Homepaddock  Backwards Budget

Stuff  Without hearing it, I'm confident the Budget hasn't addressed these issues

The Spinoff  Budget 2022: what chance a surprise?

NZCity  Latest research suggests New Zealanders may want the Government to tighten its purse-strings

RNZ  Season 2 | Episode 13: 17th May 2022 - Party People

Newstalk ZB  Newstalk ZB Wellington 11am - Item 2

The Platform  Is the jig up for Three Waters?

BusinessDesk  The govt can't spend its way out of this hole

RNZ  Producer of Chloe Swarbrick documentary responds to ACT backlash

The Working Group  The Working Group Weekly Political Podcast with Russel Norman, Jordan Williams, & Damien Grant

Homepaddock  Redpeace hates cows

Kiwiblog  Chloe hagiography under fire

The Country  The Country Full Show: Monday, May 16, 2022

The Platform  Sean Plunket interviews Jordan Williams from The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

Radio NZ  Political commentators Morten & Te Pou

Radio NZ  Re-Platformed: radio outcasts make their own outlet

Have you seen the price of cheese lately? Squeezed households may be alarmed to learn that the Government is considering a proposal that could send prices further into the stratosphere – and cripple our economy at the same time.

Dairy prices in New Zealand are already skewed upward by Fonterra, a co-operative of dairy farmers that buys up 79% of all the milk our farmers produce. Internationally, Fonterra has been described as a “cartel” for the way it uses its dominance over the market to keep milk prices high.

Fonterra is not strictly a private body. Its near-monopoly status is enabled by Government legislation and a Ministerial appointee even sits on Fonterra’s panel that decides how much to pay farmers for their milk.

With 25% of all New Zealand exports being Fonterra products, the performance of the co-operative has a major impact on New Zealand’s overall prosperity.

Fonterra’s performance has been waning. In the last decade Fonterra’s share price has steadily tracked down, and its farmer members have been peeling off to join competitors like Open Country and Synlait.

Seeking to reverse this trend, in December Fonterra leadership put to shareholders a “capital restructure” proposal.

The proposal would stop member farmers from selling shares to anyone who is not already a Fonterra member or about to become one. In other words, farmers wanting to retire, switch away from dairy, or join a competitor will be denied fair open-market value for their shares.

The move effectively strong-arms disgruntled farmers into sticking with Fonterra and protects the cartel from the competitive discipline of public share markets.

You might be wondering if this is even legal. It turns out it’s not: Fonterra’s enabling legislation explicitly prohibits it from restricting share sales “for the purpose of restricting, preventing or deterring” farmers from shifting their milk supply away from Fonterra.

So how does Fonterra get around this? Simple: they’ve lobbied Damien O’Connor and he’s agreed to change the rules to legalise Fonterra’s lurch towards protectionism.

Officials from MPI have warned Cabinet that the move will weaken Fonterra’s performance incentives and limit the expansion of more innovative competitors, but Damien O’Connor is forging ahead.

Fortunately, there’s a public consultation process, to which the Taxpayers' Union has made a submission.

For all the benefits that Fonterra’s sheer size brings New Zealand, it’s crucial that the co-operative remains subject to competition. Competitors nipping at Fonterra’s heels and investors demanding dividends incentivise the co-operative to constantly improve its productivity and performance.

If Fonterra is protected from local competition, there is a serious risk that it will become complacent and vulnerable to international competitors that may overtake it in efficiency and innovation. Losing our status as the world’s go-to source of dairy would be an economic calamity.

What I've written here barely scratches the surface of this issue. If you're interested in the detail, I recommend the damning reports on the restructure produced by TDB Advisory and Castalia.

In light of Budget 2022 throwing even more money at arts grants, we decided to take another one of our regular looks at where this money ends up.

This time our researcher examined the "Creative Communities" grants funded by Creative NZ and doled out by local councils.

Here is a small sample, in this case all projects in Wellington:

I wish we were making this up: taxpayers are forking out for sex worker exhibitions, 'dismantling e-waste for fun', pictionary, queer and trans drawing classes, interpretive dance, music courses for womxn and femmes, a ballet called 'The Sl*tcracker', and a literal clown show.

Click here to view the full list, adding up to more than $400,000 in Wellington alone.

Three quarters of New Zealanders believe that those responsible for water services should be directly accountable to voters, reveals a new scientific poll commissioned by the Taxpayers’ Union.

The poll of 1,000 New Zealanders was undertaken by Curia Market Research, and asked, Do you think those who are responsible for provision of local drinking, waste, and storm water services should be directly accountable to voters?

Seventy-six percent said yes, and just eight percent said no. Fifteen percent were unsure.

Support for democratically accountable water services is consistent across every part of the country and with voting bases of every major political party.

Of course, Nanaia Mahuta’s Three Waters regime would run roughshod over local accountability. The boards of the new water monopolies would be insulated from accountability by multiple layers of bureaucracy. The one layer that is nominally democratic – the representation group – is in fact co-governed with iwi appointees, who will have effective veto power over major decisions.

To put it simply, ratepayers unhappy with the value or reliability of their water services won’t be able to vote out the people in charge. This removes the incentive for the water monopolies to keep water bills reasonable and deliver reliable services.

Thanks to the generous support of tens of thousands of New Zealanders like you, later this week we're taking to the road to fight the Government's Three Waters proposals.

>>> Click here to add your name to the Stop Three Waters petition and we'll email you when we're coming to your town/city.

With the support of our grassroots network, we'll be spreading the message directly within the local communities whose water assets Nanaia Mahuta is trying to remove from local control to put into 'co-governed' entities.

The roadshow will highlight just how unpopular these proposals are, put pressure on those few councils still holding out from resisting the Government, and pile the pressure onto Labour's provincial MPs who are the key to overruling Mahuta's undemocratic agenda.

While the media continue to run Mahuta's lines about Three Waters our people-powered effort is exposing why Three Waters is zero gain, and holding her to account. Come along to show your support.

We’ve decked out a campervan with ‘Stop Three Waters’ gear and, starting this Friday, will be meeting local ratepayers, mayors, councillors, and community leaders in 39 local centres across the country.

Come and meet the team

I'm emailing to ask for your support by way of coming along and meeting Louis, Annabel, Josh, Levi, Connor, and the whole Taxpayers' Union team over the next five weeks. 

We’ll be holding old-fashioned soapbox events outside local councils and in town squares across the country. We are inviting local leaders to come and speak out against Nanaia Mahuta’s asset grab and sign our "Community Leaders' Appeal to Protect Local Democracy and Stop Three Waters" addressed to the Prime Minister.

And regardless of Three Waters, we're keen to meet Taxpayers' Union supporters like you across the country.

Peter Williams and I (no relation) will be leading the team for the first leg of the trip from Christchurch, visiting Rolleston, Ashburton, Fairlie, Queenstown, Alexandra, Gore, Balclutha, and Invercargill, before Louis takes over in Dunedin next week. 

The full itinerary is available here and we will be updating this, and our Facebook page, as the roadshow progresses with exact times and locations for each stop.

Can't make your local event? You can still do your part to Stop Three Waters

Taking our grassroots campaign on the road means we're relying on you and the tens of thousands who are supporting this effort. Only by working together can we beat Labour's powerful Māori Caucus. Please take a minute to:

>>> Print and post the roadshow poster on community noticeboards and shop windows (after getting permission, of course!)

>>> Share the poster on Facebook

>>> Share the official "Stop Three Waters" petition

>>> Chip in to the Stop Three Waters fund (Three Waters is expensive, but so too is 4,000 kilometres of fuel!)

Most important, come and say hi to the team, or pick up a stack of petition pamphlets to deliver to friends and neighbours. We have plenty of "Stop Three Waters" merchandise and we want you to take it!

We can’t wait to meet you and other taxpayers up and down the country.

Regards,

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

 

It must be that time of year again, when a journalist wakes up in the morning so concerned about government waste and secrecy they decide to ask government agencies how many official information requests your humble Taxpayers’ Union has been filing.

Yesterday we were contacted by the Department of Internal Affairs letting us know that Stuff.co.nz (we don’t know whether it’s one of their “public interest” taxpayer-funded journalists, or just one of their columnists) has requested a list of all our information requests dating back to November 2020.  We assume this relates to our popular “Stop Three Waters” campaign which Stuff has, to date, decided not to cover (though, in fairness, considering Stuff’s obligations under the NZ on Air conditions of funding, that may be rational from the newsroom’s perspective).

But what we can’t work out is why Stuff didn’t come to us first?  If the objective is to “expose” the Taxpayers’ Union for asking too many questions, why waste officials’ time by filing their own OIA, when they could have just asked us?  Perhaps there is an element of self importance: it is a sad state of affairs that the Taxpayers’ Union files more information requests / asks more questions than any media or other transparency organisation.  Indeed, in last two years of Labour’s opposition, our OIA and LGOIMA (the local government version of the Official Information Act) outnumbered the written and oral questions filed by the then-Opposition Labour Party.

And we make no apologies for it.   We are, by far, New Zealand’s largest transparency organisation, and work on behalf of our 179,000 subscribed supporters, and tens of thousands of members and donors.  Those supporters expect us to be asking the hard questions.  Many of those requests result in stories that the media pick up (for obvious reasons), are used for tools such as our popular “Ratepayers’ Report” local government league tables, and serve to remind officials and politicians that we are watching how they are spending taxpayer money. There is an auditing role, asking questions traditionally asked by local newspapers, but which are often missed now that the media is under so much pressure. For example, we use the Official Information Act to verify stories received through our confidential government waste ‘tip line’ – as unlike for Stuff, the Government’s swelling communications departments are generally “too busy” to answer our questions.

Democracy and transparency do have a cost. That’s why we encourage public agencies to proactively release information – so that the OIAs are not required.  But to criticise the media, or philanthropic groups exercising rights to promote transparency and accountability is wrong.

But in this case, we’ll make an exception: so for the Stuff journalist who asked for this information, whoever you are, next time don’t waste the time of officials – come to us direct.  Here is the information sought:

1 November 2020 – present date – OIAs filed by the Taxpayers’ Union

[Support to foreign nationals in NZ during COVID] 1.  Is the Department of Internal Affairs currently funding, or has it funded, in any way the Red Cross’ Manaaki Manuhiri program for foreign nationals stranded in New Zealand due to covid-19? 2.  If so, how much funding has it given to the program since the beginning of 2020

[Ministerial travel expenses] This is a request for official information under the Official Information Act 1982 in relation to the travel costs of the Minister David Parker. We request the following information: 1.  A breakdown of the cost of the Minister’s travel by means, i.e. air travel, car etcetera. 2.  A breakdown of the cost of additional travel arrangements i.e. if the Minister were to have a car travel to meet him at his destination or require a driver to stay overnight in accommodation.

[Ministerial travel follow up request] ‘a basic list of dates wherein the Minister (Hon David Parker) had a driver travel between cities to meet him or had a driver stay overnight at a location for a similar purpose, rather than make use of hired transport at his destination, since 1 January 2019.’

[Expenditure of the Royal Commission into historical abuse in care] REFINED We request a copy of the expenditure transactions since 1 January 2020 up until 31 December 2020 in relation to the following account codes: 80013 80060 80300 80560 80630 82001 82003 82005 82030 82101 82102 82103 82111 82112 82121 82122 82201 82205 82210 82212 82501 82670 82691 82855 82900 82905 82915 82920 82921 Please exclude all payroll transactions except for the total amounts paid in each pay run*. Please ensure the data extract includes: 1. the supplier / vendor / payee  2. the notation made in your accounting system 3. the transaction amount and date 4. the cost centre and general ledger assigned to the transaction.     Given the volume of information, we request it be made available in a suitable excel format. The above codes account for less than a third of those originally requested. I have also attached a response we received from the WAC to the same OIA as an example if you want one to refer to.

[Three Waters] 1.  Please provide the research and researcher that has lead the Minister of local government to believe that her water infrastructure reform will generate lasting jobs 2.  Please provide the research and researcher that has lead the Minister of local government to believe that her water infrastructure reform will generate savings  3.  Do the predicted jobs generated by the reforms outweigh the jobs that will be lost to the reforms? Please provide the numbers to back this up. 4.  What are the estimated costs of the reforms? Please provide any initial budgets. 5.  Please provide the research and any cost/benefit analysis performed that lead to the conclusion that reform was needed/would be beneficial.

[Bolton Street property information] 1.  A breakdown of the amount of months over the last four years that 23 Bolton street has been occupied 2.  In the months it was occupied, how many people were residing at the property 3.  The market price of 23 Bolton Street 4.  The number of bedrooms and bathrooms in the property

[Advertising for three waters (follow up)] A breakdown of the cost of the campaign currently running to advertise the three waters reforms.  Please include both actual costs, estimated costs (those budgeted for but not yet realized) and the full budget

[Breakdown of advertising expenditure for Three Waters] I request a breakdown of the $3.5 million by category / type of expenditure and communications channel.  I.e. newspaper advertising, social media, television, radio spending – broken into production and advertising placement.

[Racing Safety Development Fund applications] This is an OIA for the applications (both successful and unsuccessful) of applications from the last funding round, and a list of those which received funding (and respective amounts).

[Government logo rebrand] It has been suggested to the Taxpayers' Union that there has been a change in the logo (or preferred logo) used to represent the New Zealand Government. I have attached the "old" and "new" versions. • Has there been a change to (or is the Government in the process of changing) the official "New Zealand Government" logo? • If so, who initiated such a change and for what reason? • What costs have been incurred (and are expected to be incurred) because of the changed logo? o This could include, for example, updated signage and stationery, along with administrative and design costs. • If the logo change is part of a wider rebrand, please provide the costs for that wider rebrand. Please feel free to call me if any part of this request requires clarification.

[Timeframes for translation services] How many requests were made to the translate email address in the last 7 days? What was the average response time for them?

[Jacinda Ardern parody] This is an OIA for all communications (specifically emails) in the last 2 weeks that mention “Spitting Image” or the video available here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?ref=search&v=448438283127922  held by the respective agencies: Ministry of Health, DPMC, PMO, and DIA. We are particularly interested in any communications with YouTube (or its representatives) about them hosting the same video (which has now been removed).

[Three Waters advisory group and advertising campaign] This is an OIA regarding the “advisory group” referred to by a DIA spokesperson in this Stuff.co.nz article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/125570991/governments-three-waters-advertisements-slap-in-the-face-for-councils An advisory group, including members of the local government sector, were involved in the creation of the campaign. Who is on the advisory group? When have they met? And how much are they being paid? The article also refers to LGNZ expressing concerns about the advertising campaign prior to it launching. Please provide that corrispondance.

[Breakdown of furniture expenditure/purchases 2020/21] Please provide a breakdown of all furniture expenses/purchases from the 2020/2021 financial year, and the current financial year to date. Please also identify any furniture purchased for staff to use at home.

[Three waters correspondence and expenditure] 1.  Any correspondence between the DIA and the Iwi Advisors Group for Freshwater in the past year. 2.  Any correspondence between the DIA and the Waikato-Tainui Chief Executive in the past year.  3.  Any payments or reimbursements made to any individuals from these two entities or to the entities themselves over the past two years. 4.  The value and details of any such payment.

[DIA website] 1.  Any correspondence or plans to update or redesign the DIA website from the past two years. 2.  When was the last time the website was redesigned and how much did this cost? 3.  Any estimates DIA has received or communicated around the costs to update or redesign the website.  4.  The costs of maintaining the current website.

[Salary band for named DIA employee] Salary band/range for acting Executive Director, Three Waters Iwi/Māori Maria Nepia.

[Standard clause in public funding documents] In a statement, the Department of Internal Affairs told Newshub "no clause in the Funding Agreement... prevents or prohibits any council from publicly expressing its own views". On what basis is was that claim made?  Who authorised that statement to be made?  What is their name and position?  Were they relying on legal advice in making that claim?  If so, what is the date of that advice and how much did it cost? The story goes on to say:  [DIA] adds: "It is a common and prudent clause in public funding documents as a safeguard to protect against the misuse of public funds." Please provide other public funding documents where DIA has included this clause in the last 12 months?

[RealMe helpdesk] 1.  How many calls have been made to the help desk on each day since 1 March 2022? 2.  How many of these calls have connected to an operator? 3.  How many of these calls have been dropped automatically due to call numbers exceeding capacity? 4.  If any of the requested data is not recorded, please explain why not. 5.  What is the capacity limit for calls to the help desk before calls are dropped automatically? 6.  Do international charges apply to calls that are dropped automatically? 7.  For the ‘Enquire online’ form, what is the average wait time between enquiries being filed and responses being sent, for the period since 1 March 2022? 8.  Finally, I would appreciate any comment as to why capacity has not kept up with call/enquiry volumes, and whether this is a recent problem or an ongoing issue.

We’ve also emailed this information to Stuff, and in the spirit of transparency, have asked the company to please detail the OIAs filed with DIA by Stuff over the same time period.  I will be tickled pink if we’ve managed to ask more.

As many as 12 Kāinga Ora staff members at a time have attended community barbecues, a pizza night, and a site blessing at one of its Auckland construction sites.

A neighbour of the Greys Ave social housing development contacted us through our Tip Line expressing frustration at constantly being sent newsletters from Kāinga Ora inviting locals to BBQs and social events connected to the new development. The housing agency spent $1,764 on food and drinks for these events, plus $600 for a site blessing and almost $2,000 on the newsletters themselves (resources, printing and distribution). 

Our official information request reveals that at least 20 paid staff members attended the four events hosted by Kāinga Ora.

In addition, 20 hours of staff time was spent writing and formatting each community newsletter. The taxpayer-funded newsletters introduce Kāinga Ora team members, highlight a "Subbie [subcontractor] of the month" and in one case express excitement about Jacinda Ardern and Housing Minister Megan Woods visiting the site.

Kāinga Ora's public relations campaign surrounding its Greys Ave development is clearly aimed at softening neighbours up to tolerate the construction and the hassles of having a social housing development next door.

Our tipster says she would prefer Kainga Ora focused on getting the construction done and dealing with dust pollution than being invited to warm and fuzzy taxpayer-funded BBQs. We tend to agree.

Straight out of the Beehive's Budget Day "lock up", Jordan sits down with Cameron Bagrie of Bagrie Economics to break down the good, the bad, and the ugly of the biggest ever increase to operational Government spending.

Dear Supporter,

Louis and I are just back from the 2022 Budget lock-up inside the Beehive. We’ve spent the day trawling through what is the biggest spend up (in terms of locking in permanent operating spending) we’ve ever seen. As we worked through the 24 Ministerial media releases and the hundreds of pages of Treasury forecasts and appropriations, the word front of mind is ‘overwhelming’.

While households are tightening their belts, Wellington is feasting: Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern have not read the room.

New Zealand is in a weird situation where the economy is red hot, but households are hurting.  Don’t be fooled by the gimmicks and flashy names for business-as-usual funding politicians want you to focus on. As we find in every year’s budget, the devil is always in the detail.

This update covers what the Government wants you to look at (its key announcements listed below), the economic updates by Treasury officials, and the boondoggles we’ve noticed immediately.

Key Budget 2022 announcements at a glance:

• A new temporary “cost of living payment” for people earning up to $70,000 not already eligible to the Winter Energy Payment. The payment is $27 per week per person for three months from August. (This looks to us like a 'last minute' measure by Ministers)

• A new Ministry for Disabled People.

• 26,500 more insulation and heating retrofits for low-income earners.

• Two-month extension to the half price public transport scheme.

• Two-month extension to the fuel excise duty and Road User Charges cut (which your humble Taxpayers’ Union has been campaigning for!)

• The various climate change "Emissions Reduction Plan" measures that were announced on Monday – see the summary on our website.

The Government’s political cover for the cost of living crisis: blame the supermarkets

The Government knows that its measures won’t be enough to paper over the financial pain that middle New Zealand is feeling with the highest inflation in 30 years.

So instead of tackling its spending problem, Grant Robertson has announced “emergency legislation” to tackle the supermarkets.

Tonight, the Government will ram through a new law to remove the ability of supermarket companies to put restrictive covenants over land as a barrier used to stop competition.

We welcome the move, but it does nothing to tackle the real problem pointed to by the Commerce Commission: it’s the Government’s own regulatory taxes – specifically land use and resource management restrictions – that make it virtually impossible for competitors to get started on the scale necessary to compete with the two big operators.

Government is growing quickly as a proportion of the economy (and it's fueling inflation)

If you received David’s email this morning, you’ll know that Mr Robertson had indicated he would increase new spending (the ‘operating allowance’) for ongoing annual spending by $6 billion (or $3,209 per household).

First the good news: Grant Robertson restrained himself by 1.6%, increasing spending by just $5.9 billion.

But this is offset by an increase in next year’s operating allowance from $2.7 billion to $4.5 billion.

Despite the GFC and the Christchurch earthquakes, Bill English averaged new operational spending allowances of just $660 million per year over his time as Finance Minister.

Core Government expenditure now amounts to 35.3% of the total economy. When Jacinda Ardern became Prime Minister, the figure was 27.3%.

A better-than-expected economy means record Government revenues, but Grant Robertson’s pushed back the return to surplus

The economic forecasts are better than they were in December's half-year update. But the Government’s forecast debt will now peak $10 billion higher, and a return to surplus now isn’t expected until 2024/25. This is incredible when economic growth is forecast to hit 4.2% over the next year, and unemployment is forecast to drop from the current 3.2% (which is already the lowest in recorded history) to 3.0%.

Spiking inflation is a short-term windfall gain for the Government coffers – it drives up GST revenue and PAYE and taxpayers are driven into higher tax brackets.  Payroll costs for Governments tend to lag behind.

For the first time since the Fiscal Responsibility Act came into force in 1994 a Minister of Finance is projecting a deficit in “an overheated economy”. Despite the record tax take, and one-off COVID expenditure winding down, Budget 2022 forecasts a deficit of $6.6 billion.

Put another way, Grant Robertson will borrow $3,528 for every Kiwi household to pay for non-capital spending (i.e. he's still borrowing for day-to-day expenses) over the next 12 months.

So where is all this money going?

Louis was with me listing the big, the mad, and the interesting spending items that jumped out:

Grant’s headline Budget sweeteners

First, a victory for the Taxpayers’ Union: fuel tax and road user charge relief has been extended by another two months, expected to save motorists another $235 million (or $124 per household). This is matched by an extension of half price fares for public transport.

The next big sweetener is a bit of a fizzer: New Zealanders who are not eligible for the Winter Energy Payment and who are earning less than $70,000 will receive a temporary $27-per week “cost of living payment”, for the three months from August.

As for tax relief: except for two months at the pump, Budget 2022 delivers nothing to lighten the load. We say this is borderline criminal considering the way inflation has stealthily pushed New Zealanders into paying higher rates of income tax, even when we’re no better off. (We'll have a lot more to say on this next week!)

As is usual in a Budget, the bulk of the paperwork dumped on our table covered a laundry list of spending announcements across almost every area of government. This year's barrage of spending items is almost overwhelming. What follows is a non-comprehensive list (note some spending is spread across multiple years):

Corporate welfare:

• $100m for a new “Business Growth Fund” to invest in small-medium businesses that banks aren’t willing to lend to – i.e. taxpayer funding for Dragon’s Den dropouts. Government representatives of the Fund will even get seats on SME the company boards!

• $118m in “advisory services” for farmers and Maori land owners

• $40m on “Transformation Plans” for forestry, wood processing, food and fisheries businesses

• $350m “Affordable Housing Fund” for housing developers

• $15.5m for “Pacific economic development” (i.e. funding for Pasifika-run businesses in New Zealand)

• An extra $26m (now $155m in total) for “Progressive Procurement” – i.e. favouring Maori-owned businesses as government contractors

• $349m for a Kiwirail bailout

Health:

• An extra $3.1 billion (one-off) for the new co-governed health system ($1.8 billion of this disappears immediately: it wipes off existing DHB debt)

• $580m for “Maori Health and wellbeing” including $188m for the new Maori Health Authority

• $20m establishing new “Iwi-Maori Partnership Boards” (i.e. introducing co-governance to the new health system)

• $70m for Pasifika health providers

Special interests:

• $185m in arts and culture grants “to help build a resilient cultural sector as it continues to adapt to the challenges coming out of COVID-19”

• $327m in funding for the new RNZ/TVNZ merged media entity

• A $1 billion “Maori Budget” including: $91m on Maori trades, training, and cadetships, $3m for “marae connectivity”, $5m for iwi/Maori teachers

• $200m for Maori education

• $28m for Maori “language, culture and identity”

• $162m for Maori organisations to reduce emissions, including $36m for “matauranga [traditional knowledge]-based approaches to reducing biological emissions” and $30m for “Maori Climate Action”

• $38m for Pasifika training, education, and bilingual schooling

• $14m for an "historical account of the Dawn Raids"

Miscellaneous:

• $2 billion in extra spending on education (to smooth over the end of the decile system)

• $662m for Defence

• More Police ($562m), initiatives focused on organise crime ($94m), and on reoffending ($198m)

• $100m establishing a new “Ministry for Disabled People” ($100m) – of which only $11m is allocated to providing services

• $178m for councils dealing with RMA reform, plus a new “National Maori Entity” to co-govern resource management

• $40m to research RNA vaccine technology

• $114m on family violence initiatives

• More taxpayer money pumped into the housing market via more generous First Home Grant and First Home Loan rules

Some of this spending is uncontroversial. A lot of it is mad. But what really hit me was the share scale: spending items costing tens of millions were treated like minor bulletpoints by Ministers.

And New Zealanders didn't want it!

New Zealanders weren’t even asking for this new spending. You may have heard Newstalk ZB cover our recent poll revealing that, by a margin of four to one, New Zealanders did not want to see increased spending in the Budget.

In other words, Kiwi households taking prudent financial measures in the face of a cost of living crisis hoped to see the Government doing the same, but were instead delivered a classic Labour-style spend-up, but on steroids.

You can read for yourself the full Budget 2022 material that just went online at www.budget.govt.nz.  You can also read our initial commentary to the media below.

In a few moments, I’ll be sitting down with economist Cameron Bagrie, who was also in the Budget Lock Up.  We’ll be recording a special edition of Taxpayer Talk streamed live to our Facebook page.

As is usual, our team will spend the next few weeks trawling through the detail and will no doubt uncover far more boondoggles and examples of questionable spending to hold to account those who spend your taxpayer money.

Thank you for your support.

Jordan Williams  Executive Director  New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

MEDIA RELEASES:

Budget 2022: The Worst Budget Since Muldoon

Budget 2022: How Are We Still Responding To COVID With Arts Grants?

Fuel Tax Relief Extension: A Small Victory For Taxpayers

WTF? Stu Nash Starts A Bank?

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is almost – but not quite – lost for words over Budget 2022’s announcement of another $185 million in arts and heritage grants. 

Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, “We were amazed when the Government decided it was appropriate to respond to a novel coronavirus with more than $300 million in grants for art projects. We were amazed again when they topped that up to $495 million. Now they’ve topped it up again by another $185 million, and are still calling it a COVID response!” 

“The Government boasts that this spending will ‘strengthen and complement’ the Arts and Culture COVID Recovery Programme –the same programme that saw taxpayer money allocated toward ‘indigenised hypno-soundscapes’ and interpretive dances about the impact of COVID.” 

“The $18 million specifically set aside to ‘celebrate Te Ao Maori’ seems especially indulgent – Maori face very real problems in housing and education that will not be solved with arts, crafts, and theatre.” 

Responding to Budget 2022’s two-month extension of fuel tax and road user charge relief, New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says: 

“This is a small but significant victory for taxpayers and will save the average household an extra $124 over two months.” 

“We campaigned hard for the reduction in fuel tax by presenting commuters with the shocking truth that for many Kiwis, half of the money spent at the pump was going to Grant Robertson. However, the plan to hike the tax back up again was always questionable during a cost of living crisis.” 

“Robertson deserves credit for seeing sense on fuel tax – at least for now. If he doesn’t get the cost of living under control in the next two months, he’ll just have kicked his fuel tax problem down the road.” 

The Taxpayers’ Union representatives choked on Treasury’s budget lock up sausage rolls when they discovered Stuart Nash’s announcement that he’s launching an investment bank for business rejected by the banking sector and to appoint government workers as directors of SMEs.

Jordan Williams, spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Union, said: “$100 million for an investment bank, run by politicians and bureaucrats, to take equity and even board seats in businesses that can’t borrow from the banking sector. What could possibly go wrong? 

“According to Minister Nash, a feature of the fund is to exclude equity financers who ‘push for aggressive growth plans, and short term results’.  He says the fund will have ‘more modest return expectations and no hard exit deadlines.  No kidding.”

“Coming from the Minister who back in 2014  wrote a foreword to the outstanding Taxpayers’ Union corporate welfare report, Monopoly Money, it seems Mr Nash has lost his mind.”

“Mr Nash claims these funds are common overseas. What he fails to mention is that they are not led by Government officials.”

“If Mr Nash wants to play investment banker, he should do a Simon Power and play banker with Westpac’s money, not ours.”

Grant Robertson is the first Minister of Finance since Muldoon to fail to deliver a budget suplus during a time of economic boom, says the Taxpayers’ Union, commenting from today’s Budget 2022 Beehive lockup.

“With Government revenues booming, it is stunning that Grant Robertson has failed to deliver either tax relief or a surplus,” says Jordan Williams, the Executive Director of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. 

“The spike to inflation has seen record revenue flooding into the Beehive due to workers paying higher income tax rates and more GST. But despite the inflation, the lowest unemployment since records began, the end of COVID lockdowns, and better than expected economic numbers, Grant Robertson has actually pushed back the return to surplus.”

“It is stunning that, during a cost of living crisis, Grant Robertson has failed to give back any of his windfall gain to the workers who earned it.  His failure to deliver either income tax relief or a balanced budget beggars belief: while households tighten belts, Wellington balloons.”

“With Government revenues as strong as they are, the Finance Minister could have today announced both income tax relief and a surplus. Instead, he’s decided to feast on the revenue with a laundry list of spending commitments.” 

“The temporary $27-per week ‘cost of living’ payment is a cruel joke. Unlike genuine tax relief, it fails to improve productivity incentives. It’s just a three month handout, and an ineffective one at that. At current prices, it wouldn’t even buy two blocks of cheese!” 

“The only silver lining is pushing back by three months the hike to petrol taxes and Road User Charges. With inflation running at 6.9%, the hike to petrol taxes should have been squashed permanently”

On Monday James Shaw unveiled his long-awaited Emissions Reduction Plan (we’ll call it the ERP).

The good news is that it’s far from the radical plan of central economic control proposed by the Climate Change Commission’s “big kahuna” report. We opposed that plan very loudly and helped thousands of New Zealanders swamp the consultation process with opposition.

The bad news is that it’s simply more of what we’ve come to expect from this Government: big politically-driven spending announcements wrapped up in the rhetoric of “climate action”.

The ERP raids $2.9 billion in revenue from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and spends it on handouts to big business and fat bribes for middle class households buying electric vehicles. For context, $2.9 billion is about $1,500 of spending for every Kiwi household.

The elephant in the room is that because of the way our ETS works, most of this spending will do nothing to reduce our emissions. More on that below, but first, the headline announcements from today:

Cash for Clunkers

A new “Cash for Clunkers” scheme will see buyers of EVs or hybrids get a big subsidy in return for scrapping their old petrol vehicles. In fact, during the policy’s trial the subsidy works out (on average) as more than $12,000 for every scrapped vehicle!

This is classic middle class welfare dressed up as climate action. The policy will primarily benefit New Zealanders who are already in the market for an EV – and these buyers don’t tend to be low-income. In fact, scrapping petrol cars will drive up costs for the poor due to reduced supply in the used car market. And of course, the new subsidies and costs come on top of the “feebate” scheme (i.e. the ute tax) which already hammers the less well-off.

James Shaw also announced a target for New Zealanders to drive less in total – 20 percent fewer kilometres by 2035, to be exact. Question: if we’re all expected to be driving non-emitting vehicles, why do we also need to drive less?

Boilers for Big Business

Shaw has announced he’s sloshing another $650 million into the ‘decarbonising industry’ corporate welfare fund.

This is the same pot of money that we exposed in a recent Taxpayer Update, which has handed millions to the likes of Silver Fern Farms, ANZCO, and DB Breweries so that they can upgrade their heating systems. Smaller competitors never seem to get a look in.

Regardless, as we have previously pointed out, the funding is redundant: based on the Government's own numbers, big businesses already have a strong enough incentive to replace coal boilers and avoid ETS levies.

The fund (also known as the GIDI fund) is a classic case of a left-wing Government cosying up to big business under the pretence of “green” policy. Browse the handouts so far: Round 1, Round 2, Round 3.

The Elephant in the Room

The vast majority of interventions announced this week will fail to reduce emissions.

That’s because, outside of agriculture, our emissions are governed by the Emissions Trading Scheme – not by ad hoc government interventions.

The ETS caps total emissions and allows private businesses to bid for the right to produce emissions by purchasing carbon credits. Each year the cap shrinks, so fewer carbon credits are released to the market and in practice it becomes more costly for businesses to buy the right to produce emissions.

While the scheme itself may sound complicated, the upshot for New Zealanders is simple: energy and fuel becomes more costly each year, and households and businesses are free to decide for themselves how to cut emissions in ways that are most affordable for their circumstances. Left to their own devices businesses will, for example, replace coal boilers with electric heating systems to save on ETS levies.

When the Government then comes along with expensive additional policies to reduce emissions in say, the transport sector, total emissions remain unchanged. People switching from petrol to electric vehicles simply free up carbon credits for the rest of us to burn. It’s called the “waterbed effect”: if you try to lower a waterbed by pushing down on one spot, it’ll just pop up somewhere else.

The beauty of the ETS is that it’s designed to limit the Government to using a single tool – reducing the overall cap on carbon credits – to cut emissions. The problem is that this Government is wilfully ignoring the way the ETS works so that it can give handouts to middle class households and big businesses, and encourage “behaviour change” that appeals to its supporters’ ideological instincts.

As the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put it: if a cap-and-trade system has a sufficiently stringent cap then other policies such as renewable subsidies have no further impact on total greenhouse emissions.

Of course, James Shaw knows how the ETS works, but he’s exploiting confusion over the policy to maximise his number of feel-good announcements and photo-ops with electric vehicles, cycleways, and school children.

Will National at least be honest with taxpayers?

We know that Christopher Luxon understands the ETS. His new economist Matt Burgess wrote extensively about the waterbed effect in his previous role at the New Zealand Initiative think-tank.

The risk is that Luxon will support the Government’s Emissions Reduction Plan anyway, locking a future National-led Government into a path of wasteful, pointless climate spending. He might think that New Zealanders are too simple to understand the ETS – and he might just be wary of being seen to oppose “climate action”, even when that action is costly and completely ineffective.

At the Taxpayers’ Union, we feel it’s our duty to be up front with New Zealanders. When we already have an ETS, a separate “Emissions Reduction Plan” is the emperor’s new clothes.

It’s not enough for National to quibble with the details of the ERP. They need to reject outright the entire approach of intervening in sectors already covered by the ETS.

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union can reveal that, by a margin of more than four to one, most New Zealanders oppose increasing Government spending in this week's Budget.

A new scientific poll of 1,000 respondents was conducted by Curia Market Research and asked, Given the current levels of inflation, do you think the Government should continue to increase overall spending in this year’s budget, or keep it about the same?

Only 15% support increasing spending, versus 65% who support keeping it at the same level. 20% are unsure.

Majorities favour spending restraint in every age group, area, gender, and deprivation level.

Even among Labour and Green voters, only 27% favour increased spending. Among undecided voters, only 8% want an increase in spending.

With $6 billion of new operational spending earmarked for Thursday's Budget, it appears Grant Robertson has badly misjudged the public appetite for big spending. New Zealanders understand that one driver of higher living costs is Government spending bidding up the prices of goods and services.

Moreover, Kiwi households are responding to higher costs by making prudent sacrifices, and they expect the Government to do the same.

New Zealanders know that a big reason the Finance Minister has so much money in his fiscal envelope is because inflation has pushed workers into higher tax brackets. The best thing Grant Robertson could announce on Thursday is to return these ill-gotten gains to productive New Zealanders via income tax relief.