The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Corrections has spent $32,478,300 (GST inclusive) since 2021/22 pursuing Carbon Neutral Government targets.

The Official Information Act request also shows:

• Corrections has bought 327 electric vehicles supported by 352 chargers since the targets were implemented.
• Corrections spent a further $369,150 (GST inclusive) on emissions inventories over this period.
• 2025 emissions reduction targets weren't met and uncertainty about meeting its 2030 target remain.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigative Lead, Rhys Hurley, said:

“New Zealand already built the Emissions Trading Scheme to cap emissions nationally. Forcing Corrections to spend $32 million chasing separate carbon-neutral targets will not cut emissions by a single gram, and shows exactly why the programme should be scrapped.”

"Corrections’ job is to keep criminals behind bars, rehabilitate offenders, and keep the public safe, not worry about decarbonising their sheep farm.”

“The Government looked at removing the targets back in 2023. These figures show it should stop looking and finally pull the plug.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming an amendment to the Local Government (Systems Improvements) Bill restricting voting rights to elected members only, calling it a major win for ratepayers and local democracy.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“This is a victory for ratepayers after years of campaigning by the Taxpayers’ Union and our sister organisations.”

“We have consistently called out councils handing voting power to unelected appointees, including Hastings District Council giving youth members voting rights - a decision we highlighted with our infamous bouncy castle stunt - which went on to win the Jonesies Local Government Waste Award.”

“The principle is obvious: if you are voting on how ratepayers’ money is spent, you should have to answer to those ratepayers at the ballot box. Anything else waters down democratic accountability.”

“Cameron Luxton proposed this amendment last year, and it is good to see the Government finally moving to close this accountability loophole.”

“But the job is not finished. If the Bill can be amended to protect voting rights, then it can and should be amended to protect elected members’ right to information.”

“Councillors cannot properly scrutinise spending, challenge officials, or represent their communities if council bureaucracies can block or delay access to the information they need."

“This amendment is a strong step forward. Now Parliament should finish the job and make it clear that elected members have a guaranteed right to the information required to hold councils to account.”

 

 

Jordan is fresh out of the Budget 2026 lockup and joined by economist Cam Bagrie to unpack whether the Government’s numbers really stack up.

They warn the Budget is heavy on promises, light on proof, and may rely too much on inflation, backloaded savings, and heroic assumptions to get back to surplus. From rising borrowing costs and “promise-enomics” to the demographic time bomb of superannuation and healthcare, this is a blunt post-Budget reality check on whether taxpayers are being served broccoli — or just another sugar hit with the bill pushed past the election.

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is sad to note the passing of distinguished economist Professor Lew Evans ONZM.

Professor Evans was a long-time friend and supporter of the Taxpayers’ Union and was widely respected across academia, public policy, business, and the legal community for his immense contribution to economic thought and regulatory policy in New Zealand.

Taxpayers' Union Chair, Ruth Richardson said:

“Lew Evans was one of New Zealand’s great economic minds — rigorous in his analysis, deeply thoughtful in his approach, and always generous with his time and wisdom.”

"Lew played a very important part in New Zealand's economic transformation."

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

"I first came across Lew when I was a young lawyer working in regulatory economics - much of the expert material relied upon by the Commerce Commission was Lew's."

“What set Lew apart was not only his extraordinary intellect, but also his humility and practical focus. He understood that good economics must ultimately serve people through better institutions, better incentives, and better public policy.”

Richardson said:

“Lew's contribution to New Zealand’s intellectual and public policy life was profound. On behalf of the Taxpayers’ Union, I extend our sincere condolences to Lew’s family, friends, colleagues, and former students.”

Despite branding this a “responsible Budget”, Nicola Willis has today confirmed the Government will have borrowed more by 2029/30 than Treasury forecast just five months ago.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:

“The accounting tricks and fiscal illusions in Budget 2026 can’t hide the facts. Yes, surplus may have come forward a year, but over the forecast period we will still be borrowing almost a billion dollars more than Treasury forecast only five months ago.”

“Government debt is set to hit $364.1 billion by the end of the decade, or more than $162,000 per household. That’s up from $29,000 in 2008, and $116,000 in Grant Robertson’s last Budget. The trend is only going one way.”

“If this Budget is supposedly fiscally responsible, Nicola Willis needs to explain why debt will now be higher in 2028, 2029, and 2030 than Treasury previously forecast, and why the next generation is being left to pick up the tab.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling out this year’s Budget for its continued spending commitments.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Despite Minister Willis’ assurances to the contrary, this Budget is full of sugar hits.”

“From $20 million to host the Pacific Islands Forum, to $48 million for te reo Māori broadcasting and cultural capability, this Budget is heavy on the sweet treats.”

“New Zealanders were promised fiscal discipline, but what they’ve been given is more spending today with promises of supposed savings tomorrow.”

“And with Treasury allowing up to $4.7 billion in forecast new operating spending in 2028/29, the surplus could have been even bigger if new operating spending was held at Minister Willis’ promise of $2.1 billion.”

“If the Government is serious about getting the books back to black, it needs to stop with the feel-good spending and commit to genuine fiscal discipline now.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming the Government’s decision to hand councils $400 million in “growth incentives” while walking slow to bring council costs under control by capping rates now.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Local Government Minister Simon Watts has let ratepayers down. Handing councils $400 million in additional revenue without bringing forward a rates cap means councils are under even less pressure to rein in their costs.”

“Town Halls don’t have a revenue problem, they have a spending problem. Giving councils a bailout in the form of a new taxpayer-funded subsidy, no matter how good the intent, is akin to funding more beer for an alcoholic."

"Giving councils more revenue before forcing discipline is the wrong way around."

“A rates cap should have come first. Without it, extra revenue will simply give councils more room to avoid the hard decisions."

“Simon Watts should be protecting ratepayers from runaway councils, not handing councils $400 million and hoping they suddenly discover restraint.”

Commenting on Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ decision to introduce a new tax - sorry, ‘levy’ - on banks and deposit takers in Budget 2026, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Minister Willis’ ‘no new taxes’ promise is now dead. As much as the Beehive are trying to frame it as a levy on the big banks, make no mistake that this new tax will be paid by savers and mortgage holders. It’s a sleight of the hand.”

“Any so-called levy designed to recover $209 million over four years will be felt at the very time savers and mortgage holders are set to be hammered. Comparisons to the UK and Australia demonstrate this this is nothing more than a naked tax grab.”

“Once again, our political class have taken the easy option to tax harder, rather than make the tough but necessary reductions in spending to ensure Kiwis have the best incentives to invest and save.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is cautiously welcoming the announcement of Budget 2026, with a surplus now expected this decade – but warning that it’s based on seriously optimistic assumptions.

Commenting from within the Budget briefing, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“This is clearly an election year budget. Despite the claims from the Finance Minister that it isn’t a ‘sugar hit’, Treasury’s fiscal analysis shows that this Budget is expansionary today, contractionary tomorrow.”

“’Spend today, save tomorrow’ is what New Zealanders have had every year since COVID. Even now, the vast majority of ‘savings’ coming later in the forecast period. Minister Willis is relying on everything going well between now and then, at home and overseas.”

“Minister Willis has said all the right things – now it’s on her to deliver them."

Responding to this afternoon’s Official Cash Rate announcement, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“With ongoing uncertainty around the Iran conflict’s impact on inflation, the Reserve Bank has rightly chosen to sit tight and hold the OCR at 2.25 percent as expected."

“But while the Reserve Bank can wait for the inflation picture to clear, the Government does not have the same luxury. Tomorrow, Nicola Willis' Budget must show credible spending restraint if it wants any believable path back to surplus."

“That means Ministers, not departmental chief executives, going line by line through spending and scrapping programmes that are wasteful, ineffective, or no longer needed. The Taxpayers’ Union’s Back to Black report gives them a ready-made place to start.”

The Taxpayers’ Union pre-Budget report, Back to Black, is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/back_to_black

The Taxpayers' Union is telling Dame Therese Walsh to put her money where her mouth is and make a donation to the IRD before she grandstands about wanting higher taxes.

Speaking to Radio NZ's "30 with Guyon" the Air New Zealand Chair, Walsh suggests that New Zealand needs a tax system better at "picking people up" and is personally "happy to pay a higher tax rate because I earn more than the average Kiwi”, going on to say "I think I should contribute more, and that's what I'm happy to do.”

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

"This is the sort of woke business ‘leadership' that makes us all poorer.  Instead of standing up for entrepreneurship, competitive markets, and tax policy that allows Kiwis to get ahead, Dame Walsh wants an even bigger state, and higher taxes."

"We wonder why New Zealand businesses under-perform. Perhaps if the likes of Walsh took more of an interested in fighting for economic opportunity rather than falling over themselves for Guyon Espiner and RNZ to like them, New Zealand would get ahead."

"I guess Walsh's point of view is understandable when your career is based on quasi-protected business like banking, or chairing an airline dependant on taxpayer handouts. Dame Therese has many admirable achievements, but economic expertise is not among them."

"What make Walsh's comments particularly galling is that she is rumoured to be lobbying for the role as the next Governor General.  These political comments – calling for New Zealanders to be taxed even harder, right on the eve of an election year budget – demonstrate why she is totally unsuitable for the constitutional appointment.”

"Craig Stobo was recently sacked for similar political comments – but at least the FMA isn't losing taxpayer money like the airline which Walsh chairs."

"Walsh sounded a lot like Jacinda Ardern in couching higher taxes around aroha and 'lifting people up'.  Say that to the average income earner who is struggling to afford the groceries let alone the cost of an Air NZ flight in recent years."

"The only thing Walsh achieves in that interview is Labour's endorsement to be Governor General. Clearly that's what she set out to achieve."

Responding to reports that the Government is considering establishing something similar to Australia’s Business Growth Fund, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“The Government needs to stop speculating with taxpayers’ funds."

“This looks eerily similar to Callaghan Innovation, which was disestablished last year because it had become an unfocused and underperforming agency. It invested too broadly and in too many companies that ultimately failed or moved offshore."

“What would be different about this proposal? The problem this fund appears to address is that the companies under consideration cannot access growth capital. The question that must be asked, and answered first, is: why?"

“The suggestion is that they are too small, but size alone should not deter rational investors."

“The real reason is much more likely to be that their returns are viewed as too low, given the risk of any capital investment. If banks and venture capitalists are unwilling to invest in these firms, why should taxpayers be exposed to these risks?"

“Minister Willis has previously been sceptical about governments attempting to ‘pick winners’ — and the Taxpayers’ Union is in complete agreement. Governments have a very poor track record at picking winners, so why is she now considering trying doing just that?”

The Taxpayers’ Union is blaming Local Government Minister Simon Watts for the biggest rates hike in Super City.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

"Simon Watts promised to cap rates, but bizarrely delayed the implementation until the next term of Parliament. That means Auckland Council is able to blow up rates bills now, and will fully admit it's to beat the new law."

“Rather than be forced to deliver the savings promised when the Super City was established, yet again Auckland Council has chosen to dig deeper into the pockets of struggling ratepayers."

“Local Government Minister Simon Watts has let Aucklanders down. Unfortunately, this just a harbinger of what is to come in town halls across the country as councils clamber to lock in higher rates before a cap takes effect in 2029.”

"It's also a major warning to ratepayers elsewhere who are staring down the barrel of forced amalgamations. Far from saving money, the Auckland example shows Watts seems to empower high rates and more wasteful council spending."

 

In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by Nick Clark from the New Zealand Initiative and Jordan Williams (Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director) to break down the Government’s plan to slash New Zealand’s 78 local authorities down to as few as 15.

They explain why bigger councils do not necessarily mean lower rates, better services, or fewer bureaucrats — and why amalgamation could actually make local government less accountable, less local, and even more expensive. From the Auckland Super City experiment to bloated town hall empires, unelected decision-makers, and the fight to bring councils back to core business, this is a must-listen for ratepayers wondering who really wins when Wellington decides bigger is better. 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Oranga Tamariki has 815 more staff than children in care, with 4,822.4 FTE staff and 135 contractors, compared to 4,142 children in care.

The Official Information Act request also shows:

• In December 2025, 32 children aged 6 to 16 were not enrolled in a school, while 510 records could not be matched to a school enrolment.
• In 2025 there were also 995 missing instances lasting at least 48 hours, involving 414 children in care.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigative Lead, Rhys Hurley, said:

“OT now has more staff and contractors than children in care. That is 1,512 more staff than in 2017, yet vulnerable kids are still going missing and falling through the cracks.”

“When an agency has 815 more staff and contractors than kids in care, taxpayers are right to ask what all those people are actually doing.”

“With 1.2 staff for every child in care, there is no excuse for children going missing for days or not being enrolled in school. Keeping these kids safe and in education is the bare minimum.”

“The answer cannot always be more money, more staff, and more bureaucracy. At some point, taxpayers need to ask whether this agency is actually focused on children or growing the bureaucracy around them.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Stuart Smith’s Local Government (Management of Local Authorities) Amendment Bill being drawn from the members’ ballot this evening.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Ratepayers elect councillors to govern, set priorities, and make decisions on their behalf. This Bill is welcome because it puts proper democratic accountability back at the centre of local government.”

“For councillors to direct a council properly, they need proper information rights. Full access by default to advice and key documents is needed as well, so councillors cant be kept at arm’s length by unelected town clerks.”

 

Hi,

What. A. Week.

The Good: Nicola Willis borrows a leaf from your humble Taxpayers' Union. ☺️

The Bad: Winston Peters wants to buy [checks notes] the bank that nearly saw the Crown go bust in the 1990s. 💸

And the Ugly: Hipkins has a car crash interview (not to be missed! 😂) and the wheels fall off Labour's keystone election policy – they want to shift round Crown-owned enterprises but refuse to release any costings, citing the Treaty... 😬

Plus, Wellington City Council is furious with the Taxpayers' Union and our friends at the Wellington Ratepayers' Alliance for publishing a "Wellington Town Hall Rich List" – it turns out local council bosses don't like the public knowing just how much they are paid.

Let's go.

We love you (?) Nicola Willis ❤️

Just a few months ago, Finance Minister Nicola Willis was holding up our Pathway to Surplus report and rejecting your humble Taxpayers' Union's respectful suggestions, describing them as "human misery" at a press conference in Wellington.

Of course, all we were doing was pointing out the elephants in the room identified by her own economic and Treasury boffins: New Zealand's fiscal path is unattainable, no meaningful tightening of the belt has yet occurred (in fact, under Willis spending and the rate of borrowing has grown!) and the longer we wait, the harder the decisions.

 

 

Well, times have changed.

And so too, it appears, has the appetite of the Finance Minister to grasp the mantle and deal with New Zealand's fiscal challenge.

On Tuesday, Minister Willis announced she's going to take the scissors to Wellington’s bloated bureaucracy, promising to cut 8,500 back office jobs, merge departments, and increase efficiency with AI.

Sir Humphrey's growth: One third more bureaucrats since the Key/English-era ⬆️

Let's set out the context: Since the Key/English Government left office, the expansion (more like explosion 💥) in total public service jobs under Ardern/Hipkins was 33.6 percent, even though the population grew by less than 11 percent.

The big increases have come with information professionals (i.e. spin doctors and data analysts), legal, human relations, finance professionals, and managers more generally.

As pointed out by Richard Harman's POLITIK, the number of "traditional public service pen pushers, clerical and administrative workers, are up, but by about only half of how much managers have risen."

 

Click on the table for a larger version (or click here to read on POLITIK)

 

Bureaucracy "grew" 33.6 percent, but "slashed" by 0.73 percent... 🙄

Of course, we welcomed Willis' announcement. But given similar promises were made by National prior to the last election, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

To date, the 'massive cuts' you hear about on the news have amounted to just 0.73 percent of the bureaucracy.

Promising savings is the easy part. It allows Nicola Willis to 'bank' the savings within Treasury's forward projections in next week's Budget and bring the (forecast) surplus forward.

But, for taxpayers, it's the delivery that matters.

And that doesn’t mean “reprioritised”, nor shifting roles into the arms (i.e. wallets) of "consultants". 

The numbers must. Actually. Fall.

That was the point Jordan made on 1News at 6 o'clock: taxpayers should welcome the target, but they should also keep the pressure on.

 

 

But already, the special pleading and backsliding have started...

Foreign Minister Winston Peters is reported to be “thumbing his nose” at Nicola Willis’s hopes of slashing the public service, with the Foreign Minister scoffing at future MFAT savings and saying:

 

 

Well, that’s comforting.

If every minister treats their own patch as special, protected, and immune from savings, then taxpayers will get the usual Wellington routine: bold targets, soothing forecasts, but business as usual in the costly head office.

Minister Willis deserves credit for setting a firm target. Now she needs to make it stick. Debt is ticking... ⏰⏰⏰

Now to finish the job: New report on how to get the Budget "Back to Black" 🖤

Having acted on our calls to scrap Chris Hipkins' wasteful Fees Free scheme, and now the announcement on bureaucrat numbers, we thought it only fair to provide an updated edition of our 2025 Pathways to Surplus report.

Yesterday, we released Back to Black: A plan to rebuild New Zealand’s public finances before it’s too late.

 

 

In Back to Black, we set out enough building block savings for Minister Willis to get a surplus right now, this year.

Because I have to be frank with you, even with the recent announcements, the numbers are very grim.

New Zealand’s government debt has blown out from $46 billion in 2008 to $291 billion today, and is forecast to hit $363 billion by 2030.

Per household, that's a change from $29,000 in 2008 to a stonking $162,000 for every Kiwi household!  

Ouch.

So our helpful Back to Black fiscal cheatsheet identifies $14.11 billion in savings for next year – that's enough to wipe out the forecast $13.9 billion deficit and achieve a $210 million surplus.

👉 Read Back to Black here 👈

 

Another government-owned bank: What could possibly go wrong? 😬

While Nicola Willis reaches for the axe, Winston Peters reaches for a fax. He wants to go back to the 1980s when the Crown had the majority share in the Bank of New Zealand. 

Going rogue with the taxpayer chequebook, Winston Peters announced he's eyeing up the BNZ with plans to renationalise it.

Yes, that bank. The bank whose history with Crown ownership is not exactly a bedtime story for taxpayers.

Our Chair, Hon Ruth Richardson, might know something about this. She was Minister of Finance the last time BNZ had to be bailed out. Her response to Peters' speech:

“The last time the Crown was the majority owner of the Bank of New Zealand, it nearly sent us bankrupt. Now Winston Peters wants to do it all over again 30 years later.”

On Monday, Ruth joined Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive to explain why Winston’s big idea belongs only in the history books.

 

 

And it seems Ruth touched a nerve...

 

 

Borrowing to buy a bank while credit ratings agencies are breathing down New Zealand’s neck about government debt is not economic strategy, it is Muldoonism – and we all know where that left us.

We all agree that New Zealand needs more banking competition. But let's do that by allowing new generation fin-tech banks to enter the market, rather than retry a government-owned model subject to political pressure, and too often ending in tears (i.e. bailouts). 

Bad banks cost shareholders, but bad government banks cost taxpayers.

The Geographic Board belongs in Willis’ bureaucracy clean-up 🗺️

The problem with Wellington is not just how many bureaucrats there are. It is what too many of them think they are there to do.

Rhys made that point in the Herald last week, taking aim at the Geographic Board and the wider problem of unelected bodies drifting well beyond their lane.

 

 

Voters can sack politicians. They cannot sack taxpayer-funded boards that decide they know better than the public, Parliament, or the ministers supposedly in charge.

Rhys also joined The Platform to unpack why cutting Wellington quangos down to size means more than trimming payroll numbers - it also means restoring democratic control.

 

 

Labour refuse to provide costings for "cornerstone policy" 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

Now, I love parlour games as much as the next person. But one game I’m not willing to play is Labour’s “guess the cost of our policy” lottery.

This week, the NZ Herald reported:

 

Labour has admitted key details about its Future Fund, including the cost to the Crown and which state assets will be rolled into it, will not be released until after voters have gone to the polls. 

On Tuesday, Labour’s finance spokeswoman Barbara Edmonds admitted the party doesn’t itself know which public assets will go in the fund, and won’t know until it gets advice from officials after the election. 

Explaining why this was necessary, Edmonds said some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) may have Treaty of Waitangi obligations attached to them.

The Government would need advice on these obligations, which could only come after an election, meaning Labour will not decide on which assets go into the fund before Kiwis go to the polls.

 

First, it was “commercial sensitivity”. Now, apparently, it's Treaty obligations. What next? The dog ate it?

Amber, Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds are mixing fiscal policy with peek-a-boo. Voters deserve better.

And this is despite Hipkins promise less than a year ago to "stand behind our promises because every single one of them will have been properly researched, fully costed, and we will have a plan to deliver on it".

It's literally still on the Labour Party website!

Labour can't even keep promises in Opposition.

As surmised by David Farrar:

This is really treating the voters as gullible idiots. They are claiming they can’t give details because of Treaty obligations.

The real answer is that they know their numbers don’t add up. They think if they give no details before the election, then they can’t be scrutinised on their credibility.

Asking voters to sign a cheque before disclosing the amount is just not credible. Can we afford it?

From bad to worse: Hipkins car crash interview with Jack Tame 💥🚗

If you need a reminder of what the last Government's spin-over-substance approach sounded like, Jack Tame's Q&A interview with Hipkins over the weekend is absolutely worth a watch.

You can watch the full 21 minute interview here – or just our highlights reel of Chris Hipkins getting roasted. 🤭

 

 

Bring popcorn. 🍿

Taxpayers milked for $1.07m cowshed loan 💸🐄

 

 

And it’s not just Labour’s election promises where taxpayers are being asked to sign blank cheques.

We’ve written before about how the Regional Infrastructure Fund is looking more and more like the Provincial Growth Fund: a new Government, a new fund, but the same old pork barrel politics.

Now Rhys has uncovered that the taxpayer-backed $1.07 million cowshed upgrade in Taranaki is expected to sustain just 1.8 ongoing jobs.

Yes, 1.8 jobs. Not 18. Not 180. One point eight.

Documents released under the Official Information Act show the project received $900,000 in loan funding through the Government’s Regional Infrastructure Fund, despite only $120,000 in co-funding from Omuturangi 6E & 7A Ahu Whenua Trust.

Large parts of the application, financial analysis, loan terms, risk assessment, and decision-making material were blacked out.

Moo-ve along. Nothing to see here...

If the project stacks up commercially, why couldn’t the Trust get a loan from a bank like it has before? And if it doesn’t stack up, why are taxpayers being asked to carry the risk?

Farmers across Taranaki would love help upgrading their cowsheds. But most of them are stuck paying rates, taxes, interest, and compliance costs without being able to send the bill to Wellington.

Wellington City Council’s bureaucratic Rich List 💰🏛️

And from taxpayers being milked in Taranaki, to ratepayers being squeezed in Wellington...

Our sister group, the Wellington Ratepayers’ Alliance, has launched the Official Wellington City Council Rich List - exposing 35 Council figures paid more than $200,000, including 34 Council staff paid more than Mayor Andrew Little.

Top of the pops is Town Clerk Matt Prosser on $531,616, while five Chief Officers sit at salary-band midpoints of $440,000. The Mayor, on $201,947, comes in last.

 

All up, these 35 officials cost ratepayers around $9.3 million a year.

That’s roughly the entire annual rates bill of 1,800 average Wellington households.

Not a bad gig if you can get it.

No one is saying councils don’t need capable staff. But when Wellington has the second-highest average residential rates in the country, the highest commercial rates, and a bureaucracy where dozens of officials earn more than the person voters actually elected to lead the city, ratepayers are entitled to ask whether they are getting results to match the payroll.

We are reliably informed by a Wellington City Councillor that expletives were flowing in the "Executive Lounge" at the Council when the Rich List appeared full page in Tuesday's edition of The Post...

 

 

If you're paid the big bucks, we say it ought to be transparent. In the UK, the salary of every single public sector worker is searchable via an online database. The kerfuffle this rich list has caused speaks to a culture where highly paid executives expect to remain behind closed doors, unelected, and unaccountable.

I'm sure that many on the Town Hall Rich List will be worth what they are paid. Others, not so much. But when they fight simple transparency – including a legal threat from the Council received on Monday – for simply advertising information that is publicly available (albeit not widely promoted) speaks to a culture that is not serving ratepayers well.

👉 View the Rich List at WellingtonRichList.nz 👈

 

Thank you for your support! Enjoy the rest of your week.

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

Ps. Next week’s Budget is the last set-piece of this Government before the election campaign kicks in. Politicians are about to start promising the world - and hoping taxpayers don’t check the price tag. Chip in here to support our election-year fight for quality spending and lower taxes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams is joined by former Finance Minister and Taxpayers’ Union Chair Ruth Richardson for a no-holds-barred warning about New Zealand’s worsening fiscal mess.

From exploding debt and runaway interest costs to bloated bureaucracy, superannuation reform, and a Government that still hasn’t found its “brave pills”, Ruth lays out why the country may be sleepwalking towards a fiscal crisis — and what needs to change before taxpayers are left carrying the can.

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for cost-benefit analysis to be made compulsory for all major government investment decisions following the release of the Helen Clark Foundation’s report Measuring What Matters.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf says:

“Cost-benefit analysis should be at the heart of every major spending decision, yet this report shows many agencies still aren’t using it properly.”

“Treasury already provides a clear methodology, so there is no excuse for Ministers to be signing off major investments without robust analysis of costs and benefits.”

“That only a third of departments surveyed were regularly using cost-benefit analysis raises serious questions about the quality of advice going to Ministers. This may go some way to explain why New Zealand ranks among the top 10 percent of OECD countries for infrastructure spending but in the bottom 10 percent for efficiency.”

“The Government should make cost-benefit analysis compulsory for all investment decisions so taxpayers can see whether projects actually stack up.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that New Plymouth District Council will spend $4.37 million demolishing Metro Plaza and a further $2.53 million on “daylighting” the Huatoki Stream, as part of the 2021 Ngāmotu New Plymouth City Centre Strategy.

Rhys Hurley, Taxpayers Union Investigative Lead said:

“RNZ reported the Metro Plaza demolition at just $1.1 million, only a quarter of the actual cost. When the public-facing figure is that far off, it points to a serious transparency failure."

"Ratepayers shouldn’t have to dig through long-term plan workshops or file information requests just to find out what they’re paying for.”

“This is a classic example of a ‘nice-to-have,’ spending millions to turn the stream into a city focal point after the last council hit the New Plymouth District with a 37.73 percent rates hike."

“It seems the council's bureaucrats were prioritising pet projects like renaming parks, removing cars from the city centre, and co-governance arrangements in this strategy ahead of front-footing this information to the people paying the bills.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the Ministry for Regulation’s new report The State of New Zealand’s Regulatory Systems, saying it confirms what taxpayers and businesses have long suspected: New Zealand’s public service has become an tangle of regulators, legislation, and bureaucracy.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tory Relf, said:

“The challenge now is whether the Government act on it under their plans for the public service, or whether this becomes just another report gathering dust.”

“Having at least 267 organisations involved in regulation is an obscene number for a country of New Zealand’s size, and shows just how far the Wellington bureaucracy has been allowed to sprawl. Even ministerial oversight has become absurd, with Simeon Brown alone responsible for 32 regulatory organisations across his portfolios. ”

“The creation of MCERT must learn from the mistakes of MBIE. Mergers should eliminate duplication, simplify legislation, have clear Ministerial responsibility and reduce staffing numbers - not simply create even larger bureaucratic empires.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the appointment of Mr Raveen Jaduram as Chair of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, saying his infrastructure experience is exactly what FENZ needs to get its capital planning and spending under control.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tory Relf, said:

“Raveen Jaduram has spent more than three decades managing major infrastructure, making sure public assets are properly planned, maintained, and delivered. That is precisely the background FENZ needs.”

“Minister van Velden has rightly put the focus on active governance of FENZ’s fire appliance investment, including a clear multi-year pipeline that matches operational need with affordability and value for money. Mr Jaduram’s infrastructure background should help bring the planning discipline, spending control, and accountability FENZ has been missing.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has today released Back to Black: A plan to rebuild New Zealand’s public finances before it’s too late.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Seeing as Finance Minister Nicola Willis appeared to enjoy our A Pathway to Surplus report enough to bring it along to HYEFU, act on our Fees Free recommendation, and announce a reduction in bureaucrat numbers, we thought it only fair to provide her with an updated edition.”

“Back to Black gives the Minister a practical, oven-ready plan to stop the debt spiral and get the books back into surplus.”

“New Zealand is drowning in red ink. Debt has blown out from $46 billion in 2008 to $291 billion today, and is forecast to hit $363 billion by 2030.”

“The report identifies $14.11 billion in savings next year, enough to wipe out the forecast $13.9 billion deficit and deliver a $210 million surplus. That includes $4.5 billion from better-targeted welfare, $930.6 million from ending corporate welfare, $782 million from tertiary education reform, and $639.4 million from cutting duplicated demographic ministries.”

“Across the forecast period, the report identifies $59.29 billion in savings, plus $104.49 billion in possible asset sales to reduce debt and cut interest costs.”

“This is not austerity. It is fiscal common sense. Every dollar wasted on interest payments, bloated bureaucracy, and political pet projects is a dollar that cannot go toward hospitals, schools, police, or tax relief.”

“You don’t have to agree with every proposal. But pretending the current path is sustainable is no longer an option.”

“The path back to black is clear. What is missing is political will.”

Back to Black: A plan to rebuild New Zealand’s public finances before it’s too late is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/back_to_black.

 

Chris Hipkins calls Labour’s Future Fund a ‘cornerstone' policy, but Labour can’t answer basic questions like how many jobs it will create, what it will cost, or even which assets would be dumped into it.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“If Labour doesn’t know what assets are going in, how many jobs it creates, or what the numbers look like, how are voters supposed to know whether they can afford it? This is not some minor detail buried in the fine print. It is the whole policy.”

“First it was commercial sensitivity, now it is Treaty obligations. Labour keeps changing the excuse, but the problem is the same: they want voters to sign the cheque before seeing the bill.”

“New Zealanders know Labour like to tax more and spend more. The least they can do is be upfront about the cost before asking voters to trust them with the country’s credit card.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ target to reduce the public service to 55,000, saying it is a win for taxpayers – but that next week’s Budget must keep the same pressure.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Cutting the public service headcount is a big win for taxpayers. At long last, Minister Willis is putting some backbone into the books.

“But 55,000 must be the halfway mark, not the finish line. When National left office in 2017, the public service sat at around 47,000 FTEs - if that was enough then, it should be enough now.”

“The proof of the pudding will be in the eating: public service numbers must actually fall. But between last week’s decision to scrap Fees Free and today’s target to shrink the public service, it’s clear Minister Willis has been reading A Pathway to Surplus.”

“This is a step toward surplus, but taxpayers should not have to wait until the end of the decade for the books to balance. Next week’s Budget needs to go further and cut harder across the board to bring the books back to black.”

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that disgraced Waikato Regional Councillor Robert Cookson – one of the so-called ‘Rates Control Team’ who u-turned on his pre-election pledge just six months into the job – has put himself forward for selection to stand as a New Zealand First candidate.

Jordan Williams, a spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Union, said:

“Robert Cookson is a man in politics for pure self-interest. He’s proven to voters his contempt for democracy by failing to keep his word. And now that he's cooked his goose in local government, he's greasing up to NZ First for another gig.”

“Unlike the Rates Control Team, NZ First is a party of conviction and integrity. NZ First must not let this turncoat sneak into the party.”

“The Taxpayers’ Union would certainly ensure local voters are aware of Mr Cookson’s record in local government should he run for Parliament. The billboards would write themselves.”

New Taxpayers’ Union-Curia polling shows NZ First voters overwhelmingly prefer a National-led Government over a Labour-led alternative, with only one in ten wanting Winston Peters to go left after the election.

As part of this month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll of 1,000 New Zealanders, respondents were asked whether they would prefer the next Government to be National-led or Labour-led.

Overall, 42 percent of voters preferred a National-led Government, compared with 40 percent who preferred a Labour-led Government. A further 18 percent were unsure.

But among those who indicated they would vote NZ First, the result was clear: 56 percent said they wanted a National-led Government, while just 10 percent wanted a Labour-led Government. The remaining 34 percent were unsure.

The Poll also asked voters who they think NZ First would go with if the party holds the balance of power after the election.

Overall, 43 percent of voters thought NZ First would go with National, 27 percent thought they would go with Labour, and 30 percent were unsure.

Among NZ First voters, two-thirds (66 percent) expect the party to go with National, compared with 19 percent who said Labour and 15 percent who were unsure.

Commenting on the results, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Unlike previous elections, it appears NZ First voters aren’t sitting on the fence. The results send a very clear message: NZ First voters see the Party as part of a centre-right governing arrangement and they want to keep it that way.”

Responding to the speech this afternoon by Winston Peters where he announced a policy to buy back the Bank of New Zealand, Hon. Ruth Richardson, Chair of the Taxpayers’ Union, said:

“The last time the Crown was the majority owner of the Bank of New Zealand, it nearly sent us bankrupt. Now Winston Peters wants to do it all over again 30 years later. It’s not a serious idea, it’s a bankruptcy of thinking.”

“Time and time again government-owned banks cost taxpayers dearly. Mr Peters’ policy would be forgivable only in the 1960s.”

“Borrowing to buy a bank when credit ratings agencies are already putting New Zealand on watch for unsustainable debt is a counterproductive contribution to the challenges facing New Zealand’s public finances.”

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that a taxpayer-funded $1.07 million cowshed upgrade in Taranaki is expected to sustain just 1.8 ongoing jobs.

Documents released under the Official Information Act request show the project received $900,000 in loan funding through the Government’s Regional Infrastructure Fund, despite only $120,000 in co-funding from Omuturangi 6E & 7A Ahu Whenua Trust. Large parts of the application, financial analysis, loan terms, risk assessment, and decision-making material of the loan have also been withheld.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Rhys Hurley said:

"The Government sold this as a productivity story, yet taxpayers are being used as the bank for a private cowshed upgrade that creates fewer than two ongoing jobs.”

“If this project stacks up commercially, why couldn’t the trust get a loan from a bank like they have before? And if it doesn’t stack up, why are taxpayers being asked to carry the risk?”

“Farmers across Taranaki would love help upgrading their cowsheds, but they are stuck paying rates, taxes, interest, and compliance costs. They don’t get to send the bill to Wellington.”

“The Government needs to explain why this loan was approved, what risks taxpayers are exposed to, and how many more low-value projects are hiding behind blacked-out OIA documents. Otherwise, this simply looks like another case of pork barrel politics.”

Responding to the Prime Minister’s pre-Budget speech, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Christopher Luxon is talking about fiscal responsibility while announcing nearly $3,780 per household in additional government spending.”

“A $2.1 billion operating package is not restraint - it is still $2.1 billion more spending. And increasing the capital package to $5.7 billion, when December’s Budget Policy Statement had it at $3.5 billion, is a $1,065-per-household blowout before Budget Day has even arrived.”

“If the Government is serious about getting debt down and returning to surplus, this should be a ‘zero Budget’ with no new net spending, like John Key’s 2011 Budget. Every dollar of new spending should be matched by a dollar of savings.”

National have seen a small uptick in support in the latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll, while both ACT and New Zealand First have taken a hit. The Coalition continues to be able to form a Government on these numbers.

The poll sees National up 0.2 points to 30.0 percent, while Labour is down 1.5 points to 31.9 percent. New Zealand First drops 1.9 points to 11.7 percent, while the Greens gain 1.9 points to 9.7 percent. 

ACT drops 2.5 points to 6.5 percent, while Te Pāti Māori gains 1.5 points to 4.1%.
 
Headline results and more information about the methodology can be found on the Taxpayers’ Union’s website at www.taxpayers.org.nz/maypoll_2026tucur

For the minor parties, TOP is at 2.8 percent, New Conservatives are at 0.8 percent, Outdoors and Freedom Party is on 0.5 percent, and Vision NZ is on 0.3 percent.
 
This month’s results are compared to the last Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll conducted in April 2026, available at www.taxpayers.org.nz/easter_26_poll
 
The combined projected seats for the 'Government Bloc' (National, ACT, New Zealand First) is down 3 to 62 seats. The 'Opposition Bloc' (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori) is up 3 to 58.

Labour drops 1 seat to 41, while National gains 2 to 39. New Zealand First drops 2 to 15, while the Greens gain 2 to 12. ACT drops 3 to 8, and Te Pāti Māori gains 2 to 5.

In the Preferred Prime Minister ranking, Luxon gains 1.0 point to 21.5 percent. Hipkins drops 2.7 points to 19.0 percent. Peters drops 0.5 points to 11.6 percent, Swarbrick drops 2.0 points to 5.4 percent, and Seymour drops 0.7 points to 3.9%.

Commenting on the results, Taxpayers’ Union Spokesperson Tory Relf said:

"National may be breathing a sigh of relief, but there's still only a hair's breadth between the left and right blocs, and barely a few percentage points between Kiwis' preferred Prime Ministers."

"The final Budget before the election is only a few weeks away. It will be make-or-break for the Government."

"Unsurprisingly cost of living and the economy remain Kiwis' top concerns. With the fuel crisis still dragging growth down, the Government needs to announce serious plans to right-size the state and get the country growing again."

Hi,

Look, I'll be first to admit the Taxpayers' Union can be a little critical of the current Government, but in today's Taxpayer Update, it's nothing but kudos for Nicola Willis, Winston Peters, and Christopher Bishop. 🥰

This month's Taxpayers' Union-Curia Poll is out, an update on the ratbagu-turning regional councillors in the Waikato, and the biggest change to Palmerston North's Alcohol ("Councillor lounge") Rules in a generation...

Oh, and local council amalgamation – we ask the question: Is bigger necessarily better? 🤔

Fiscal Reality bites: Luxon gets serious about upping the retirement age 👵🏼

Regular readers will know that thanks to the aging population, the second fastest area of government spending is NZ Superannuation (the fastest growing spend is [checks notes] interest on government debt). This path we are on is not sustainable, the fiscal reckoning is coming – the more we delay, the harder the hangover.

So Christopher Luxon's grasping of the fiscal mettle and announcement that the National Party will go into this year's election on a policy of raising the Superannuation age is refreshing.

NZ Super: some facts 🆘

Universal Superannuation currently costs about five percent of the total economy – more than the cost of education, justice, and defence combined – and is projected to hit eight percent by 2065.

But the real story is illustrated by the dependency ratio: in the 1980s, there were seven workers to every Super recipient. It's 4:1 now – and forecast to be just 2:1 by 2060.

Even Labour acknowledge that's not a sustainable trend and is mooting the idea of means testing*. 

Make no mistake, no credible economic analysis sees the superannuation settings staying the same if the Government is to remain solvent. It's a question of when to make changes, not if.

But until now, both Labour and National have been pretty half hearted in leading the discussion while in Government (both have been far more willing to have the honest conversation with voters while in Opposition)

But, thanks to Christopher Luxon, the National Party is acknowledging the elephant in the room.

Even small changes make a big difference: A raise in the recipient age, from 65 to 68 (in line with the UK) and the pinning of increases to inflation only (rather than the average wage) would make a hugedifference, keeping Super costs to roughly the current percent of GDP.

The earlier we settle this debate, the better those who are not yet of retirement age have certainty and can plan. We say well done to Mr Luxon.

* A quick note on means testing: Reasonable minds can differ, and while an option to lower the cost, it's not one we favour. One of the economic advantages New Zealand has is a very high workforce participation rate for our over 65s. Means testing would likely see that fall away, as well as creating an incentive for people not to save for retirement, which is what we need to encourage.

Fees Free-free Budget? Costly Ardern policy on scrapheap 🗑️

And in a sign that the Luxon Government is getting serious about cutting back on unaffordable hangovers from the Ardern-era – Winston Peters has u-turned on one of the signature Policies of his Ardern-led Government when he let slip on Friday that the Fees Free programme faces the chop in this month's Budget.

Better late than never.

Your humble Taxpayers’ Union was warning about this policy from day one. Literally. We published  Robin Hood Reversed back in August 2017, just hours after Ardern launched her policy (and just a few months before NZ First put Labour into office).

In the Briefing Paper, we made the simple point: Fees Free was never going to be a serious solution to educational disadvantage and we pointed out that the same policy in Scotland had resulted in fewertertiary students and more inequality in who was accessing universities.

And, well, we told you so!

The Government's own boffins now admit that Labour's 'Fees Free' policy had “no impact on [...] learner participation and access"; "no noticeable effect on general participation in tertiary study"; and even concluded that "learner behaviour is not generally influenced by tuition fees”.

Coming from the university sector's own bureaucracy, it's damning.

Fees Free is an expensive middle-class handout, paid for by blue collar and low-income taxpayers. Taxpayers are already subsidising more than 80 percent of the costs of a tertiary education. By definition, those at varsity are likely to be the high income earners of tomorrow. 

Our on-campus group, Generation Screwed, put it well in their comments to media:

"Support should be targeted toward students who genuinely need it most, rather than expensive universal programmes that leave future taxpayers footing the bill. Young New Zealanders deserve a future they can actually afford, not empty promises that that stick them with costly debt later down the road.”

“While ‘free’ policies sound appealing, young people ultimately end up paying through debt, higher taxes, or weaker economic opportunities,”

The best thing a government can do for future generations is to have no debt. If money saved from scrapping Fees Free sees the deficit reduced, our kids and grandkids are better off.

NEW POLL: Centre-right remain ahead, Luxon returns to preferred PM top-spot 🔵🥇

There’s good news for Mr Luxon in this month’s Taxpayers’ Union-Curiapoll, which sees the current Coalition Government still ahead (although down a little) to 62 seats. The combined seats for the 'Opposition Parties' bloc is up 3 to 58 seats.

Compared to last month, National are up 0.2 points to 30.0 percent, while Labour are down 1.5 points to 31.9 percent. New Zealand First drop 1.9 points to 11.7 percent, while the Greens gain 1.9 points to 9.7 percent. 

ACT drops 2.5 points to 6.5 percent, while Te Pāti Māori gains 1.5 points to 4.1%.

In the Preferred Prime Minister ranking, Luxon gains 1.0 point to 21.5 percent. Hipkins drops 2.7 points to 19.0 percent. Peters drops 0.5 points to 11.6 percent, Swarbrick drops 2.0 points to 5.4 percent, and Seymour drops 0.7 points to 3.9%.

For more information, head over to our website.

Have taxpayers been taken for a ride already on Auckland's CBD Rail Link? 🚇

A lot of taxpayer victories come after hard-fought campaigns, long stretches of public pressure or social media shenanigans. This one was surprisingly quick.

Last week, former boss of the Auckland Rail Link, Sean Sweeney, hit the headlines for declaring the project could have been “half the cost” - and at an estimated $2,663.83 per household, that’s not small change.

Remember, this was the project that was originally a CBD Rail Loop, then just a two-way Link – and now we're told we paid twice what we should have.

Someone needs to ask: "WTF?"

This is why we can't have nice things! 😭 😭 😭

Contrary to the cries of local government about needing more of your money, according to the OECD data, New Zealand actually spends more than most developed countries on infrastructure. We're in the top ten percent of spenders, but the lowest ten percent for 'value for money'!

The issue isn't that we're spending too little, it's that we're not getting bang for buck.

So when we saw this example, James set into motion and immediately – writing to Transport Minister Chris Bishop and publicly demanding a Ministerial inquiry to understand not just whether but why our largest infrastructure project has been so poorly delivered.

If we are to fix the problem, we first have to understand it.

As James put it:

If Dr Sweeney’s claims are accurate, taxpayers deserve clear answers as to why this project cost them
twice what it needed to. With Treasury estimating an infrastructure deficit of $210 billion, there is no
chance of closing the gap without far better cost control.

He called on the Minister to commission a Ministerial Inquiry, and suggested terms of reference.

Well, it's good to know there is at least one Taxpayer Hero in the Beehive because blow me down, with a few hours, James managed to get Minister Bishop to answer the call!

Nice one Bish.

Local government amalgamation is coming... careful what you wish for?

One place Minister Bishop – and Local Government Minister Simon Watts – may have fallen short this week is their apparent faith that 'bigger is better' when it comes to local government.

All the signals point to amalgamation coming for local councils (and not just regional councils), whether communities like it or not...

In the words of Minister Bishop, councils must centralise or “[they] will do it for you.” 

Look, we're hardly cheerleaders for the muppets who run too many of New Zealand's town halls (we leave that to others), but when it comes to amalgamations, the data is far from clear-cut.

Just ask Aucklanders whether the so-called "Super City" has been that grand? The promised savings never eventuated, the post-implementation review still hasn't happened, and good luck getting hold of anyone other than a 'customer service' (ironic) rep on the telephone.

And as shown by our Ratepayers Report league tables last week, some of New Zealand's most efficient councils are actually the smaller ones.

And at least at the smaller councils, you can actually know who is responsible for what, rather than fight with a bureaucracy just to get a hold of someone on the phone. 

Over the weekend, Rhys had a thoughtful piece published by The Post, which is well worth a read (either here on The Post if you have a subscription, or on our website here).

So is amalgamation the value-for-money panacea? Well, the evidence is lacking. As Rhys summarised: 

The Infrastructure Commission (in 2022) examined whether larger councils deliver key services more cheaply [...] it found council size means nothing when it comes to cost efficiency. Performance was basically the same on average.

TDB Advisory’s reports make these same points. Wellington super-city analysis found a case for sharing some costly services, like roading and water. For the other local government functions, sitting at around two-thirds of expenditure, there was little or no evidence of economies of scale.

Their overall conclusion was blunt: “bigger is not necessarily better”.

Better than amalgamation would be tackling the root causes of out-of-control local government: removing the power of general competence would be a start. That would mean going back to the law as it stood before 2002 when councils were only permitted to undertake activities they were charged with (i.e. to focus on the basics) rather than determine for themselves what activities they involve themselves in.

Or perhaps, Watts could bring his rates cap now to bring council spending under control, rather than waiting until the end of the decade (and letting councils hike in the meantime).

And reforms to improve the quality of governance, oversight, and transparency (more to come on that in the coming days)...

Instead, bigger councils – with their bigger bureaucracies and oversized budgets – are like using a wrecking ball to hit a nail when there’s a perfectly good hammer in the toolbox.

Win for transparency: MBIE share more info on fuel shipments 🚢⛽️

After weeks of lobbying, letters, calling out MBIE and even a meeting between the Taxpayers' Union and MBIE's CEO, a win this week in MBIE finally providing the names of the ships carrying fuel to New Zealand as part of their twice-weekly 'fuel supply updates'.

Linking with real-time marine tracking tools, this change means that FuelClock.nz is even more accurate.

MBIE didn't want to release this data. For six weeks, MBIE have claimed the information is 'commercially sensitive'  – which was always nonsense. The fact is that we can now know - immediately - should a fuel ship turn around on the water (rather than having the information 'managed' – i.e. delayed and spun – by the Beehive.

Keep an eye on the ships at FuelClock.nz ⛽️

Update on Waikato Regional Council 'turncoats' 👋

Finally, this week, an update on the two Waikato Regional Councillors who broke their Rates Control Team 'Pledge' to exit the Council from the anti-ratepayer sock-puppet lobby group Local Government New Zealand. 

First, there was some confusion following Jordan's update - not all the members of the "Rates Control Group" broke their Pledge. The voting breakdown was:

The local media have been pretty brutal (and rightly so).

Update on Sir Les Paterson (Palmerston North Mayoral edition) 

In last week's Taxpayer Update Jordan highlighted the errr, generous, entertainment spending of Palmerston North Mayor Grant Smith.

To recap, the Mayor was (to put it in the words of our source) "f*&ken furious" that a fellow councillor had exposed the Mayor for sucking back a grand a month of ratepayer-funded booze, plus much more coded as "Mayoral hospitality" on the expense card.

Before your humble Taxpayers' Union took to it, the Mayor was claiming it was all badly needed for the Council's "international relations" and "diplomacy" (yes, seriously!).

How attitude can change with a little bit of publicity... 

This week, we spotted a very interesting agenda item – a motion put onto the Agenda by non-other than Mayor Smith: to call closing time on the Councillor's [drinking] Lounge.

We now have the Minutes, and the Mayor's motion passed unanimously (and Mayor Smith is now claiming virtue from teetotallers).

But things don't go unnoticed by your humble Taxpayers' Union...

We went back and had a look at the last time the Palmerston North City Council voted on its (very) "local" alcohol policy...

Back in November 2022, a vote on a motion to stop the Council from reimbursing staff and elected officials for booze was defeated by one vote!

The deciding vote against?  One Mayor Smith...

Cheers to transparency! 🥂

Decision to terminate Taxpayers' Union membership - a note from the Chair 🗳️

While this sort of missive is normally reserved for members only, given the wider interest from supporters, we have published on our website our Chair's email to Members on the Board's decision here.

If you are not a member of the Taxpayers' Union (this email goes to our full 'supporter' list), you can join up here. Membership allows you to attend our AGM, other gatherings, and provide feedback to guide the work of our union.

➡️ Join the Taxpayers' Union ✊

Thank you for your support, and enjoy the rest of your week.

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that the Ministry of Social Development paid taxpayer-funded bonuses exclusively to Public Service Association members before their collective agreement had even been signed by the union. An Official Information Act request revealed 5,459 FTE received the $300 member-only benefit, costing taxpayers $1,637,700.

Taxpayers’ Union Lead Investigator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Among other bonuses for Te Reo capability and overtime allowances sits Clause 2.8.1, the ‘Lump Sum Payment': a union-favouritism clause dressed up as a good-faith benefit for union members but funded by taxpayers.”

“MSD paid out the more than $1.6 million to PSA members before the union had even signed the agreement, following a similar Health NZ deal earlier this year.”

“Only in the public service would a payout that effectively leaves taxpayers funding union membership fees even make it out of bargaining, let alone be paid out before any agreement had even been signed.”

“If the Ministry wants to hand out special payments to union members, then the responsible Minister should be signing off these agreements and justifying them personally.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement that National will campaign on lifting the Super age, saying it is a sensible step toward getting the books back in order.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“The Prime Minister has clearly recognised that, with government debt approaching $300 billion by the election, the current path is unsustainable. Lifting the Super age is one of the difficult but necessary decisions needed to protect taxpayers and restore fiscal discipline.”

“But he doesn't need to wait until November. There needs to be this kind of ambition in this month's Budget. For more ideas on how the Government can return to surplus, Ministers should read our A Pathway to Surplus report.”

A Pathway to Surplus is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/a_pathway_to_surplus

Responding to reports that Waitaki District Council considered but rejected consulting ratepayers on a 9 percent rates increase option, instead only presenting options of 19-45 percent, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Waitaki ratepayers have already been smashed with a 34.8 percent rates hike over the last three years, now they are being asked to choose between increases of 19, 27, or 45 percent. While budget adjustments are unavoidable in Waitaki in order to fulfil their water delivery requirements, efficiencies could still be found elsewhere. It’s not mandated that they have to increase rates, it’s mandated that they have to invest more in their water infrastructure."

"Even so, the real scandal is that Council apparently knew there was still a lower option and chose not to put it to the public. According to unconfirmed minutes reported by the Otago Daily Times, the reason was that ‘the 9% increase might be more popular with the community but would leave less financial flexibility’. In other words: don’t ask ratepayers, because they might pick the cheaper option.”

“Minister Watts cannot keep pretending this is a problem for 2029. He has created exactly the wrong incentive. By announcing a rates cap but delaying it until 2029, he has effectively told councils to get their hikes in now. If the Minister is serious about protecting ratepayers, he should bring the cap forward and stop councils using the next three years as a last-chance spending spree."

“The Taxpayers’ Union will be writing to Minister Watts inviting him onto Taxpayer Talk to defend why ratepayers should wait until 2029 while councils like Waitaki race to lock in double-digit hikes.”

Responding to revelations today that the ex-CEO of Auckland’s City Rail Link thinks the expected $5.5 billion final cost could have been halved, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson, Tory Relf, said “if even remotely accurate, such a waste of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money warrants a full inquiry into how public funds were used.”

“International statistics show that New Zealand has a high per capita infrastructure spend but delivers very poor results. The City Rail Link project exemplifies this problem. Over-specification, gold-plating and scope changes kill efficient procurement and construction of infrastructure assets and this appears to be exactly what has happened here. No wonder costs blew out and it took so long to build.”

“The Taxpayers’ Union believes the waste of public funds on this project is so great that a full inquiry and accounting of the excess costs must be undertaken. We have written to the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, calling for a full ministerial inquiry into what is increasingly looking like a gross misuse of public funds."

Reacting to report in The Post revealing KiwiRail’s ferry project’s $14.4 million consultant spend, including $1 million on recruitment services alone, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tyler Groenewald said:

“$14.4 million on consultants and not a single ferry to show for it is the definition of a project that’s run aground before a single hull has even hit the water.”

“KiwiRail have spent nearly $1 million on recruitment alone; taxpayers are paying for consultants to find people to hire more consultants, while the actual ferries remain nowhere in sight.”

“The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Ombudsman to release the full list of consultant contracts immediately. Taxpayers deserve to know exactly who’s cashing in on this slow-motion shipwreck.”

“Taxpayers have totally been taken for a ride. Until someone drops anchor on this spending spree, taxpayers will keep footing the fare for a voyage to nowhere.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the Government’s decision to disestablish the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) as the first step toward reducing unnecessary bureaucracy.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“This is exactly the sort of quango reduction taxpayers voted for. One less bureaucracy, one less board, and one less layer of administration standing between taxpayers and value for money.”

“Ministers need to keep going. There are still far too many agencies, from the Outdoor Access Commission to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, that have outlived their original purpose but continue consuming taxpayer money.” 

 

Ratepayers’ Report 2026: Council League Tables Launched by Taxpayers’ Union

Council Payroll Blowout: Big Five Spend $1.3 Billion on Staff

 

Auckland Council

Bay of Plenty

Canterbury

Gisborne

Hawke’s Bay

Manawatū-Whanganui

Northland

Otago

Southland

Taranaki

Top of the South

Waikato

Wellington

West Coast

 

Ratepayers’ Report FAQs are available here

West Coast weather cost storm; Buller bureaucracy and Westland outsourcing raise concerns. 

Councils on the West Coast are facing mounting cost pressures that are being passed directly onto households, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s league table 2026 Ratepayers’ Report. Across the region, West Coast ratepayers are weathering the perfect storm of bureaucratic and debt-servicing costs. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“The West Coast faces unique challenges, from isolation to infrastructure demands, making efficient spending critical. But the Ratepayers’ Report shows some councils are struggling to keep costs under control.” 

“Rates across the region range from $2,703 in Grey to $3,090 in Buller. While a relatively small gap of $387, beneath that consistency lies significant variation in how councils are spending ratepayer money.” 

“Buller District Council also stands out for bureaucracy, with 35 percent of staff working in management or communications roles, more than a third of the workforce in non-frontline positions. Ratepayers should be concerned about this level of bureaucracy.” 

“Westland District Council stands out with the highest debt in the region at $7,738 per household, alongside staffing costs of $1,494 per household and up to 15 staff per 1,000 households. Painting a picture of small councils facing big cost pressures, but too often relying on outsourcing and administration rather than efficiency.” 

“In a region where the ratepayer base is limited, every dollar counts. Councils must ensure spending is tightly controlled and focused squarely on delivering essential services. Hence why the Taxpayers' Union supports a rates cap now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

West Coast Councils: 

• Buller District Council 

• Grey District Council 

• West Coast Regional Council 

• Westland District Council 

Four Wellington councils rank in the highest ten residential rates; Porirua and Wellington City claim top two spots. 

Councils in the Wellington region are leaving ratepayers with some of the most unaffordable rates in the country, as revealed by the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report. The local government league tables reveal that ratepayers in Porirua and Wellington City lead the pack in rates bills nationwide, and Carterton District and South Wairarapa District Councils also feature in the top ten. 

 Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Of the ten councils with the highest average residential rates, four are from Wellington; including the top two. At $5,591 Porirua City Council claims the largest average rates bill in the country, followed closely by Wellington City Council at $5,094. Carterton District Council ($4,771) and South Wairarapa District Council ($4,494) also rank. Masterton District Council is the lowest in the region, with residential rates averaging $3,378.” 

“With the highest staffing costs per household ($2,044), and consultant and contracting costs per household ($5,668), Porirua City Council is severely letting down its ratepayers. With 32 percent of their staff working in management or communications, Porirua’s high rates do not justify their high staffing costs, instead suggesting at a large level of bloated bureaucracy.” 

“The region also claims some of the worst spenders on payments to lobby groups. Hutt City Council ($505,226), Wellington City Council ($347,799), and Greater Wellington Regional Council ($339,286) all rank among the top ten highest payments. These are voluntary payments to groups such as Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and Taituara – Local Government Professionals Aotearoa.” 

“With some of the highest rates in the country, ratepayers from the Wellington region may wish to question whether their rates feel valued. With failing water systems, lobby group overspending, and bloated bureaucracies, the Taxpayers' Union urges the region to cap rates now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

  

Wellington Councils: 

• Carterton District Council 

• Greater Wellington Regional Council 

• Hutt City Council 

• Kapiti Coast District Council 

• Masterton District Council 

• Porirua City Council 

• South Wairarapa District Council 

• Upper Hutt City Council 

• Wellington City Council 

Waikato ratepayers squeezed like grapes; Hamilton debt and widening rates gap leave a sour taste. 

Councils across the Waikato – one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing regions, driven by expansion in Hamilton and surrounding districts – are passing rising costs onto ratepayers through higher debt, increasing staffing, and expanding bureaucracies, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Waikato is a region experiencing rapid population growth and development, but the Ratepayers’ Report shows that this growth is being accompanied by significant financial pressure on households.” 

“Rates across the region vary dramatically – from $2,554 in Ōtorohanga to $4,410 in Waikato District – a gap of $1,856. That’s the third-largest spread within a single region in the country.” 

“Hamilton City Council is driving the region’s debt burden, with debt reaching $18,058 per household. That level of debt raises serious questions about long-term affordability for ratepayers in one of New Zealand’s growing key urban centres.” 

“Hauraki District Council stands out for staffing intensity, with costs of $2,273 per household and up to 22 full-time staff per 1,000 households – well above what many ratepayers would expect for a district of its size.” 

“Meanwhile, Thames-Coromandel District Council’s reliance on consultants and contractors ($1,413 per household) and annual payments to lobby groups ($186,466) points to increasing outsourcing rather than efficient in-house delivery.” 

“Waikato District Council also raises red flags, with nearly a third of staff – 31 percent – working in management or communications roles. That level of bureaucracy is difficult to justify when ratepayers are already facing rising costs.” 

“In a region that plays a critical role in agriculture, infrastructure, and regional growth, councils must ensure that spending is disciplined and focused on core services. To ensure so, the Taxpayers' Union is calling on a rates cap now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Waikato Councils: 

• Hamilton City Council 

• Hauraki District Council 

• Matamata-Piako District Council 

• Ōtorohanga District Council 

• South Waikato District Council 

• Taupō District Council 

• Thames-Coromandel District Council 

• Waikato District Council 

• Waikato Regional Council 

• Waipā District Council 

• Waitomo District Council 

Top of the South’s sunny image at a cost; Nelson rates and Tasman debt bearing down on ratepayers. 

The three councils across the Top of the South are imposing rising financial burdens on ratepayers through higher rates, growing debt, and expanding council operations, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report council league tables. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“While the Top of the South markets itself as a desirable place to live and visit, the Ratepayers’ Report shows that this comes with a growing cost for local households.” 

“Residential rates across the region range from averages of $3,828 in Marlborough to $4,650 in Nelson, with Nelson City Council claiming the fifth-highest residential rates across the country. These are significant costs for ratepayers in smaller, tourism-dependent communities.” 

“Tasman District Council stands out across multiple measures for all the wrong reasons, having the highest numbers across the Top of the South region in debt ($14,312 per household), staffing costs ($1,602 per household), and 28 percent of staff in management or communications roles. With figures like these, Tasman need to be doing better by their ratepayers.” 

“Even in a smaller region, these figures point to a normalised culture of high rates and councils expanding their operations while passing the costs directly onto ratepayers. Whether it’s debt, staffing, or bureaucracy, households are being asked to bear the burden of their council’s mismanagement. In regions built on tourism and small business, all councils must especially ensure spending is controlled and prioritised on core services – not absorbed by office growth. To incentivise such prioritisation, the Taxpayers' Union backs an immediate rates cap.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Top of the South Councils: 

• Marlborough District Council 

• Nelson City Council 

• Tasman District Council 

Taranaki boasts some of the lowest rates; refusal to disclose high salaries in Stratford District and Taranaki Regional concerns transparency. 

Councils across Taranaki may be charging some of the lowest rates in the North Island, but concerns are mounting over transparency and accountability, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 council league tables, Ratepayers’ Report. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“The issue of transparency is highlighted by both Stratford District and Taranaki Regional Council’s refusing to disclose how many staff are paid more than $200,000. New Plymouth reported 8 and South Taranaki 4 full-time staff on more than $200,000 per year. That lack of disclosure puts these councils out of step with basic expectations of public sector accountability.” 

“On the rates front, the region charges the lowest in the North Island, with a $3,502 average. This is beaten nationally only by Southland and the West Coast.”  

“Ratepayers should be concerned about the lack of transparency in the region. Combined with soaring debt levels, that secrecy makes it even harder for Taranaki residents to hold their councils accountable.”  

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

  

Taranaki Councils:  

• New Plymouth District Council 

• South Taranaki District Council 

• Stratford District Council 

• Taranaki Regional Council 

Southland ratepayers haul a light load of debt; Gore’s high costs weigh heaviest at the bottom of the country. 

Gore District Council tops costs at the bottom of the country, but Southland ratepayers haul the country's lightest load of debt, as revealed by the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report council league tables. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Southland may already be known for its fantastical landscapes and tourism-driving tramps, but now the Ratepayers’ Report shows locals shoulder the lightest load in debt per household ($7,435 average) than any other region in the country. Average residential rates range from $2,894 in Invercargill to $3,712 in Gore, a relatively similar rate in comparison to other regions.”  

“However, Gore District Council stands out across nearly every metric, with debt reaching $10,033 per household, staffing costs of $1,805 per household, and up to 19 staff per 1,000 households. These are large numbers for the bottom of the country. Gore also leads the region in consultant spending ($492 per household) adding further pressure on ratepayers in a small district.” 

“These figures highlight that even when debt is light, costs are not. For a region built on agriculture, tourism, industry, and resilience, councils have the responsibility to ensure spending choices deliver real value to the communities footing the bill. The Taxpayers' Union urges a rates cap now to fulfil that.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Southland Councils: 

• Environment Southland 

• Gore District Council 

• Invercargill City Council 

• Southland District Council 

Otago ratepayers crushed by debt; extreme rates divide between Queenstown Lakes and Clutha District. 

 The Taxpayers’ Union’s Ratepayers’ Report, released today, reveals Otago region is home to the highest per-household council debt in the country. Queenstown Lakes owes nearly $30,000 per household in debt, while the Otago region faces one of the widest rates gaps in the country. 

The full council league tables are available at RatepayersReport.nz. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“The Ratepayers’ Report is a series of league table allowing Kiwis to compare their local council’s performance and financial position against others. The report provides transparency for ratepayers across Otago.” 

“Otago ratepayers are carrying some of the heaviest debt burdens in the country, with the region ranking third overall. Queenstown Lakes District Council stands out, with debt hitting a more than $28,000 per household. Queenstown locals are also paying sky-high rates, averaging $4,848 per household, compared to just $2,678 in Clutha District. At a 181 percent difference, that one of the largest gaps within a single region anywhere in New Zealand – second only to Wellington.” 

“The Ratepayers’ Report reveals a region where ratepayers are being squeezed from every angle: high debt, high rates, and growing financial pressure. When Dunedin City Council has more than 40 percent of staff on six-figure salaries, and the region has some of the highest staffing costs nationally per household, serious questions need to be asked about spending priorities.” 

“With costs this high, Otago ratepayers deserve confidence that every dollar is being spent wisely. Right now, the numbers suggest otherwise, which implies the significance of capping rates now” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Otago Councils:

• Central Otago District Council 

• Clutha District Council 

• Dunedin City Council 

• Otago Regional Council 

• Queenstown Lakes District Council 

• Waitaki District Council 

Northland councils remain north of financial responsibility; high costs hide behind narrow rates gap between Whangārei and Far North. 

At the top of the country, councils across Northland are showing signs of financial strain, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 council league tables, the Ratepayers’ Report. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Northland stands out for having the smallest average residential rates gap within any region of the country, households paying the lowest in Whangārei ($3,113) and highest in Far North ($3,276) – the slim difference only being $163.” 

“While rates may appear consistent, the underlying cost pressures tell a different story.” 

“Whangārei District Council carries the highest debt in the region at $7,140 per household. While Far North District Council leads on staffing costs ($1,199 per household) and its heavy reliance on consultants (spending $1,784 per household) create significant costs for a district with a relatively small ratepayer base.” 

“Kaipara District Council raises concerns around bureaucracy, with almost a third of staff – 32 percent – working in either management or communications roles. That’s a large share of back-office functions for a small council.” 

“These figures show that while Northland councils may present a more uniform picture on rates, ratepayers are still facing high costs through staffing, outsourcing, and administration. In a region prone to environmental disasters where economic development and infrastructure are ongoing challenges, councils must ensure every dollar is being spent carefully and efficiently for the future. To encourage such behaviour, the Taxpayers' Union backs an immediate rates cap on all councils.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Northland Councils: 

• Far North District Council 

• Kaipara District Council 

• Northland Regional Council 

• Whangārei District Council 

Manawatū–Whanganui faces rising costs; Horowhenua’s debt and bureaucracy should raise alarms for ratepayers. 

Councils across Manawatū–Whanganui are placing increasing financial pressure on households through rising debt, staffing, and outsourcing costs, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 league table, Ratepayers’ Report. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“While Manawatū–Whanganui is known for its strong agricultural base and tight-knit communities, the Ratepayers’ Report shows ratepayers are not immune from the cost pressures facing councils across the country.” 

“Rates across the region range from $3,440 in Rangitīkei to $4,402 in Horowhenua. At a gap of nearly $1,000, that’s a significant difference for households in largely provincial areas. Horowhenua District Council stands out again with debt reaching $14,028 per household, alongside nearly 30 percent of staff working in management or communications roles. That combination of high debt and large bureaucracy should raise alarms for ratepayers who deserve efficient services.” 

“Rangitīkei District Council also raises red flags for its reliance on consultants and contractors, with spending reaching $3,564 per household – a level that suggests heavy outsourcing in a small district.” 

“These figures show that even in more rural parts of New Zealand, ratepayers are being asked to fund rising costs across debt, staffing, and external consultants. Councils must refocus on delivering core services efficiently and keeping rates manageable. That is why the Government must cap rates now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Manawatū–Whanganui Councils: 

• Horizons Regional Council 

• Horowhenua District Council 

• Manawatū District Council 

• Palmerston North City Council 

• Rangitīkei District Council 

• Ruapehu District Council 

• Tararua District Council 

• Whanganui District Council 

Hawke’s Bay hit with high debts; Wairoa’s outsourcing costs on consultants and contractors raise alarms. 

Councils across Hawke’s Bay are loading up ratepayers with high costs, rising debt, and heavy reliance on contractors, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report. The league tables highlight significant variation across the region, with Hastings District Council and Wairoa District Council standing out for all the wrong reasons. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Hastings District Council stands out with the highest debt in the region ($14,449 per household), with nearly 29 percent of staff in management or communications roles, ratepayers will be questioning whether this level of bureaucracy is justified.” 

“Wairoa District Council raises serious concerns around its use of consultants and contractors, with spending hitting an extraordinary $12,923 per household. That level of outsourcing is far beyond what most councils in the country are spending and suggests a lack of internal capability or cost control.” 

“Napier City Council also stands out for its staffing footprint, with up to 22 full-time staff per 1,000 households, with at least 169 staff paid at least $100,000 – another indicator of growing council size and cost.” 

“These figures point to a region where ratepayers are being asked to fund high costs across the board, from debt to staffing to outsourcing. The Taxpayers' Union is calling on Hawke’s Bay councils to rein in spending and refocus on delivering core services efficiently, and for rates to be capped now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Hawke’s Bay Councils: 

• Central Hawke’s Bay District Council 

• Hastings District Council 

• Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 

• Napier City Council 

• Wairoa District Council 

Gisborne’s ‘one council’ model fails; high staffing and debt burden ratepayers. 

Gisborne’s unitary council structure is intended to deliver efficiency, but the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 league table Ratepayers’ Report shows ratepayers are still facing significant costs across the board with the council carrying a high staffing cost and nearly $10,000 of debt per household. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Gisborne District Council operates as a unitary authority, meaning it performs both regional and local council functions. In theory, that should streamline costs, but in practice the numbers suggest ratepayers are still burdened.” 

“With an average residential rates bill of $3,786, Gisborne sits firmly in the mid-to-upper range nationally. At the same time, debt levels reach $9,932 per household, a substantial liability for a relatively small population base.” 

“Staffing is another area of concern, with costs of $1,776 per household and around 22 staff per 1,000 households. That’s a high staffing footprint, reflecting the wide scope of responsibilities, but still raising questions about efficiency.” 

“Twenty-two percent of staff are in management or communications roles, pointing to a significant share of resources tied up in administration rather than frontline services. These figures all highlight the reality of a ‘one council’ model; while it may simplify governance on paper, it doesn’t guarantee lower costs for ratepayers. Which they deserve.” 

“In a region facing economic and infrastructure challenges, it’s critical that every dollar is spent carefully and delivers real value to the community. Which is why the Taxpayers' Union supports an immediate rates cap.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz.

Canterbury ratepayers feeling the aftershocks; Christchurch debt and widening cost gaps hit hard. 

Councils across Canterbury are placing increasing financial strain on ratepayers through rising debt, staffing, and outsourcing costs, according to the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report council league tables. 

Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Canterbury has seen significant growth and rebuilding over the past decade, but the Ratepayers’ Report shows that these pressures are translating into higher costs for households right across the region.” 

“There are widening cost gaps across the Canterbury region as rates range from $2,901 in Waimate to $4,307 in Selwyn. Ratepayers will be asking if the services provided in Selwyn are worth the near-50 percent difference.” 

“Christchurch City Council carries the region’s highest debt burden, at $16,462 per household. While much of this reflects earthquake recovery and infrastructure investment, it still represents a significant long-term cost for ratepayers that must be kept in check by reducing other administrative overheads.” 

“Mackenzie District Council’s reliance on consultants and contractors ($2,544 per household) points to heavy outsourcing, while Kaikōura District Council has more than one-in-three staff working in management or communications roles, raising serious questions about bureaucratic overhead and bloat from a council that serves the smallest population in the country.” 

“These figures highlight a region where both fast-growing and smaller councils are grappling with rising costs, but too often passing them directly onto ratepayers. Strong growth should not be an excuse for inefficient spending, the Taxpayers' Union is calling on all councils to rein in, refocus on delivering core services efficiently, and for rates to be capped now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Canterbury Councils: 

• Ashburton District Council 

• Christchurch City Council 

• Environment Canterbury 

• Hurunui District Council 

• Kaikōura District Council 

• Mackenzie District Council 

• Selwyn District Council 

• Timaru District Council 

• Waimakariri District Council 

• Waimate District Council 

Bay of Plenty averages third highest debt per household in the country; Tauranga City Council’s chief among them. 

Tauranga City Council claims the highest debt levels per household in Bay of Plenty – according to the 2026 Ratepayers’ Report – the Taxpayers' Union’s local government league tables, released today and available at RatepayersReport.nz.  

 Taxpayers' Union spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

“Bay of Plenty ratepayers are facing a double hit of rising rates and staggering debt, with the region having on average, the third highest debt per household in the country. Tauranga City Council leads the region with debt per household averaging $22,857.” 

“Across the region, average residential rates range from $3,130 in Kawerau to $4,534 in Tauranga, a gap of more than $1,400 – a significant difference for households already under pressure from the cost of living.” 

“Kawerau District Council raises serious concerns around efficiency. With staffing costs reaching $2,567 per household, 28 full-time staff per 1,000 households, and nearly a third of staff in management or communications roles, ratepayers are right to question whether they’re getting value for money.” 

“Rotorua Lakes Council also stands out for its heavy reliance on consultants and contractors, spending up to $1,621 per household. A figure that suggests councils are increasingly outsourcing, rather than delivering services efficiently in-house.” 

“With high debt, growing bureaucracy, and significant variation in rates across the region, Bay of Plenty ratepayers may well ask what exactly they are getting in return. The Taxpayers' Union is calling on councils to rein in spending, focus on delivering core services efficiently, and implementing a rates cap now.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at RatepayersReport.nz. 

 

Bay of Plenty Councils:

• Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

• Kawerau District Council 

• Ōpōtiki District Council 

• Rotorua Lakes Council 

• Tauranga City Council 

• Western Bay of Plenty District Council 

• Whakatāne District Council 

Auckland’s “Super City” with super-sized costs; ratepayers foot the bureaucracy bill. 

New Zealand’s “Super City” is operating on a scale unparalleled across the country, as the Taxpayers’ Union’s 2026 Ratepayers’ Report league tables reveal the per household cost of Auckland’s massive bureaucracy.   

Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, said: 
 
 

"Auckland Council serves more than 1.8 million people — around a third of New Zealand’s population. With that scale should come serious financial discipline.” 

“Instead, Auckland is running a $693 million council payroll, rising to $1.3 billion once council-controlled organisations are included. That is around $2,000 per household or nearly a third of the average residential rates bill.” 

“The Ratepayers’ Report league tables give ratepayers the chance to judge whether that reflects value for money or bureaucratic bloat.” 

“Auckland Council employs at least 194 staff on more than $200,000 a year, 52 paid more than a minister outside Cabinet, and more than 1,025 staff in management or communications roles. It’s fair to ask if the Council needs that many backroom staff on gold-plated salaries.” 

“With the cost of living and now the fuel crisis hitting households hard, the Taxpayers’ Union is calling for tighter financial discipline and an immediate rates cap on New Zealand’s largest council.” 

Prior to publication, every council were provided their figures for error checking, with requested corrections made. We encourage ratepayers to compare their council for themselves at  RatepayersReport.nz.

What is the purpose of the Ratepayers’ Report?    

The Ratepayers' Report provides accountability and transparency to New Zealand ratepayers by allowing them to compare their local territorial authority with others around the country.    

Where was the data sourced?    

The Taxpayers' Union compiled the data in the Ratepayers' Report from figures obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA), and Annual Reports for the 2024/5 financial year.    

Population, household, and personal income data is taken from the most recent data available from Stats NZ.   

Where did the group finance figures come from?    

Group finance figures are taken from each Council's annual report and LGOIMA requests from councils. They include figures from the council as well as all subsidiary council-controlled organisations (CCOs).   

What about port companies, airports, and multi-council CCOs?  

Consolidated finances are reported as published in annual reports. However, due to the complexity of distributing FTE, we have excluded multi-council CCOs from data on staffing. Staff employed by Port companies and any companies in which councils own a minority stake are excluded because they do not meet the statutory definition of a CCO. While some airports are CCOs, we have decided to exclude these from the dataset due to inconsistency in reporting between councils. 

Why have you reported councils’ gross debt instead of net debt? 

Using gross debt provides a clearer picture of council financial risk because it reflects the total amount councils owe and must service, regardless of how their assets are valued.  

Unlike net debt, which can be reduced on paper by including illiquid or politically constrained assets, gross debt focuses on the real burden placed on ratepayers through interest costs, refinancing risk, and future rates.  

This makes it harder to obscure rising borrowing through accounting treatments or asset revaluations and better aligns with how households and lenders assess risk. 

How did you calculate renewals as a percentage of depreciation, and what does this show? 

The figure is calculated from the amount councils spent on renewals and the amount of depreciation ratepayers funded. This information was obtained under the LGOIMA. 

We report renewals as a percentage of depreciation because it is a simple way to test whether councils appear to be replacing assets at anything like the rate those assets are wearing out. Depreciation in councils’ financial statements is an accounting estimate of asset consumption, not a direct measure of cash spending. By contrast, “depreciation funded” in LGOIMA responses is not a standard audited reporting line and may reflect council-only rather than group figures, partial funding policies, reserve movements, or other capital-funding decisions. Differences between the two should therefore be treated as an indicator for scrutiny, not as stand-alone proof that a council is over- or under-charging ratepayers. 

Which councils are assessed in the Ratepayers' Report?    

Of New Zealand's 78 Councils, 77 are examined in the Ratepayers' Report. That includes all city, district, unitary and regional councils, with the exclusion of the Chatham Islands Council (due to concerns surrounding that Council's workload pressure and unique position). Due to the delayed adoption of an Annual Report, only limited data is available for Buller District Council.   

Is this the first Ratepayers' Report?    

No. The Ratepayers' Report was first published in 2014 jointly by the Taxpayers' Union and Fairfax Media (now Stuff). The Taxpayers’ Union has since published updated versions in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023.  

How are the councils grouped?   

Councils are grouped into 6 different categories (Metropolitan, Provincial, Rural, Unitary Authorities, and Regional).  Metropolitan councils are those with populations exceeding 90,000. Rural councils are those with populations less than 20,000 and provincial councils have populations between 20,000 and 90,000. Regional and unitary councils are defined under the Local Government Act 2002.  

How were the average rates calculated?    

Calculating an 'apples to apples' figure for residential rates presents challenges as councils use various mixes of rates, levies, and user charges. Our approach is based on work by Napier City Council to find an average residential rate. The methodology councils were asked to use to calculate the figures disclosed in the Ratepayers' Report is available here.   

While we think this approach is useful and fair, the average residential and non-residential rate figure should be a guide only.   

Unitary authorities (Auckland Council, Nelson City Council, Gisborne, Tasman, and Marlborough District Councils) perform the functions of a regional council and therefore can be expected to have higher rates than other territorial authorities.    

What are the potential limitations of the Ratepayers’ Report?    

Empty or undeveloped sections are counted as rating units. This means the average residential rates figure for a territory with a high proportion of undeveloped sections, such as Wairoa District Council, may appear relatively low while the actual level of rates levied on an average Wairoa homeowner is likely to be higher.    

Can councils provide feedback on the information supplied?  

Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the data contained in this report. Councils can provide feedback by emailing [email protected]

The 2026 Ratepayers’ Report – the local council league tables – shows that among New Zealand’s biggest urban councils, staffing costs have become a major burden on households.  

While Auckland runs the country’s largest council machine in absolute terms, three other councils stand out for punishingly high staffing costs per household. Tauranga is costing households $2,047 in staff spending alone, Hamilton City $1,955, and Wellington City $1,919. 

Across the five councils, at least 324 council staff are paid more than $200,000 a year, with 88 paid $256,800 - more than a Government minister (outside of cabinet). 

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Josh Van Veen said: 

"At a time when families are cutting back, councils are asking ratepayers to fund ever-larger payrolls and management structures."

"For households feeling the pressure of high rates, these figures confirm exactly what they have long suspected: too much of their money is being swallowed by council staffing costs before a single pothole is filled."

"Wellington, Hamilton, and Tauranga lead the pack on a per-household basis. Auckland may spread its costs across a bigger base, but it still runs a vast bureaucracy that would make even Wellington blush."

"These figures suggest that the idea of 'public service' appears to have disappeared from local government. In some small towns now, the best paid jobs are at the local council. That's not sustainable."

"Local councils often claim that rates hikes are needed to fund infrastructure. But time and time again, the extra money goes on staffing. That is why capping rates to inflation is overdue."
 

NOTABLE FINDINGS 

• Tauranga is the most staffing-expensive of the metro councils on a per-household basis, with staff costs of $2,047 per household. 

• Wellington has the densest workforce, at 19.3 FTE per 1,000 households, and the highest consultant-and-contractor spend per household at $736 per household. 

  • This is 28 percent more than second-placed Hamilton City Council, which spent $575 per household. 
  • Christchurch refused to declare their contractor cost, but spent $72,416,538 on consultants, at $436.20 per household. 

• Hamilton is the most top-heavy structurally, with 26.8 percent of staff in management/comms roles. 

• Auckland ratepayers are not just funding services; they are propping up a bureaucracy with 948 managers and 77 communications staff. 

 

The 2026 Ratepayers’ Report – the local council league tables – shows that among New Zealand’s biggest urban councils, staffing costs have become a major burden on households.  

While Auckland runs the country’s largest council machine in absolute terms, three other councils stand out for punishingly high staffing costs per household. Tauranga is costing households $2,047 in staff spending alone, Hamilton City $1,955, and Wellington City $1,919. 

Across the five councils, at least 324 council staff are paid more than $200,000 a year, with 88 paid $256,800 - more than a Government minister (outside of cabinet). 

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Josh Van Veen said: 

"At a time when families are cutting back, councils are asking ratepayers to fund ever-larger payrolls and management structures."

"For households feeling the pressure of high rates, these figures confirm exactly what they have long suspected: too much of their money is being swallowed by council staffing costs before a single pothole is filled."

"Wellington, Hamilton, and Tauranga lead the pack on a per-household basis. Auckland may spread its costs across a bigger base, but it still runs a vast bureaucracy that would make even Wellington blush."

"These figures suggest that the idea of 'public service' appears to have disappeared from local government. In some small towns now, the best paid jobs are at the local council. That's not sustainable."

"Local councils often claim that rates hikes are needed to fund infrastructure. But time and time again, the extra money goes on staffing. That is why capping rates to inflation is overdue."

 

NOTABLE FINDINGS 

• Tauranga is the most staffing-expensive of the metro councils on a per-household basis, with staff costs of $2,047 per household. 

• Wellington has the densest workforce, at 19.3 FTE per 1,000 households, and the highest consultant-and-contractor spend per household at $736 per household. 

• • This is 28 percent more than second-placed Hamilton City Council, which spent $575 per household. 

• • Christchurch refused to declare their contractor cost, but spent $72,416,538 on consultants, at $436.20 per household. 

• Hamilton is the most top-heavy structurally, with 26.8 percent of staff in management/comms roles. 

• Auckland ratepayers are not just funding services; they are propping up a bureaucracy with nearly 948 managers and 77 communications staff. 

 

The Ratepayers’ Report is available at RatepayersReport.nz

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has released the 2026 edition of the Ratepayers’ Report, New Zealand's local government league tables at RatepayersReport.nz.  

Ratepayers’ Report allows Kiwis to easily compare their local council’s performance and financial position against others across the country. The Report provides transparency for ratepayers, with financial and rates figures presented on a per-household basis for comparisons between councils. It ranks councils on average residential and commercial rates, staffing costs, third-party payments and council liabilities, among other metrics.  

Josh Van Veen, the Taxpayers’ Union Local Government and Senior Policy Analyst, said:  

“Ratepayers’ Report pulls back the curtain on council spending, exposing figures often buried in lengthy annual reports or only uncovered through official information requests. It’s what the insiders often don’t want the public to know.”  

"These league tables show both best-in-class and who is lagging." 

“At a time when households are tightening their belts, many councils are doing the opposite. Rising rates and growing bureaucracies are putting even more pressure on ratepayers.”  

“Ratepayers' Report suggests that too many councils have lost sight of their core role and are focusing on pet projects and back-office expansion. Affordability and value for money continue to fall behind.”  

“Ratepayers deserve better than ever-rising bills and excuses. This report goes some way to provide financial transparency at town halls.”  

“What the Ratepayers’ Report shows clearly is that some councils can do the same job at half the cost to ratepayer. This Report demonstrates why capping rates to inflation is necessary.” 

The Ratepayers’ Report is free and available now at RatepayersReport.nz   

Prior to publication, every council was provided with their figures for error-checking with any requested corrections made. 

Notable Findings  

Residential rates:   

• Residential rates are up $451 from the previous year at an average of $3,386.  

• Porirua City Council has the highest average residential rates, at $5,591, while Ōtorohanga District Council reports the lowest average among the territorial authorities, at $2,554. This is a 119 percent difference.  

• The high average residential rates in urban areas such as Queenstown-Lakes District Council ($4,848) and Tauranga City Council ($4,534) are indicative of rising service demands. On the other hand, significantly lower residential rates are reported by rural councils, such as Clutha District Council ($2,678).  

• Greater Wellington Regional Council has the highest average residential rates of any regional council at $1,028 with Environment Southland having the lowest at $378. This is a 172 percent difference. 

• Environment Canterbury, Horizons Regional Council, and Taranaki Regional Council do not differentiate between residential and non-residential rates.  

• Wellington City Council's average non-residential rate is a staggering $53,258, up 53.7 percent in the last two years. These numbers stand in stark contrast to the lowest non-residential averages in Northland Regional Council at $762, and Horowhenua District Council, the lowest of the territorial authorities at $2,358. 

Van Veen says, "Councils like to claim that higher rates are necessary for ‘good quality services’. But the fact is, some councils are providing the same services for a fraction of the cost. The league tables also lay bare the fact that 'bigger' is not necessarily 'better' or more efficient when it comes to local councils." 

Debt:   

• On average, New Zealand councils owe around 220 percent of their annual rates revenue, up more than fifty points from last year.  

• Queenstown-Lakes District Council has the highest debt per household at $28,312.  

  • Environment Southland has the lowest debt per household at $152.  

• On average, debt owed by councils across New Zealand has increased by $1,140 per household over the last financial year.  

• The national average interest paid is $400 per household.  

• The highest interest bills are paid by Tauranga City Council, equating to $1,844 per household, while Environment Southland paid just $4 per household 

  
  

Van Veen says, "Debt should be only used when a community is getting good quality long-term infrastructure. But it's clear that's not always the case." 

Salaries:   

• The average staffing level in New Zealand is 14.1 staff members for every 1,000 households.  

• Hurunui District Council has the highest staff-to-household ratio at 31.1 per 1,000 households.  Kawerau District Council also has a very high staffing load at 27.7 staff members for every 1,000 households, while Stafford District Council has 23 for every 1,000 households.  

  • Horizons Regional Council has the lowest staff-to-household ratio at 2.8 staff members per 1,000 households.  

• Among the major cities, Wellington City Council employs 1,631 staff or 19 per 1,000 households, and 39.4 percent of its staff are paid over $100,000. Christchurch City Council employs 2,470 FTE staff with a ratio of 15 per 1,000 households, and 41.5 percent of its workforce are paid over $100,000.  

• Wairoa District Council has the highest consultant & contractor spend at $12,923.48 per household. This is 67.8 percent more than Hastings District Council at $7,702.18 per household.  

  • Environment Canterbury has the lowest consultant & contractor spend at $7.21 per household, followed by Kaipara District Council at $13.32 per household.  

• On average across New Zealand, more than one in three council staffers (40.6 percent) are paid over $100,000.  

  • Of these, 780 are paid more than $200,000 and 247 are paid more than a Government Minister (outside of Cabinet – $256,800)  

• 63 councils declared at least one member of staff being paid more than a Minister; 35 of these employed more than one member of staff paid higher than that.  

  • Auckland Council has 52 members of staff paid more than a Minister; Greater Wellington Regional Council pays 16 members of staff this rate or more, Wellington City Council pays 11, and Hamilton City Council 10.  

  • The average manager’s salary is highest at Nelson City Council ($186,415), followed by Horizons Regional Council ($180,096) and Southland District Council ($175,115). 

Van Veen says, "These figures suggest that the idea of 'public service' appears to have disappeared from local government. In some small towns now, the best paid jobs are at the local council. That's not sustainable." 

Lobby Payments  

• The total amount spent by councils in New Zealand on payments to lobby groups (Taituara, Local Government New Zealand, and Chambers of Commerce) was $12.3 million in the last financial year.  

• Dunedin City Council was the biggest spender at $708,454, with Hutt City Council in second place ($505,226).  

  • West Coast Regional Council has the lowest spend at $14,281.

• Wellington City Council make the largest payment to LGNZ ($218,962).  

• Wellington ratepayers also contributed to the second-largest payment to LGNZ, with Greater Wellington Regional Council handing over $205,415.

Van Veen says, "It's odd, given both the proximity to government and the access enjoyed by the Wellington mayors that they are paying rent to a sock puppet lobby group to mount political campaigns." 

Fiscal safeguards:   

• 7 councils meet the full criteria for a prudent Audit and Risk Committee, up 2 from last year.  

  • The criteria for a prudent A&R are to have an independent member, an independent chair, a lawyer, and an accountant on the committee.  

  • 36 councils have unelected members on other committees.  

Van Veen says, "Ratepayers expect local councils to be following best practice when it comes to governance, financial controls and risk management. But with just seven of seventy-seven implementing a corporate governance standard for Audit and Risk committee independence and shill sets, clearly that expectation is not being met." 

 

The Ratepayers’ Report is available at RatepayersReport.nz

Dear Supporter,

A short work week, but a busy one. Tomorrow morning we launch the much anticipated annual Ratepayers' Report (local government league tables) exposing what town halls across the country don't want you to know. It should hit your inbox first thing.

Then we head straight into spending season with Nicola Willis' election year spend-up budget set to be released in just 26 sleeps.

But first, the elephants in the room: the blinking red lights on our new New Zealand Fiscal Dashboard; plus this week's skullduggery by ratbags elected to local councils (bad news if you live in the Waikato).

For the first time too, the Taxpayers' Union is weighing up a move to expel some Waikato members – who stood for elected office for one thing, but this week proved to do quite another. Details below. 

Plus we release our latest briefing paper – this one exposing the Green's Trust Tax policy. It turns out the Greens' claim of it hitting only "the wealthiest 3% of New Zealanders" is, well, more than a little misleading...

Oh, and a good dose of corporate welfare is announced for companies struggling with the cost of... Petrol? No. Diesel? No. Just those doing it tough on jet fuel.

As I said, a busy week. Let's get into it.

Sometimes the truth hurts 😞

At the Taxpayers’ Union, we’re big on transparency. Back in 2020 – when the then Government borrowed for the COVID 'rainy day' – we launched the official New Zealand Government Debt Clock so taxpayers could at least track Government borrowing in real time.

But while the pandemic ended, it's fair to say the borrowing didn't! And now New Zealand is ill prepared for another international or economic crisis.

Back in March, James published an excellent paper Fiscal Reality Check: The Reckoning in Numbers which tracked the trends over time. He exposed that every Kiwi household now carries a staggering $140,000 share of central government debt, up from $29,000 in 2008.

Wellington is forecast to borrow every year in the 2020 decade just to keep the lights on (don't kid yourself that the borrowing is being used for capital or infrastructure spending – surplus is an operational spending measure).

Even worse, there is currently no credible plan to bring the books back into balance. 

This is the fiscal 'fudge' we've talked about before. Despite what the politicians say, we are actually further from surplus now (both in terms of estimated time to even and in terms of the size of the structural deficit) than when the current Government entered office.

It's so bad in fact, that Nicola Willis had to invent a whole new measure of 'surplus' – otherwise, it looks even worse.

But as put by Nicola Willis' own Treasury Secretary, Ian Rennie, when he fronted MPs at the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee just before Christmas "there had been no fiscal consolidation under this Government". Ouch.

All this means that by 2030, taxpayers will be paying more on interest than forecast spending on schools, Police, and justice combined. 

Welcome to the 'Fiscal Reality' Dashboard 💻

This week, one of our brilliant young interns has turned James' report into an online Fiscal Reality Dashboard to track debt, spending, economic growth, and public service headcount over time.

We're calling it: FiscalReality.nz

The numbers don't lie... 💣🫤

The first step to fixing New Zealand's debt and spending addiction is for the public to understand the extent of the problem.

Bloated spending by successive administrations (and local councils!) is what has driven the cost of living crisis and anaemic economic growth.

FiscalReality.nz invites New Zealanders to take a look and judge for themselves. No spin, just numbers.

For me, the flashing red light is that bond yield. Right now, New Zealand is close to neck and neck with Britain in terms of the price markets are demanding to factor in our Government's risk of default on a ten-year bond. 

If seeing the international bond markets determining New Zealand is now as risky as basket-case Britain isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is!

Tthe more sunlight we shine on this, the harder it becomes for politicians to keep ignoring the fiscal realities and continue to kick the can down the road. 

Ignoring the problem won't work. This needs to be tackled before the chickens come home to roost, and New Zealand is back to 1984.

Unless we act now, that "human misery" Nicola Willis likes to talk about becomes inevitable. Hard decisions now are better than more painful ones later.

And as if to sound the same alarm (actually, that's exactly what they were doing!) as we were building the Fiscal Reality Dashboard ratings agency Moody's did this:

Take a look and judge for yourself:

👉 FiscalReality.nz 👈

Palmerston North Mayor blows $1000 a month on booze. Says councillor wrong to make his spending public...

We all know the Beehive likes a boozy night (just ask Maiki Sherman! 🙊) but it turns out the same culture operates in at least one of New Zealand's provincial town halls.

This week we learned that Palmerston North City Mayor, Grant Smith, is racking up at least a grand a month in mayoral booze!

And the Council says it's actually much more but won't give an exact figure because other booze ups sorry, "mayoral events" have been coded as "hospitality" rather than alcohol purchases so are therefore not counted in the figure. 

According to our most recent Rates Dashboard, Palmy's residential ratepayers have faced a whopping 25 percent increase in rates under Mayor Smith last term. Enough to drive one to drink perhaps?

Now, we can't take the credit for this exposé. As reported by The Post and its sister paper, The Manawatū Standard:

Palmerston North’s newest city councillor Hayden Fitzgerald has forced the release of details of credit card spending by the city’s mayor Grant Smith over the past three years.

He said there were items on the list he thought would surprise ratepayers, such as visiting Fieldays in Hamilton and attending FIFA Women’s World Cup matches in Auckland, and he wanted the details to be made public regularly in future.

Predictably the Mayor was not too happy with the attention!

He says the spending is necessary to promote Palmerston North's "international relations".

The late Barry Humphries would be proud. We've heard the Mayor's excuse about booze expenses before...

But this is what caught our eye in the media coverage:

[Mayor] Smith hit back, saying it had cost the council $10,000 to fulfil Fitzgerald’s Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request when his “sensitive expenditure” was already publicly reported every three months.

“I do think there is intent to discredit me,” Smith said.

Let's think that through. First, the councillor who sought the information was forced to use the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (the council equivalent to the Official Information Act) just to get a hold of the expense information from his own council!

What well-functioning board would put barriers in place for a director to enquire about the personal expenditure of its own chair (the equivalent relationship between a mayor and councillors)?

But second, how on Earth do you waste 10-grand accessing the information? 

Now, we're no fans of the Palmerston North City Council but even we struggle to understand how a financial and record-keeping systems could be so bad as to cost $10,000 to dig out 12 credit card statements and the associated GST receipts.

We smell a rat. Surely the Council is not in breach of its GST/tax record obligations, right? Or is the old "providing transparency is wasteful spending" (along with a grossly inflated figure) being trotted out to try and hide misspending?

We've written the Council asking for a breakdown of the $10,000 and for information about its accounting, record keeping, and expense approval systems.

We'll keep you posted. 

In the meantime, let's recognise Cr Hayden Fitzgerald as this week's Ratepayer Hero for his services to transparency. 🏆😘

From “Rates Control” to damage control: LGNZ backflip as political hyenas give middle finger to Waikato ratepayers 🖕😧

Sadly, for every Ratepayer Hero there's a ratepayer scumbag – and this week the Waikato region has gone above and beyond.

Last year, a ticket for the Waikato Regional Council labelling themselves as the "Rates Control Team" ran on a platform explicitly promising (among other things) to withdraw the Regional Council from the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) leftwing, anti-ratepayer lobby group.

But just months after taking their oath of office, they've done the dirty - with most of the "team" doing a u-turn and voting to continue to shuffle hundreds of thousands of dollars into the leftwing sock puppet lobby group to fight rates capping and defend anti-democratic 'governance'.

At a vote on Thursday, five councillors reversed their pre-election promises and voted to keep the council as funders of LGNZ. They were:

• The Council Chair, Warren Maher
• Gary McGuire
• Ben Dunbar-Smith
• Robert Cookson
• Mich’eal Downard

With Tory on leave, so not here to temper down my comments, it's fair to say I didn't hold back in my statement to media.

Did I go too far?

“These lying political hyenas are exactly why trust in local politicians is so low. Saying one thing to get elected and doing another once in office is what ratepayers are fed up with.”

“Nothing material has changed at LGNZ. The same organisation and track record remain, yet these pusillanimous u-turning councillors have used flimsy excuses to walk away from their 'pledge' to voters.”

One of our Researchers also noticed – just before the vote – that the explicit promise of the ticket to withdraw from LGNZ (and other numerous policy commitments to save ratepayer money) was removed from the website of the "Rates Control Team".

In fact, now that they are elected, they've had their website changed so that it contains no policy at all!

One might conclude that they knew exactly what they were doing? 🤔

Feedback Sought: Proposed expulsion from the Taxpayers' Union 🥾

I am very disappointed to report that a number of the u-turning Councillors are registered financial members of the Taxpayers' Union.

They sought our help prior to the election, and really pulled the wool over us as friends of the cause.

But (please excuse my language) "pulling the middle finger" to ratepayers just six months after being elected is against everything the Taxpayers' Union stands for.

So, for the first time in our 12 years, I will be recommending to the Taxpayers' Union Board that those councillors be expelled from our Union for both bringing the organisation into disrepute and their clear snubbing of democratic honesty and integrity.

Under the Union's Rules, the power to expel is reserved for the Board. The power has never been exercised.

If you have an opinion either way – send me an email and I will ensure it is put in front of the Board members as part of the discussion.

And, in a dose of irony, the Council's Chair excluded ratepayer groups from presenting to decision makers at Thursday's meeting but welcomed LGNZ with open arms!

But, under our Union Rules we are required to give these turncoats councillors the ability to argue their case before taking the decision. And as people of our word, we will certainly be doing so.

I can make a recommendation to the Board, but I'm not the decision maker. Really keen to have members' views on this one please. 🙏

Will the Greens’ proposed trust tax hit your family? 🏡

While the Government's financials are bad, wait until you see what the Greens want to do with yours!

The Greens are pushing a 1.5 percent annual tax on trust assets. Not income. Not gains. Just what you own, every single year.

It’s being sold as a tax on the wealthy. It isn’t.

One in five homes are held in trusts, which means this policy reaches straight into middle New Zealand.

Our boffin reckons homeowners could be looking at annual bills of $8,000 to $18,000, depending on where they live and how much equity they’ve built up.

And it doesn’t stop there.

KiwiSaver and managed funds are often structured as trusts, meaning your retirement savings get caught too. Depending on the fund, the tax could wipe out a significant chunk, or even all, of your annual returns.

So what’s really being taxed? The Greens are going after anyone who put any effort into planning for the future. It’ll grab savings, homeownership, retirement funds - in other words, the Kiwi dream.

If a Labour–Greens Government is in play next election, these kinds of policies aren’t hypothetical. They’re on the table.

➡️ Read the Briefing Paper here ⬅️

Regional airlines get relief at the pump. Bad luck if your trucks don't have wings 🛢️ 💸

We've had a lot of feedback from supporters about the Government's move to further dilute the so-called "Regional Infrastructure Fund".

Put simply, the more time passes, the more Shane Jones' Regional Infrastructure Fund is looking like his Ardern-era "Provincial Growth" (Corporate Welfare) Fund.

Despite this Government's commitments that the RIF would have much more integrity than the PGF, now the fuel crisis is being used to justify the same corporate welfare – but again it's only for the well-connected or 'sexy' photogenic industries politicians are drawn to...

In this case, the Government has announced:

The three airlines receiving funding from $30 million ring-fenced in the Regional infrastructure Fund are:

• • Air Chathams – $17.2m to refinance debt. The airline connects Auckland, Whakatāne, Whanganui, Kāpiti, Wellington, Christchurch, Chatham Islands and Pitt Island
  • Sounds Air – $4.5m to upgrade its fleet and refinance debt. The airline connects Wellington, Picton, Kāpiti, Blenheim and Nelson
  • Island Air – $252,000 for fleet maintenance. The airline connects Tauranga and Motiti Island

We saw under the PGF corporate welfare is often publicly framed as 'loans' but are either interest free or simply not chased or repaid so just written off.

We had an email last week from a supporter who owns a mid-sized bus company who asks, "How come I have to just eat the Iran fuel crisis and run at a loss while the air company just hosts a few politicians from Wellington and get given interest free loans to buy new planes and business-as-usual equipment on the taxpayer dime?"

With so many businesses struggling with the cost of fuel, it's hard not to ask the same question.

A new Government, a new 'crisis' but still a case of corporate welfare déjà vu?

Taxpayer Talk: Why is New Zealand’s education system failing our children? 🚸🎙️

Finally, in this week’s Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams interviews Professor Elizabeth Rata to unpack how we moved from a system focused on knowledge and academic rigour to one that, frankly, isn’t delivering for too many Kiwi kids.

It’s not about one reform or one government; it’s a long, slow shift that’s left standards slipping and outcomes lagging.

Elizabeth argues that there isn't a quick or easy fix. This is a system that’s been heading in the wrong direction for decades.

You can now listen wherever you get your podcasts - or watch the full episode on YouTube. 🎧

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Thank you for standing with us,

Jordan Williams  Executive Director  New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

 

 

 

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is demanding that Palmerston North Mayor Grant Smith explain how the Council spent $10,000 of ratepayer money in responding to an official information request for his credit card spending.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman, Josh Van Veen, said:

“Councillor Hayden Fitzgerald has done Palmerston North ratepayers a service by forcing Mayor Smith to release the details of his credit card spending.”

“While residential rates have gone up 25 percent under Mayor Smith, he has been busy racking up thousands of dollars on flights, accommodation and hospitality – including $1,000 per month on booze.”

“But the real outrage is the $10,000 that Palmerston North City spent on compiling Councillor Fitzgerald’s request. The ratepayers are owed both an explanation and a full breakdown of this cost."

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling out Waikato Regional Council councillors from the "Rates Control Team" who have today broken their explicit election promises to withdraw the Waikato Regional Council from Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) - just months after taking their oath of office.

At todays vote, the following councillors reversed their position and voted to continue to funnel six figure sums annually into the left-wing sock puppet lobby group LGNZ:

• Chair Warren Maher
• Gary McGuire
• Ben Dunbar-Smith
• Robert Cookson
• Mich’eal Downard

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“These councillors didn’t just change their minds, they broke a clear promise they made to voters at the ballot box. The self labeled 'rates control team' ran on what they called a 'pledge' to stop ratepayer funding going to the sock-puppet lobby group, Local Government New Zealand .”

“They campaigned, took endorsements, and won votes on a commitment to quit LGNZ. Just months later, they’ve completely backtracked.”

“These lying political hyenas are exactly why trust in local politicians is so low. Saying one thing to get elected and doing another once in office is what ratepayers are fed up with.”

“Nothing material has changed at LGNZ. The same organisation and track record remain, yet these pusillanimous u-turning councillors have used flimsy excuses to walk away from their 'pledge' to voters.”

Proposed expulsion from the Taxpayers' Union

"A number of the u-turning Councillors are registered financial members of the Taxpayers' Union. But pulling the middle finger to ratepayers just six months after being elected is against everything the Taxpayers' Union stands for."

"For the first time in our 12 years, I will be recommending to the Board that those councillors be expelled from our Union for both bringing the organisation into disrepute and their clear snubbing of democratic honesty and integrity."

Under the Union's Rules, the power to expel is reserved for our Board. It has never been exercised.

"Ironically, unlike the Council - who excluded ratepayer groups from presenting to decision makers, but welcomed LGNZ with open arms - we are required to give these turncoat councillors the ability to argue their case before taking the decision," said Williams.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is slamming Waikato Regional Council after being blocked from speaking at Thursday's meeting on whether the council should resign from Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

Taxpayers’ Union Spokesman, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Waikato Regional councillors are preparing to vote on whether to keep funding LGNZ, yet they’ve refused to hear from ratepayer advocates calling for withdrawal. That’s not democracy, that’s ducking scrutiny.”

“The Rates Control Team were elected on a manifesto policy promises to leave the group - which has conveniently been scrubbed from their website. Ratepayers shouldn’t be forced to fund a lobby group that's often pushes for more spending and wanted to campaign against the proposed rates cap.”

“It’s deeply concerning that some councillors now appear more worried about protecting their own positions than delivering on commitments to reduce waste. That’s not what voters signed up for and LGNZ is not going to save these members from the upcoming local government reorganisation.”

“If councillors are confident in their decision to stay in LGNZ, they should be willing to front up and hear opposing views. Shutting down debate only strengthens the case that this membership doesn’t stack up.”

“We urge councillors to vote in the interests of ratepayers and fulfil their promise to pull out of LGNZ.”

New Taxpayers' Union–Curia polling shows a plurality of voters prefer a National/ACT/NZ First coalition over a Labour/Greens/Te Pāti Māori alternative, with NZ First's own base backing the right bloc nearly unanimously.

A nationwide poll of 1,027 New Zealanders asked which of two three-party coalitions they would prefer to form the next government:

• Nat/ACT/NZF: 45 percent
• Lab/Gre/TPM: 39 percent
• Unsure: 16 percent

The 16 percent undecided is higher than the typical undecided rate on party vote.
Coalition preference tracks tightly with the status quo:

• ACT: 98 percent Nat/ACT/NZF
• National: 86 percent Nat/ACT/NZF
• NZ First: 83 percent Nat/ACT/NZF
• Te Pāti Māori: 95 percent Lab/Gre/TPM
• Greens: 93 percent Lab/Gre/TPM
• Labour: 88 percent Lab/Gre/TPM

On current seat projections the right bloc holds 65 seats to the left's 55, meaning neither side can govern without NZ First's 17, and 83 percent of NZ First voters want Peters to stay with National and ACT.

Taxpayers' Union spokesman, Tory Relf, said:

"In an MMP environment the coalition question matters as much as any single party's poll number. Voters aren't just picking a party, they are picking a government, and a plurality want a centre-right one."

"NZ First voters have sent an unmistakable signal. Eighty-three percent want Winston Peters back on the right side of the aisle. Only two percent want him to switch. Four in five NZ First voters expect Peters to re-elect this coalition, not swap it out."

"For Labour, that presents a real challenge. Hipkins may be narrowing the party-vote gap, but turning that into a credible alternative government is a different task altogether."

"The number parties will be eyeing up is the 16 percent undecided on coalition preference. That is a larger pool than any minor party commands. Whichever bloc makes the more compelling case will pick them up, and with them, the balance of power." 

 

 

 

Why did New Zealand’s education system "turn to custard" in 1971? In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams sits down with Professor Elizabeth Rata to explore how the nation moved from a world-class, knowledge-rich curriculum to one dominated by "social constructivism" and "learnification”.

Elizabeth also lifts the lid on how the rejection of liberalism and nation-building has failed several generations of Kiwi children, and the challenge of turning around the "oil tanker" of modern education to restore academic excellence.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal through an Official Information Act requestthat $161,985.55 of taxpayer funding has been used to subsidise insulation upgrades in Summerset's privately-run Wanganui and Havelock North retirement villages.

The funding was provided through the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme, with payments made to contractors installing insulation in licence-to-occupy units within retirement villages.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“On paper this funding is designed to help vulnerable households, but in practice it sees taxpayer money flowing into private retirement village developers.”

“This is corporate welfare by another name. Residents may receive the benefit, but the long-term gains sit with a large private operator.”

“The end result is public money being used to improve assets owned by a company that reported $259.7 million in profit after tax last year, while retirees who genuinely need the support miss out on $160,000 of funding.”

“Our elderly deserve support in retirement, but a $9.2 billion company should be able to fund upgrades to its own units, especially when residents themselves don’t share in the upside.”

 

Moody’s has placed New Zealand’s credit rating on a negative outlook, underscoring growing concern about the Government’s worsening fiscal position.

Responding, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“Minister Willis is right to say this is another warning that New Zealand can’t afford to simply spend more and borrow more. The problem is that is exactly what she is still doing.”

“Minister Willis got her first warning on 21 March this year when Fitch moved New Zealand to a negative outlook. Since then, government debt has grown by almost $2 billion and the National Debt Clock is forecast to hit $300 billion before the election. Where is the fiscal discipline Minister Willis talks about?

“Blaming global uncertainty is a convenient distraction for Minister Willis. Moody’s is pointing at Wellington. Despite the rhetoric, Government spending remains higher than under Grant Robertson, borrowing continues to climb, and there is no sign of a surplus this decade.”

“Credit rating agencies do not act on vibes. They follow the numbers. Being placed on negative watch is a signal to investors that New Zealand is becoming a riskier place to lend to, which ultimately means higher interest costs for taxpayers.”

“Clinging to the AAA rating while being put on negative watch is like celebrating while the warning lights are flashing. If this is what fiscal discipline looks like, it is no wonder Moody’s is losing confidence.”

“This must be a wake-up call ahead of Budget 2026. Until the Government matches its rhetoric with real spending restraint, more warnings, and eventually a downgrade, are inevitable.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has today released a new briefing paper, The Wealth Tax Fantasy, exposing the economic risks and unrealistic assumptions behind the Green Party’s proposed wealth tax. The paper finds the policy would hit farmers, retirees, and small business owners while raising far less revenue than claimed.

Taxpayers’ Union Policy Analyst, Austin Ellingham-Banks, said:

“The Greens are proposing one of the most aggressive wealth taxes in the developed world, but the numbers simply don’t stack up.”

“The idea this only hits the ‘top 3 percent’ is misleading. Retirees, farmers, and small business owners are already over the threshold — and without inflation adjustment, more Kiwis will be dragged in every year.”

“For farmers, the tax bill can exceed what the farm actually earns. For small businesses, it means paying tax on assets, not income, forcing owners to cut back investment or sell up.”

“And it’s double taxation. Income that’s already been taxed gets taxed again, year after year, just for being saved or invested.”

“Overseas experience is clear: wealth taxes drive investment offshore and raise less than promised. Treasury has already warned the Greens’ approach would be economically costly.”

“This policy is light on evidence, heavy on wishful thinking, and ultimately just another tax on aspiration.”

 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that the Ministry of Education is spending $1.87 million per year on leased and reserved car parks across the country for their fleet and visitors.

This comes as the Ministry’s workforce has grown significantly to 3,835 in 2025, an increase of around 46 percent since 2017, with their average salary now sitting at $114,800, up 25.74 percent.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Spending nearly $2 million a year on car parks will raise eyebrows, especially with the current run of stories about rural kids having their school buses cut.”

“In Christchurch, the Ministry is leasing 23 more car parks than it has vehicles, while students are unable to even make it into the classroom.”

“At a time when education is under pressure for funding, the growth in bureaucracy alongside examples of costs like this raises serious questions about priorities.”

“The Ministry should be looking to minimise costs across the sector, not locking in expensive leases for a growing number of staff who need to start thinking about catching the bus themselves.”

The Official Information Act request can be found here
The total number of Ministry staff over the last 25 years can be found here
The salary leader board can be found here

The Taxpayers’ Union has today written to MBIE Chief Executive Nic Blakeley demanding answers after officials repeatedly failed to justify claims that key fuel security data must be withheld from the public.

The letter follows last week’s meeting between MBIE's CEO, officials and the Taxpayers’ Union regarding its Fuel Clock (FuelClock.nz), a public dashboard tracking New Zealand’s real-time fuel security.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says the core issue remains simple: officials are refusing to list the ships they claim are 'on water' to New Zealand by hiding behind “commercial sensitivity”. But they cannot explain what the sensitivity actually is.

“We’ve now had multiple meetings with MBIE. Each time we’ve asked a very basic question: what exactly is commercially sensitive about publishing the names of fuel tankers and their cargoes? And each time, we’ve received no answer.”

The Fuel Clock uses MBIE’s own published data but adjusts it to reflect real-time consumption and separates confirmed fuel in New Zealand from shipments that are still days or weeks away.
It currently shows materially lower fuel availability than MBIE’s official “days of cover” figure.

“We’ve gone away and tested MBIE’s claim with industry contacts, a competition law expert, and even a major fuel company. None could identify any credible commercial sensitivity or risk to competition,” says Williams.

“That leaves a simple conclusion: either the risk doesn’t exist, or MBIE is unwilling to explain it.”

The Taxpayers’ Union says the lack of transparency is compounded by inconsistencies in MBIE’s own explanations.

“One week we’re told ships ‘on water’ have left port. The next week we’re told they may not have. That’s not a minor technicality – it goes directly to how much fuel New Zealand actually has available.”

Williams says the public is being asked to rely on outdated and unverifiable information at a time when fuel security is critical.

“MBIE is publishing figures that are already five days out of date, while Ministers are receiving daily updates. At the same time, they’re refusing to release the underlying data that would allow anyone to independently verify the official position.”

“You can’t have it both ways. If the situation is as comfortable as MBIE suggests, then transparency should reinforce that. The refusal to provide detail only undermines confidence.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is again calling on MBIE to release the vessel-level data underpinning its fuel stock figures and to clarify contradictory advice provided to officials and the public.

“This isn’t about causing alarm. It’s about ensuring New Zealanders – and policymakers – can see the reality for themselves.”

The letter can be viewed at www.taxpayers.org.nz/fuel_clock_ltr. The Fuel Clock remains live at FuelClock.nz

 

Responding to this morning’s CPI figures showing inflation at 3.1 percent, above the Reserve Bank’s target band, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“While today’s number was broadly expected, it’s the next wave that should worry Kiwis. Fuel price hikes are only just starting to work their way through the economy and when transport costs rise, everything follows.”

“With inflation still proving sticky, markets are increasingly betting on earlier interest rate hikes. We urge the Reserve Bank to hold its cautious line. Global uncertainty, particularly around Iran–US tensions, remains high, but there are things firmly within the Government’s control - starting with Budget 2026, now just weeks away.”

“Let’s be clear: government revenue is likely to come in weaker than forecast. But instead of tightening its belt, the Government’s spending, even after adjusting for inflation, keeps climbing. Despite the spin, it hasn’t saved a dime. That only adds fuel to the inflation fire.”

“This Budget is shaping up as the Government’s last real shot to restore credibility. Kiwi households are already making tough choices, it’s time for Wellington to do the same.”

“A credible path back to surplus isn’t optional. It’s essential if we want to avoid a credit downgrade and borrowing costs from becoming even more punitive.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on MBIE to be transparent about which fuel-carrying ships are expected to arrive in New Zealand, so the public can have a clear picture of fuel stock flows into the country - rather than relying on five-day-old data, as released by MBIE earlier today.

The Taxpayers’ Union’s fuel stock tracking website, FuelClock.nz, uses MBIE data but adjusts it for daily usage. It also tracks tanker movements using international ship-tracking services and New Zealand port schedules, but these movements cannot be reconciled with the official data.

The Fuel Clock is now showing less than 15 days of diesel actually available, far below the 21-day Minimum Stockholding Obligation (MSO) that Parliament set in law, while MBIE's official table continues to headline a figure of 44.8 days. 

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf says:
 
"MBIE's headline number isn't wrong, but it is highly misleading. It adds together fuel in our storage tanks with fuel on ships thousands of kilometres away in international waters and, in some cases, with shipments the public has no way of independently verifying.”

"The nearest diesel tanker currently tracking toward New Zealand is still outside our Exclusive Economic Zone, near New Caledonia - at least two to three days’ sailing from any New Zealand port.”

“We have also been unable to verify a number of the ships MBIE includes in its ‘days’ cover’ figure against public port schedules or AIS vessel tracking data. That leaves New Zealanders being asked to take these figures on trust.”

“Last week, MBIE assured us that ships listed as ‘on-water’ had left port. The week before, they told us otherwise.”

“MBIE cites ‘commercial sensitivity’ as a reason for withholding detail. But industry experts, economists, and even fuel companies we have spoken to cannot identify any risk in releasing the names of these ships and their cargoes, information that becomes public as soon as the vessels arrive.”

“Let’s be clear, this isn’t about commercial sensitivity, it’s political sensitivity. Officials don’t want scrutiny of whether shipments are delayed or diverted.”

“For something this critical, that lack of transparency is unacceptable. A cargo bobbing near New Caledonia is not fuel you can put in a truck tomorrow morning and that’s exactly why the Fuel Clock separates what we have from what we’re still waiting on.”

How the Fuel Clock works

FuelClock.nz takes MBIE's own in-country stock figures, published twice a week and typically several days old by the time anyone sees them, and continuously draws them down using MBIE's own daily consumption rates, weighted for day of the week. That produces a live estimate of what is in country right now, not what was in country last Wednesday.
 
Incoming shipments are then split into two buckets based on what the public shipping data actually proves:

• Confirmed On-Water: Tankers that AIS vessel tracking shows are already inside New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone, or berthed and offloading at a New Zealand port. These are added to the "Total" reserves line.
• Likely / Scheduled: Tankers still outside the EEZ, up to three weeks away. These are shown to the user but are deliberately excluded from the reserves total, because vessels outside the EEZ can still be delayed, rerouted, or cancelled outright.

If the Fuel Clock can see that a vessel arrived before MBIE's reporting cut-off, that cargo is treated as already being captured in MBIE's in-country figure to prevent double counting.

Tonight, the Fuel Clock is showing zero confirmed diesel tankers inside the EEZ. The singular diesel tanker the country is relying on is still in the "Likely / Scheduled" bucket as it remains near New Caledonia. And some of the ships MBIE appears to be counting toward the national total cannot be located in any publicly available shipping data at all.
 
Spokesperson Tory Relf said: "This is the distinction MBIE's dashboard refuses to make. On paper everything looks fine. The reality is only 15 days of diesel on the ground, falling every day, with the nearest replacement tanker still thousands of kilometres away and any others unverifiable. Kiwis deserve to see much more transparency."
 
"The Fuel Clock was designed to be the early warning system that the official system isn't providing. Tonight, that warning light is on. Diesel has slipped below the legal minimum stock the Government itself legislated for, and New Zealanders are finding out from a dashboard created by a transparency group, rather than from the Ministry’s out of date ‘official’ source."
 
The Taxpayers' Union is calling on MBIE to:

• Publish daily rather than twice-weekly updates for the duration of the current disruption;
• Clearly separate in-country stock from confirmed on-water stock from scheduled shipments in its public communications; and
• Publish the list of vessels and tonnages its "days' cover" figure is built on, so the public can independently verify the claim. 

The Fuel Clock is free, live, and open to the public at www.FuelClock.nz

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal through an Official Information Act request that the Children’s Commissioner’s “Dear Children” campaign cost $139,880.25 (GST inclusive).

While advocacy is part of the Commissioner’s role, the campaign places Commissioner Dr Claire Achmad front and centre, raising questions about whether this is public service messaging or publicly funded self-promotion.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Advocacy is part of the Children’s Commissioner’s job and at first glance this looks like a worthy campaign. Yet spending nearly $140,000 on a campaign led so prominently by the Commissioner looks to cross a line into self-promotion.”

“This campaign is built around the Commissioner’s personal message and profile, rather than the full focus being on delivering a safer future for children.”

“On top of this, the goal was to reach as many adults as possible and start national conversations. So instead of measurable outcomes for children, they got 18,000 new users to the Dear Children website, with just 21 percent signing the letter.”

“Taxpayers deserve confidence that their funding is being used to improve outcomes for vulnerable children, not promotional advertising.”

One of the billboard advertisement can be found here

In this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Peter Williams sits down with Oliver Hartwich, Executive Director of the New Zealand Initiative, to discuss why he believes the country’s public service is "fundamentally broken" and incompatible with implementing good policy.

Oliver explains how the 1988 reforms inadvertently created a  state where department heads are more beholden to the Public Service Commissioner than their own ministers, and how the bureaucracy can subvert political will.

Drawing on the German model of ministerial accountability, Oliver argues for a system that prioritises deep subject matter expertise over generic management skills to ensure that voters finally get a government with the power to perform its job.

Responding to news that Wellington City Council’s former CEO withheld a damning report into the Council's dysfunctional relationship with Wellington Water, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said the decision was “reprehensible, especially given it was kept from elected councillors responsible for water infrastructure.”

“But even more concerning is former councillor Sean Rush’s claim that withholding information isn’t just historic. He says Council executives have continued to suppress information that doesn’t suit their agenda, skewing data, blocking access, and treating elected members as obstacles to work around.”

"We regularly get reports like this from the country's local government elected representatives and it is why we have long argued for strengthened access to information for councillors, similar to what company directors enjoy."

“In the private sector, company directors have a legal duty to guide and monitor the companies they oversee, so the law gives them full access to the information they need to do so. Councillors carry comparable responsibilities for billions of dollars in public assets and ratepayer funds, yet they have weaker information rights than the director of a small company.”

"Local Government Minister Simon Watts has failed to grasp the nettle. Instead of fixing this imbalance, he currently has a Bill before Parliament that places the decision of what information councillors can access first and foremost in the hands of council CEOs. That is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse."

“Councillors have repeatedly said they have lacked the information they needed when making major financial decisions, from the town hall rebuild debacle to airport share sales and long-term planning. How many times does it need to happen before Parliament will give local councillors the tools they need for effective governance and oversight?"

Hi,

This week, we call out a former Labour COVID-response Minister for (ironically) disinformation, reveal a LEAKED audio recording of the now infamous "MBIE workplace waiata", and fisk the Green Party's proposed wealth tax. Plus we'll brief you on new work by the New Zealand Initiative think tank, asking who's *really* in charge – the elected officials, or the unelected mandarins?

Let's jump in.

The reports of Wellington's death greatly exaggerated – by Wellington MP 🤨

Now we know for some MPs, maths isn't their strong suit, but Labour's MP Ayesha Verrall really stretched the excuse last week in her claim that the reason Wellington's economy is in the dumps is because there have been “thousands of public service job losses". 

As reported by The Post:

Here at the Taxpayers' Union, we're keen supporters of free speech. Everyone is entitled to opinions – including Ms Verrall – but she's not entitled to her own facts.

Mass layoffs across the bureaucracy is a myth - but still repeated by dishonest confused Opposition MPs 🤪

According to the Public Service Commission (Wellington's "Podium of Truth" for how many people are actually employed by the Government), there were 63,117 public servants in 2023 compared to 63,657 at the end of 2025.

To spell that out for those sitting in Parliament reading this newsletter, that’s 540 more staff on the payroll now than when they were in charge.

Not an option, a fact: More bureaucrats do not amount to "thousands of public service job losses".

Where's Ayesha Verrall's "Disinformation Project" when you need it? 🤷‍♂️

LEAKED VIDEO: How distracting are MBIE's daily workplace Waiata sessions? 🫨

Earlier in the month, your humble Taxpayers' Union exposed the brouhaha within the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment over management's attempt to reign in the staff 'entitlement' for staff to be paid daily to sing, clap, poi, and recite Māori proverbs and hymns in open spaces at their Wellington office.

To recap: staff claimed that management's request to have the sessions during unpaid breaks was "colonial" and "culturally insensitive". 

They said even "relocating to enclosed rooms" (in order to avoid disrupting other staff in the open offices) was "viewed as symbolic marginalisation" and "hiding the kaupapa".

It turns out that among the 200,000 subscribers of this newsletter, many work at MBIE!

Our inbox was flooded with reports that the huge open marble spaces inside the old Defence House (where MBIE is based) echo and reverberate the sound.

And we have some good news!  At least one person among MBIE's 5,892 bureaucrats actually wants to get some work done! An MBIE insider whipped out their phone to record – from their desk – just how distracting, sorry, engaging, the workplace waiata sessions are, even for those who don't participate.

We replaced the video so as not to identify our taxpayer-hero embedded within MBIE.

Judge for yourself whether you'd get work done with this in the background...

Make sure you turn on the sound.  🎼

The Greens’ wealth tax fantasy: who really pays? 😱🦄

In our latest briefing paper, The Wealth Tax Fantasy, Policy Analyst Austin takes on the Greens’ latest barmy tax proposal.

They say their wealth tax will only hit the “top 3 percent”. That sounds neat, a nice soundbite to attract the attention of "freedom-fighting” students and leftie bureaucrats.

The issue is that it’s simply not true.

Based on the latest available data, 6.5 percent of retired couples and 5.5 percent of single retirees are already over the Green's threshold – and that’s before factoring in rising house prices.

And because the threshold isn’t indexed to inflation, more and more Kiwis will be dragged in every year.

The Greens see it as a feature not a bug.

Many around the world have tried, but nearly all have walked away 🇫🇷 🇳🇴 🇨🇺

There’s a reason wealth taxes are rare and disappearing overseas.

Nine out of twelve European countries that tried implementing a wealth tax have scrapped them.

Norway expected to raise more revenue — instead, tens of billions left the country, and the tax take fell. 

France saw hundreds of billions flee before abandoning its tax.

Even the NZ Treasury has warned that a tax at the level proposed by the Greens would be “extremely economically costly”. That's Treasury code for nuts.

The Greens claim this tax will raise around $17 billion a year, roughly 12 percent of all government revenue. Per capita, that would make it the most revenue raising wealth tax in the world.

Even Switzerland, the global outlier, raises only a fraction of that share.

So either the Greens have rewritten the laws of economics, or the numbers simply don’t stack up.

Because once you dig into the detail, this is just another tax on anyone who saves, invests, or builds something over time.

👉 Read The Wealth Tax Fantasy paper here 👈

Justice Minister complains that 'freedom of information' too expensive & proposes more secrecy for Government information 🕵️‍♂️

Most of the information published by the Taxpayers' Union isn't leaked, rather it is obtained using freedom of information laws: the OIA (for central government) and the LGOIMA (for local councils).

So shivers ran down the spines of your investigations team when Newsroom got wind of Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith's review of the Official Information Act late last month.

Apparently, too many people are asking questions of Government agencies and that's a problem!  If only.

Newsroom reports:

As New Zealand's largest transparency organisation – and the largest user of the Official Information Act – the team were admittedly a bit miffed not to be asked to contribute to the Minister's so-called "review".

We have been assured that it was just an oversight...

Because we actually agree with the Minister that too much is being spent administering OIA requests.

But the fault isn't because people are asking 'too many questions', it's because in recent years, Government agencies have developed a habit of insisting that even most mundane questions or enquiries are treated as formal "Requests for Official Information" under the Acts.

Once upon a time, you could call up a Government agency, get the relevant official on the phone, have a discussion, or send an email and get a response.

Now almost everything is funnelled through "Communications Teams" whose job it is to help "manage" the release of information.

Ironically, the very freedom of information laws designed to make government more transparent are being used to slow down and frustrate the release of basic information in a timely way. 

Or, as Rhys put it in a guest post published on Kiwiblog: The law isn’t the problem. Instead, the culture in Wellington and council bureaucracies across the country is causing unnecessary costs.

If the Government uses that game playing as an excuse to reduce the rights of taxpayers to know where their money is being spent, it's something taxpayers (and ratepayers) will fight tooth and nail.

Mr Goldsmith, to save money, there are some very simple solutions: proactive release of information and adopting 'armchair audit legislation' requiring all financial transactions by government agencies to be disclosed online (which is common overseas).

Who actually runs the place? Restoring democratic control of New Zealand's public service 🗳️

Finally, this week, we want to highlight a really good report by our friends down the road at the New Zealand Initiative think tank, asking whether the unelected bureaucrats with their own incentives, agendas, and policy preferences are running roughshod over the democratically elected will of the people.

Their paper, by Dr Oliver Hartwich, Who runs the country? Restoring democratic control of New Zealand's public service argues that New Zealand’s ministers answer to Parliament for departments they cannot control because ministers cannot choose, direct or remove the chief executives who run those departments.

It's a fascinating (and slightly alarming) look at how decisions really get made in Wellington, but is consistent with the frustrations we regularly hear from MPs and former Ministers (from both sides of the political divide).

It argues that the arrangement is broken and recommends that New Zealand adopt a version of Germany’s model, where ministers appoint their top officials while a protected career service operates below.

Virtually every other developed democracy gives its elected ministers some say over who runs their departments. France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom all do. New Zealand does not.

Off the back of the paper, Peter Williams interviewed Dr Hartwich to dive in.

If you’ve ever wondered why so many policies get watered down, delayed, or quietly changed along the way… this one will hit close to home.

Listen (audio only) on our website 🎧 or watch the episode on our YouTube channel. 📺

That's all for now.

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Labour leader Chris Hipkins to clarify his party’s position after Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Deborah Russell refused to rule out expanding their proposed capital gains tax.

“Deborah Russell’s refusal to confirm Labour’s capital gains tax goes far enough should ring alarm bells for taxpayers,” said Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf.

“When the person in charge of tax policy won’t rule out going further, it’s a clear signal this tax could expand.”

“Our analysis already shows Labour’s proposal is unfair, taxing inflation rather than real gains and hitting Kiwis with bills on so-called ‘profits’ that don’t actually exist.”

“Now senior Labour figures are asking taxpayers not only to accept that flawed policy but potentially making it even bigger.”

“Chris Hipkins needs to step in and provide certainty. Is this a limited tax, or just the starting point for more?”

“Kiwis deserve straight answers before the election, not after it.”

The Taxpayers’ Union’s analysis of Labour’s proposed CGT, Why Labour’s Capital Gains Tax Fails the Fairness Test, is available at https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/cgt_report

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that the Department of Corrections has spent $1.79 million between 2022 to 2024 in settlements relating to breaches of prisoners’ rights under the Bill of Rights Act.

This includes $1.29 million in compensation and a further $492,170 in legal costs across 86 settled cases, including matters relating to inhumane treatment, discrimination, liberty, and unreasonable search and seizure.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“No matter what you think about how criminals should be treated, more than $1.2 million in compensation is a significant cost to taxpayers and points to an ongoing issue within the system.”

“Prisoners are entitled to the same legal rights as the rest of us, and these costs are ultimately the result of failures within Corrections that should not be happening.”

“Instead of wasting $9 million on rongoā Māori services and $4 million on advertising campaigns, Corrections should be getting back to basics. That money would be better spent supporting frontline staff to do their jobs properly. especially when they’re among the lowest paid in the public service.”

“Rather than taxpayers continuing to foot the bill year after year, the expectation needs to be that Corrections gets on top of these issues and reduces the need for these payouts at all.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) for publishing fuel supply data that’s nearly a week out of date, leaving Kiwis in the dark.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“At a time when fuel security is critical, MBIE is asking New Zealanders to make decisions based on last week’s information. That’s simply not good enough.”

“No one seems able to say how much fuel is actually in the country, what’s on the way, or when it will arrive. Even the Prime Minister’s numbers on his Monday morning media round didn’t match MBIE’s just hours later.”

“MBIE keeps hiding behind ‘commercial sensitivity’ to avoid naming incoming fuel ships, yet these are vessels anyone can see sitting in ports just days later.”

“Officials won’t confirm which ships they’re counting, what they’re carrying, or when that fuel will actually be available. That kind of secrecy is unacceptable.”

“A week-long lag raises serious questions about whether officials even understand the country’s fuel position. This information should be being fed to MBIE in real time, and shared with the public daily.”

“When independent analysts using public data can outpace MBIE, something has gone badly wrong. Our Fuel Clock is already cross-checking MBIE’s numbers with live shipping data — and it’s proving more up to date than the official government website.”

“Kiwis deserve better than running on empty, both at the pump and when it comes to information from their government. In a crisis, transparency matters.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on MBIE to answer:

• Why is fuel supply data being released up to a week late?
• What specific information is considered “commercially sensitive”, and why?
• Why are vessel details not being disclosed when they are publicly observable?
• What steps are being taken to ensure the public has access to timely, accurate information?

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is slamming pay increases for Wellington’s new water entity leadership, including board pay reportedly doubling, as households face water bills are set to be introduced.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Wellington households are being told to brace for water bills heading toward $7,000, yet the new Tiaki Wai is dishing out inflated salaries for board members and $645,000 for it's Chief Executive, $134,700 more than the Prime Minister."

“Rates have already increased by 47 percent last term for Wellingtonians, making them some of the most unaffordable in the country. At a time officials need to start tightening their own belts, costs look set to keep blowing out.”

"What makes this worse is that these decisions were made through a murky ‘partnership’ arrangement involving councils and iwi, with the pay rises justified on the basis of matching other council-controlled organisations. Since when is a nearly $650,000, ratepayer-funded salary something that needs to be protected in the name of ‘parity’?

“Before asking households to pay more for an already broken service, Wellington’s water bosses need to justify why executive pay is rising while affordability for ordinary ratepayers is going backwards.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is urging the Government to both cut tobacco excise taxes and beef up enforcement following warnings from Retail NZ that the illicit tobacco trade is booming, with New Zealand already seeing around a third of the tobacco market supplied illegally."

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“Demand for illicit tobacco has been driven by tax hikes that have pushed prices to extreme levels and created a lucrative illicit trade for gangs and organised crime. It's bad for everyone. Bad for smoking rates - people are turning to 'cheap' illegal cigarettes - it's bad for retailers, and it's bad for Treasury and taxpayers."

“If Ministers don’t change course, we risk heading down Australia’s path where an estimated 70 percent of tobacco is illegal.”

“Across the Tasman, those high prices haven’t just created a black market, they’ve fuelled gang involvement, turf wars, and even firebombings as criminals fight over the profits.”

“It is very difficult to police your way out of a problem caused by your own tax policy. Tax currently amounts to roughly 80 percent of the cost of a pack of cigarettes; as long as the Government maintains a massive tax-driven price gap, organised crime will keep stepping in to supply cheaper illicit alternatives.”

"Nevertheless, the keystone cops approach is clearly making the problem worse. Taxpayers will support efforts to beef up enforcement."

“Lowering excise would help take the profit margin away from gangs and restoring control of the market and oversight of the legitimate products being sold.”

“The Government has pushed excise rates so high that reducing excise rates would likely increase the tax take and undermine the incentives for crime."

Hi,

In my email last month exposing the $156,132 taxpayer-funded "science" kumara patch, I said there was more to come...

Today, I want to tell you about two projects – both out of the University of Auckland, and both funded from the same "National Science Challenge" pot of taxpayer money.

Remember the objective of this taxpayer fund is to "solve and protect New Zealand's bio-diversity" – and these science challenges are all about bringing together "the country's top scientists".

Buckle up.

Curing Kauri Dieback ...with a horror graphic novel 👻

The same “Mobilising for Action” programme that brought the kumara patch allocated $398,000 on an Auckland University study titled: “Toi Taiao Whakatairanga: Saving Trees with Art”.

Here's what $398,000 of your taxpayer cash bought you:

Now some might argue that there's a role for Government in helping educate Kiwis and raise awareness of plant diseases.

An advertising campaign? Or education resources for school science classes? No and no.

This is what Auckland Uni had in mind:

In other words, this "science" study – termed a "cross-disciplinary research project" – literally paid for designers, novelists, and even web developers. All in the name of curing Kauri Dieback!

Curing Kauri Dieback ...with a virtual reality game (and a prayer from Mum!) 👀

Other commissioned science artwork includes a 'virtual reality' game – and even a karakia (prayer) "gifted" from the grant recipient's mum!

Yes, seriously! It's listed as one of the three "research outputs":

Digging deeper...

Your humble Taxpayers' Union wanted to review the virtual reality game, but alas, it might have been expensive, but it's not long-lived - the work is no longer even online!

But we did find this: the result of a $26,000 video production (we've made a slight edit to the original - tracking the cost to taxpayers, as you watch it).

📺 Click here to see what the trees got for 26 grand 💸

Incredibly, this leading taxpayer-funded science failed to fix Kauri Dieback and Myrtle Rust! 😮

You can picture it, can't you? The boffins in some MBIE back office are sipping a soy latte, debating why curing Kauri Dieback and Myrtle Rust with whale songs to trees didn't work!

Then the virtual reality games didn't.

This is arts and culture, not 'science' 🧬

No taxpayer had this in mind when politicians announced tens of millions of dollars for the 'Science Challenges' to study how to heal trees that have Kauri Dieback or Myrtle Rust.

And once again, because these projects are cloaked in cultural language, the media won’t go near them. 

That’s why the Taxpayers’ Union exists – to call out the wasteful spending others are too scared to touch.

Because unless we call it out, this sort of spending will simply continue.

You and I both know that sunshine is the best disinfectant.  Our public exposés of wasteful spending have forced politicians to act in the past.

But that all takes resources, and we can only keep doing it with your support.

Right now, many taxpayers are struggling to afford groceries, let alone fuel. Meanwhile, officials sign off $156,132 for a kumara patch, and $398,000 for a story, a lost video game, a video, and a prayer.

Will you make a confidential donation to our War on Waste campaign?

Unless you take a stand, this waste will just keep happening and taxpayers will keep forking out.

Will you back us so we can take this fight to the Auditor-General and demand accountability?

Thank you for standing with us,

Jordan Williams  Executive Director  New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

PS. More to come too – trust me when I say that what we've found at Auckland Uni makes the place look like a preschool! I'll email that through next week... In the meantime, thank you for making the work possible.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling for the Governor-General and Government House to be brought under the Official Information Act. Currently, the office is excluded from both section 2 of the OIA and Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975.

This follows an Official Information Act request where officials confirmed that information held by Government House, including the costs and purpose of domestic travel, is not subject to the Act.

Taxpayers' Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley said:

“In Canada you can request information from the Governor-General. In Australia you can request information from the Governor-General. Even in the United Kingdom, the Royal Household has a policy of providing information as freely as possible.”

“In New Zealand, however, the Governor-General sits behind a carve-out in our legislation. Every Minister appointed to Government can be held to account under the Act - so why not the person appointing them?”

“Minister Paul Goldsmith is currently reviewing the Act with a focus on cost, but the real issue is transparency. You cannot put a price on democracy.”

“This review is the perfect opportunity to fix the real issue in our information laws. Bring the Governor-General under the Act, bring Parliament under the Act, and stop taxpayer-funded bodies hiding from the people who fund them.”

Responding to today’s Official Cash Rate decision, Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“As expected, the Reserve Bank has held the OCR at 2.25%. With global conflict clouding the inflation outlook, the Bank has sensibly chosen to wait and see.”

“But while the Reserve Bank can afford to sit tight, the Government cannot.”

“In a scathing weekend column, The Post’s Luke Malpass laid bare what we’ve been warning for years: New Zealand’s books are in poor shape, leaving us dangerously exposed to external shocks. This mirrors repeated warnings from Treasury that our fiscal position is unhealthy. Kicking the can down the road will only make the eventual correction more painful.”

“We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the Government must cut spending. Our A Pathway to Surplus sets out how. Budget 2026 simply must demonstrate significant expenditure reductions, and not reprioritisations, and a credible path to surplus. A failure to do so will lead to our placement on negative credit watch metastasising into a full-blown credit downgrade and a blowout in the interest bill."

“New Zealanders deserve better than drift and denial. It’s time for fiscal discipline.”

Hi,

We’re straight into it this week with the latest Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll.

NEW POLL: NZ First support surges with best-ever Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll result ⬆︎⬆︎⬆︎

The Government has seen a significant increase in support according to the first public poll taken since the announcement of the Government’s Fuel Security Plan. NZ First surges to a record high which propels the Government bloc back to a majority in April's Taxpayers’ Union-Curia Poll.

Compared to last month’s results, Labour is down 1.0 points to 33.4 percent, while National is up 1.4 points to 29.8 percent. New Zealand First is up 3.9 points to 13.6 percent, while ACT is up 1.5 points to 9.0 percent.

The Greens are down 2.7 points to 7.8 percent, while Te Pāti Māori is down 0.6 points to 2.6 percent.

Converted into seats in Parliament, Labour would be the biggest party on 42 seats (down 2 from last month), with National up 1 to 37 seats.

New Zealand First gains 4 seats from last month to 17, while ACT gains 1 to 11. The Greens drop 3 to 10 seats, while Te Pāti Māori lose 1 on 3 seats.

The combined projected seats for the Government parties bloc is up 6 seats to 65.

The combined seats for the Opposition parties bloc is down 6 to 55.

On these numbers, the current three parties of Government would be able to form a Government.

NZ First remain kingmakers 👑

The left bloc (Labour plus the Greens) remain stronger on 52 seats (down 5) compared to the right bloc (National plus ACT) which are on 48 seats this month (up 2 seats).

The last time either bloc commanded a majority without needing a support partner (NZ First or Te Pāti Māori) to be able to form a government was December 2024.

A more detailed breakdown of the results is available on our website - and if you want to receive the full polling report, join our Taxpayer Caucus for exclusive access.

Oh, and if you'd like to hear about how polling actually works, Peter Williams recently sat down with our pollster David Farrar to discuss for a Taxpayer Talk podcast.

PAY GAP EXPOSED: Public sector workers paid an average of $17,600 more than private sector colleagues  💸👨‍💼

While most households are tightening their belts, Wellington’s bureaucrat class have a much larger cushion.

We’ve crunched the numbers and published the Bureaucrat Salary Leaderboard – showing that despite what the public sector unions would have you think, there's nothing modest about public service pay packets!

On average, bureaucrats are now paid $17,600 more per year than workers in the private sector. 

With six-figure salaries across the board, the Bureaucrat Salary Leaderboard has exposed that every single government department has a higher average salary than New Zealanders working in the private-sector (i.e. the taxpayers!).

...and Sir Humphrey's Pay Gap is getting even larger 🤯

Public sector workers enjoyed an average hike to their salary of 21.37 percent between 2020 and 2025, almost fifty percent more than the 14.49 percent wage growth in the private sector over the same period.

Now, no one’s saying public sector staff shouldn’t be paid fairly.

And with the Government borrowing $48 million per day just to keep the lights on, these hikes show that the politicians haven't yet got to grips with keeping a lid on the costs of Government.

Dive into the leaderboard to see which departments are paying top dollar and decide for yourself whether taxpayers are actually getting value for it.

Yes, Minister indeed!

Which departments are raking it in? 💰🥸

$116k for a logo? No wonder Whanganui District Council hid the cost 🎨

New documents uncovered by investigations team show Whanganui District Council’s January rebrand didn’t cost the $61,800 ratepayers were originally told. No – it actually came in at a whopping $116,899 – $55,000 more than what was publicly presented.

To justify the spend, officials claimed the Council was juggling around 20 different logos and that it was all too hard to manage. 🤨

But in reality, many of those belong to individual facilities (things like the opera house or pools). In other words, the “problem” being solved doesn’t look nearly as dramatic as it was made out to be.

And here’s where their excuses really start to unravel.

Public feedback wasn’t exactly crying out for change. Around half of submissions either supported keeping the existing coat of arms or said the rebrand shouldn’t go ahead if it cost money.

Yet here we are.

Councillors didn’t even sign off on the decision. Instead, it appears to have been driven by council staff in another example of unelected officials pushing through costly changes without clear democratic backing.

If councils want to change something as fundamental as a city’s identity, it should be done transparently, with elected representatives making the call, not quietly pushed through by a self-promoting CEO.

Why are we paying millions for new logos? 💰

It’s becoming a familiar story: government agency decides it needs a fresh “look”… and taxpayers are left footing the bill.

Last month, Investigations Coordinator Rhys wrote to Public Service Minister Judith Collins raising concerns about the growing cost of public sector rebranding.

The examples speak for themselves. NZQA’s rebrand blew out to $2.9 million, new Crown Research Institutes spent $270,000, and Callaghan Innovation dropped another $170,000 on its own overhaul. 

And for what? A new logo, a new website, and a new set of 'branding guidelines'.

But the problem isn’t just the spending, it’s the system behind it.

Back in 2021, the Government introduced Identity Policy and Guidelines intended to standardise branding across agencies using the New Zealand Coat of Arms, improving transparency and consistency. Yet in practice, those rules have been interpreted so loosely that agencies are still running their own branding exercises anyway, duplicating design work, refreshing websites, and racking up ongoing costs. 

Other countries have already solved this. The UK and Australia use consistent, standardised government branding.

Even here in New Zealand, Internal Affairs managed to update its branding at minimal cost (thanks to Minister Brooke van Velden).

So we put a simple proposal to the Minister: tighten the rules. Limit branding exceptions to clearly defined cases where there’s a genuine operational or cultural need. No more free-for-all rebrands on the taxpayer dime.

To her credit, Minister Collins has asked officials to review the guidelines and assess where costs can be reduced, including lessons from recent blowouts. 

That’s a good start. But let’s be honest, this shouldn’t require a review - just an instruction from the Cabinet Office.

Spending millions on logos isn’t just wasteful, it’s tone deaf given the financial climate.

But until the rules are tightened, don’t be surprised if the next rebrand bill lands in your payslip.

Gore’s 11 percent rates hike - public excluded 🚨

Whanganui City Council aren’t the only council on the naughty list this week.

Gore District Council has approved an 11 percent rates increase, without any public consultation!

That’s on top of the staggering 46.6 percent cumulative rates hike Gore ratepayers have faced over the past three years.

As our Local Government spokesman Josh put it, hiking rates without even consulting ratepayers is an outright affront to local democracy - and exactly why a rates cap is urgently needed. Now.

But don’t just listen to us. Gore native and Newstalk ZB Senior Political Correspondent Barry Soper certainly had something to say about the decision too, have a listen here.

Barry called our report 103 Ways to Save Money in Local Government “required reading” for local councillors and, without tooting our own horn, it’s not hard to see why.

It’s packed with practical, no-nonsense ideas to cut costs and take pressure off ratepayers, from trimming bloated comms teams to putting a stop to nice-to-have spending like rebrands, events, and consultancy blowouts. 

The team have posted a hard copy of the report for every council in the country. Each councillor will also receive their own PDF version too - so there’s no room for excuses on missing this required reading.

If councillors can’t wait for their copy to arrive, you can read 103 Ways online now.

New Taxpayer Talk: Is the world... actually getting better? 🌈🎙️

Now, I know what you’re thinking. This is a bit rich coming from a newsletter that spends most of its time exposing government waste and bureaucratic nonsense.

But what if all the doom and gloom we’re constantly fed… just isn’t true?

In this week’s Taxpayer Talk, our Executive Director Jordan sits down with Cato Institute economist and HumanProgress.org founder Dr Marian Tupy to unpack the data behind global progress, and why so many people think things are getting worse when, in many ways, they’re improving.

From falling poverty and rising life expectancy to the real costs of Net Zero, housing affordability, and what AI means for the future of work, it’s a wide-ranging and surprisingly optimistic conversation.

If you’ve ever suspected the catastrophists might be missing something… listen here, or wherever you get your podcasts 🎧

I hope you all had a lovely Easter break - I had a great time in the Remutakas, getting some fresh air before Budget season hits.

Have a great week!

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

Ps. Dashboards like the Bureaucrat Salary Leaderboard help us to keep the Wellington elites accountable. But we can’t do it without your support, so chip in now to contribute to our next one - the much-anticipated annual rates increase dash. 

 

Responding to calls in The Post by Labour MP Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall that there have been “thousands of public service job losses", Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Where on earth is Dr Verrall getting these numbers from? The Public Service Commission’s own data shows there are still more bureaucrats now than when Labour left office.”

“There were 63,117 public servants in 2023 compared to 63,657 at the end of 2025. That’s 540 more staff than when Labour was in charge - not fewer.”

“The truth is the public service is still larger than it was, and it’s not the cause of Wellington’s decline - that lies with the COVID hangover from work-from-home policies.”

“The idea of mass layoffs across the bureaucracy is simply a myth. If Labour really wants to back Wellington, they should support getting public servants off the couch and back into the office.”

Public servants are now paid $17,600 more a year than people in the private sector, and every single government department has a higher average salary than private-sector New Zealanders.

To make it worse, bureaucrats' salaries are also growing quicker. Between 2020 and 2025, departments' average salaries rose 21.37 percent, almost fifty percent more than the 14.49 percent growth in the private sector over the same period.

More bureaucrats being paid more money means more debt for taxpayers. 

*Public service salaries were taken from the Public Service Commission's 'Wage Trends' data, available here.

What if the world is actually getting better — and we just can't see it? In this episode, host Jordan Williams sits down with Marian Tupy, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and founder of HumanProgress.org, to challenge the doom and gloom dominating today's headlines. Drawing on his books Super Abundance and 10 Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know, Tupy makes a data-driven case that life expectancy, poverty, child mortality, and war are all trending in the right direction — and explains why our brains are wired to miss it.

From the hidden costs of Net Zero and NIMBYism, to the real story behind American inequality, housing affordability for young New Zealanders, and what AI might mean for the future of work, this is a wide-ranging conversation about progress, freedom, and what it takes to build a better world. A must-listen for anyone who suspects the catastrophists might be missing something important.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is backing Te Pāti Māori’s call for a freeze on MP pay rises, saying politicians should not be taking more while many New Zealanders are doing it tough.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Te Pāti Māori are right to call this out. While families are struggling with rising costs, Members of Parliament pocketing over $17,000 in pay rises this term is completely out of touch.”

“This is a simple matter of leadership. If MPs believe the country is struggling, they should reflect that in their own pay packets.”

“Too often, politicians are quick to talk about fairness but slow to apply it to themselves. Te Pāti Māori deserve credit for taking a principled stance on this issue.”

“Of course, MPs who don’t want to accept unfair pay rises can pay them straight back to Treasury. We look forward to confirmation that Te Pāti Māori MPs will be paying back any increase they receive.”

Treasury’s Crown receipts account number is 03-0049-0000327-25, and a copy of the deposit clip can be viewed here. Treasury requests that donors include the name of the payee and purpose of payment e.g. “MP’s Salary” in the reference fields.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that Health New Zealand was holding compulsory "Karakia" sessions during work hours.

But now, our own research has uncovered something even more absurd, this time at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

While Kiwi businesses are facing economic uncertainty, the Ministry supposedly responsible for helping businesses has been spending our money on Workplace Waiata – i.e. staff singing sessions in their Wellington offices.

And this isn't just a one-off thing: At their swanky Wellington offices, MBIE were hosting 30 minute sessions every work day, every week!

MBIE employs 5,892 bureaucrats (it's grown from 4,676 in 2020), literally being paid to sing, clap, poi, and recite Māori proverbs and hymns.

MBIE bosses asked the staff to get back to work. But the bureaucrats said "NO!"

According to documents we've unearthed, last year, MBIE bosses attempted to reduce these sessions from daily 30-minute sing-alongs across various floors, to "just" 20 minutes, twice a week.

According to email correspondence (obtained under the Official Information Act) one of the reasons for the 'cut back' was concerns about the Workplace Waiata causing noise distraction for others in the office.

No kidding!

But here's where it gets even more ridiculous...

The precious MBIE staffers weren't having a bar of it!

They revolted at management for daring to cut back the entitlement.

MBIE's CEO was forced into crisis meetings to literally negotiate the waiata schedule! 

We've unearthed internal emails, chats, strategy documents, and even formal negotiations.

Staff wrote an eight page submission demanding that the waiata "entitlement" continue.

Staff described the sessions as "taonga" (treasure) and insisted they were essential for "wellbeing" and "capability building." They produced lengthy documents arguing why three sessions per week was the "bare minimum".

Their suggestion to the senior leadership? To carry on doing everything they were already doing: 

The bureaucrats claimed that management's instruction to have the sessions during unpaid breaks was "colonial" and "culturally insensitive". 

They said even "relocating to enclosed rooms" (in order to avoid disrupting other staff in the open offices) was "viewed as symbolic marginalisation" and "hiding the kaupapa".

So MBIE's leadership teams were forced to hold crisis meetings. 

You read that right. The Ministry responsible for making sure New Zealand’s economy works, from businesses and jobs to housing, immigration, and energy, spent months arguing about singing schedules. 🤦‍♂️

That's how woke self-entitled these MBIE staff have become.

The "compromise" reached

The final compromise and solution? Management eventually agreed through a "cultural negotiation" that the 30-minute sing-along sessions would not be abolished.

Instead, they were reduced from five to three 30-minute sessions per week. 🤯

Only in the public service could something so ridiculous require this level of executive time, negotiation, and outcome.

Wellington needs a reality check - will you ensure they get it?

Friend, this isn't about cultural respect, it's about the priorities of people who are funded by us, the taxpayer.

Whether it is religious or cultural, you don't go to work to be paid to sing along. Only with your support can we fight to expose this sort of waste, call out the public sector, and demand better value for money.

Let me be crystal clear: this isn't a criticism of waiata or Māori culture. This is about a Ministry that has lost sight of its purpose.

Does your employer pay you 30-minutes a day for a sing-along or prayer?

If staff want to sing together, that's great – do it at lunchtime or after work. 

This MBIE workplace waiata shows what's wrong with Wellington, and we thought this Government was elected to tackle.

Where is the focus on the core business? Instead, taxpayers are shelling out for endless navel-gazing and staff priorities trumping taxpayer value, all while management is unable or unwilling to make basic decisions to ensure value for your money.

Time and time again, we get stories and tips from supporters about waste that goes on within the public service. At this point, we aren't even surprised. 

Will you donate to the Taxpayers' Union so we can continue to highlight this waste?

>> Fight the war on waste << 

Thank you for standing with us,

Rhys Hurley Investigations Coordinator New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

Ps. Next time a business owner tells you they can't get help from MBIE, or that economic development officials seem "out of touch" – remember this story. Chip in to fight the War on Waste.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal through a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request that Selwyn District Council is spending $27,186 a year on media monitoring.

The service, provided by STREEM, tracks mentions of the council across print, online news, television, radio, podcasts, and social media to improve “media visibility” and reporting to councillors about coverage.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Following a 38.96 percent rates hike last term, Selwyn Council apparently needs a further $27,000 subscription to see what people are saying about it.”

“Councils will argue this is a valuable information gathering tool for spotting issues, but when they start spending ratepayer money monitoring criticism rather than fixing the issues behind it, priorities have clearly gone wrong - especially when cheaper options are available.”

“Councils should be focused on roads, pipes, and rubbish, not paying for software that effectively lets them watch themselves in the news.”

“If Selwyn and other councils want fewer negative headlines about rate hikes, the solution isn’t better monitoring software but better spending decisions. Our 103 Ways to Cut Council Waste report has plenty of ideas on where to start.”

Our 103 Ways For Councils To Save Money report can be found here 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is slamming massive pay rises for Fire and Emergency New Zealand board members, saying it highlights the urgent need for the long-promised review into the agency following its troubled merger.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Handing out pay rises of up to 79% to board members while frontline firefighters remain locked in an industrial dispute is a terrible look and raises serious questions about priorities.”

“Taxpayers are being levied to fund an organisation where trucks are rusting, frontline and volunteer staff are under pressure, and yet those at the top are being rewarded with massive pay increases.”

“This is exactly why the Taxpayers’ Union has been calling for a full, independent review into FENZ. From failing equipment to poor management, the warning signs have been there for years.”

“The Government promised a review into FENZ’s performance back in 2016, now it’s time to deliver. Until then, throwing more money at the top risks rewarding failure rather than fixing it.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has responded to reports that Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown is raising concerns about the Government’s $1.3 billion National Ticketing System(NTS).

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“The NTS is shaping up to be yet another taxpayer-funded boondoggle driven by Wellington wishful thinking rather than real-world delivery discipline.”

“It was sold as a simple nationwide solution to replace a patchwork of local ticketing systems. Instead, the NTS has ballooned into a billion-dollar project with unclear delivery timelines and very little public accountability.”

“If even the mayor behind Auckland’s record-breaking rates hikes thinks this thing is a dud, you know it’s gone completely off the rails.”

“But even a broken clock is right twice a day and this time, Brown is bang on.”

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is questioning why taxpayers are funding security at privately-owned airports, as it reveals that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) employs 1,855 staff (excluding casuals, contractors, board members and staff on leave), making it larger than the United Kingdom’s 1,602 employees, which handles around ten times as many passengers.

This is because New Zealand’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible not only for aviation regulation, but also for running passenger and baggage screening. Making it larger than the United Kingdom’s regulator, despite ten times as many passengers travelling through British airports.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“Taxpayers in New Zealand, a country less than one-tenth the size of the UK, are paying for an aviation regulator much larger than the UK’s, because it is doing jobs the UK regulator simply doesn’t do.”

“Once you strip out the security workforce, the actual regulatory function is smaller. Which raises the question of why we are running airport security through a government agency in the first place?”

“The United Kingdom’s airports handle ten times more passengers, yet their regulator focuses on oversight while airports themselves run screening.”

“When some of our airports privately owned, taxpayers are entitled to ask why they are paying to run airport security at all, and the Civil Aviation Authority focusing only on regulation and enforcement.”

The United Kingdoms Civil Aviation Authority annual report can be found here

The Official Information Act request showing that the Aviation Security Service employs 1,349 staff excluding casuals, contractors, board members and staff on leave can be found here

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for better transparency from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) after it released today's fuel stock data that is already four days out of date, despite the importance of timely information during the ongoing fuel crisis.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf said:

“In a situation where supply certainty is critical, MBIE appears to be okay sharing last week’s information while asking the public to trust today’s reassurances. If ships were already inside New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone four days ago, then they should be here now. So why can’t MBIE simply tell us what those ships are?”

“The lack of basic transparency is baffling, particularly when the information isn't commercially sensitive. Anyone living near a port could look out their window and spot these ships, yet MBIE won’t even provide names or be clear what ship loads they're counting as 'on-shore', 'in EEZ' and 'on-water’."

"The delayed data raises concerns about whether the public are being kept in the dark during a critical supply crunch."

“At a time when Kiwis are worried about fuel availability, businesses are under pressure, and the economy is feeling the strain, MBIE’s response is to publish stale data. New Zealanders deserve real-time clarity, not lagging spreadsheets.”

"The same is true about data MBIE apparently holds, but isn't releasing, about daily fuel use. There is nothing commercially sensitive about releasing aggregated data."

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on MBIE to answer the following:

1. What are the Names and IMO numbers of all of the vessels counted within each category on the MBIE fuel stock table? For example, are the vessels that are technically here and currently unloading fuel counted in the In-Country row of the On water within EEZ row?
2. For the vessels listed as "On water outside EEZ", which are actually confirmed (with at least 90% certainty of arrival) or are they, as many suspect, simply ’Scheduled’ or ‘Likely’?
3. Why is MBIE providing what is essentially 5-day outdated information instead of the 'daily' data is is apparently receiving?

"MBIE criticises tools such as the FuelClock.nz but refuses to engage or say what, if anything, is incorrect. We suspect its failure to answer basic questions - or disclose their changing methodology - is because the third party tools are proving more accurate than their own website."

The Taxpayers’ Union has today released Fiscal Reality Check: The Reckoning in Numbers, exposing the scale of New Zealand’s deteriorating finances and the mounting pressure on Kiwi households.

The report highlights soaring debt, no surplus this decade, rising interest costs, and weakening economic growth, now compounded by global instability and a growing fuel crisis pushing up costs across the economy.

Taxpayers’ Union Head of Policy and Legislative Affairs, James Ross, said:

“New Zealand is heading into a fiscal reckoning just as global instability and the growing fuel crisis are driving up costs for families and businesses alike.”

“This report shows the hard truth: each household is now carrying around $140,000 in government debt, and that figure will climb towards $160,000 by the end of the decade. At the same time, there isn’t a single surplus forecast this decade. The Government is borrowing year after year, even outside of crises, and that debt keeps piling up.”

“Interest costs have exploded, with households now effectively paying more than $4,000 a year just to service government debt—and that’s before a single dollar is repaid.”

“Rising fuel prices and global tensions are only making this worse. Higher transport costs squeeze households from one side, while a rising interest bill on government debt squeezes them from the other. Meanwhile, New Zealanders are going backwards. GDP per household has fallen since 2023, and weak growth means less revenue and even more pressure on the books.”

“This dangerous mix leaves New Zealand dangerously exposed to the next shock, whether it’s geopolitical or economic. The longer politicians delay getting spending under control, the worse the eventual correction will be. We cannot keep running the country on the credit card.”

The report, Fiscal Reality Check: The Reckoning in Numbers, is available here.

Hi,

It’s been another busy week in the Wellington bubble: the fuel crisis has dominated, but, unfortunately, we've yet again uncovered more creative ways they're wasting your tax dollar.

And just to add to the drama, a new Fiscal Reality Check for New Zealand. Buckle in.

The $30k taxpayer-funded pro-Palestinian campaign in Christchurch ✊

Our Investigations Coordinator Rhys has uncovered that $30,000 of taxpayer money was used to fund pro-Palestinian billboards in Christchurch accusing Israel of genocide.

Now, it's not the role of the Taxpayers' Union to take a view on international affairs – we know our supporters will have varied views on this complex issue! But there’s one thing that unites us all: the apolitical Ethnic Communities Development Fund should absolutely NOT be funding blatantly political billboards like these... 👇 

Documents released under the Official Information Act show the $30,000 went to the Asturlab Cultural Centre for its “4 for 40 Stop the Silence” campaign, explicitly aimed at shifting public opinion.

So let’s call this what it is: taxpayer-funded political advocacy.

And it gets worse.

As Rhys told the media:

“The fund’s own rules say it does not support political objectives, yet this application was approved within days, with a Ministry advisor even helping tweak it to get over the line.”

We also may have created a *minor* diplomatic incident with this reveal, with the Israeli Embassy wading in and the Jerusalem Post picking up on the story. 

The story was listed in the Jerusalem Post’s Antisemitism section – although crickets from the New Zealand media...

As I said, taxpayers' views will certainly differ on the Palestine issue. But do taxpayers really fund Wellington to funnel money into foreign affairs-related political campaigns? We think not.

And there's more… 🤯

The deeper we dug, the more bizarre the spending. The same "Ethnic Communities Development Fund" is as loose as a goose.

There’s everything from swimming lessons for Pakistani women to Wellington’s CubaDupa street festival.

This is the same Ministry for Ethnic Communities that made headlines this week for being unable to justify its own existence.

Given the Government already has multiple agencies funding and advising on community development, social cohesion, and diversity, why not simply wind up these demographic ministries?

While the media wouldn't go there, ACT did: their press release was so on the money that it linked straight to our documents. 💁‍♀️

Fuel Security & Fiscal Dashboard 📊

Thanks to the many supporters who responded to Jordan's email on Thursday asking for feedback on our FuelClock.nz dashboard.

If you missed it, the Government's fuel data is released at least three days behind reality so we’ve done what Wellington hasn’t: a real-time dashboard matching official fuel stock data with live shipping movements, bond markets, and prediction market data.

It means you can see what’s actually happening, not just what Government officials want you to be told.

Right now, diesel stocks are sitting a few days above the Government’s "Minimum Stock Obligation" threshold. That’s reassuring — but far from comfortable.

MBIE does mea culpa on fuel stock misinformation screw-up ⛽️

On Thursday the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) had a real nightmare, putting out three different versions, sorry, "clarifications" of the data released the previous day!

Fortunately, we didn’t rely on MBIE's wayward website updates – we could see they were wrong as we have been using live AIS (GPS tracking) data of shipping to inform our models.

And so we were proved right! The highly respected political insider (subscriber only) Politik Newsletter by veteran Wellington journalist Richard Harman didn't hold back:

As I said to The Post newspaper the same day: if we can build it how come MBIE with its army of analysts seems incapable of keeping track of a few ships?

Heather du Plessis-Allan didn’t let the Government’s excuses slide either. Listen to her coverage here 👇

The role of the Taxpayers' Union is to promote transparency and accountability.

Right now, the fuel supply chain information is by far the most important economic statistic for businesses and households to plan ahead.

A lesson from COVID was not to ignore "The Wisdom of Crowds". In this case, the crowds (like our Fuel Clock) have been more accurate and transparent than the government source.

The data certainly doesn't make for pleasant reading – but we make no apology for arming taxpayers with objective, accurate information about the potential crisis the country faces.

New report: Sleepwalking into a fiscal reckoning 😨

If you’ve been feeling like things are getting tighter… you’re not imagining it.

Our latest report, Fiscal Reality Check: The Reckoning in Numbers, shows New Zealand is living beyond its means, and the bill is piling up fast.

Every household now carries a staggering $140,000 share of central government debt, up from just $29,000 in 2008.

And it’s still climbing...

And worse still, there isn’t a single surplus forecast for the rest of the 2020s.

Not one.

Wellington is borrowing year after year just to keep the lights on, with no credible plan to bring the books back into balance.

More debt, less prosperity 📈📉

This isn’t just numbers on a spreadsheet; it’s hitting New Zealanders' standard of living.

New Zealand hasn’t balanced the books since 2019, and instead of recovering after COVID, the Government has kept spending more than it earns.

At the same time, the economy is going backwards, with Kiwis now worse off than they were just two years ago.

So while the country racks up more debt, households are getting poorer. The most immediate impact of these numbers is on interest.

In just five years, the average household’s share of government interest costs has jumped from about $1,000 to over $4,200 a year — and that too is still rising.

By 2030, the government will be spending more on interest than on schools, Police, and justice combined. 

Meanwhile, the size of government has ballooned and borrowing is increasingly being used to fund day-to-day spending.

👉 Read the full report here and see just how serious the situation has become.

Because sooner or later, someone has to pay the bill. 

Policy Victory: David "Nosey" Parker's IRD snooping laws finally repealed 🕵🏻‍♂️

In August last year, we celebrated after Revenue Minister Simon Watts confirmed plans to repeal Section 17GB of the Tax Administration Act 1994.

Our chief policy wonk James danced a jig this week (not literally, although I do think it would make a good fundraiser) because the amendment canning the Nosey Parker clause finally passed in Parliament.

The excitingly-named Section 17GB allowed IRD to demand information from taxpayers (regardless of how private or personal) for purposes well beyond working out someone's tax liability.

We've been fighting the provision since 2022: it allowed the tax department to go on fishing expeditions and demand information even if it had nothing to do with working out someone's tax liability.

After thousands of taxpayers signed our petition to can the clause, we’re delighted that it’s finally, officially off the statute books. IRD is there to administer tax – no more, no less.

Nice one, Revenue Minister Simon Watts.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union

Ps. Our ability to create tools like the Fuel Clock is thanks to our supporters like you. Chip in now to further the mission of making Wellington more transparent and accountable.

 

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on MBIE leadership to front up and explain the extraordinary events of the last 24 hours which saw Wednesday’s fuel supply update (accurate as of last Sunday) changed three times over the course of yesterday.

“Right now, the supply chain of fuel is the most important economic statistic in the country," says Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tory Relf. "Every business leader and household is relying on up-to-date, accurate information to make informed decisions."

“It is totally unacceptable that MBIE can claim to have all the knowledge and say ‘trust us’, but then be changing it literally hour to hour. How can anyone trust that?”

“Our FuelClock.nz uses MBIE data but matches it to real-world shipping trackers. It appears that the original 'clarification' yesterday by MBIE either double-counted the ship Nicola Willis stood in front of on Sunday, or had invented a 'ghost ship' that doesn't exist on shipping logs."

"We could figure that out - which is why we stuck by the FuelClock.nz information. But apparently, MBIE had no quality control or audit before it misled the public. What resulted was a shambles.”

“Unless it was a deliberate PR strategy for misleading headlines to falsely reassure the public there is more diesel in the country than there actually is, yesterday’s events calls for accountability and heads to roll."

"Rather than making snarky comments in the media about third party tools like ours - which ironically, proved to be more reliable than the MBIE website - MBIE should be working with businesses, communities and media organisations to ensure the public are being properly furnished with accurate and timely information."

"MBIE operates under 20 ministers, making accountability grey. But if MBIE's leaders are doing their job, they ought to front up today to explain what is going on, and assure the public can have confidence in its numbers."

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the passage of legislation to remove the “Nosey Parker” powers, calling it a major win for fairness and common sense.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“David Parker’s snoopers’ law is now gone, and good riddance. Taxpayers have a right to privacy, and Parliament has finally drawn a line.”

“Open-ended powers for IRD to demand any information they ‘consider relevant’ were always an overreach with this change restoring some much-needed balance.”

“Following months of Taxpayers’ Union campaigning to have this law removed, Minister Watts has finally followed through. This is a win for common sense and for the thousands of taxpayers who backed our campaign.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal further details through a Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act request that shows Whanganui District Councils rebranding work cost $116,899.12, which is $55,099 higher than the $61,800 figure initially presented to ratepayers.

Officials have also justified the rebrand by claiming the council currently uses around 20 different logos. However, many of these relate to individual council facilities and services, such as the opera house and public pools, rather than separate logos for council departments.

Taxpayers’ Union Investigations Coordinator, Rhys Hurley, said:

“The council has tried to downplay the cost of this rebranding, but the documents show the real figure ratepayers are on the hook for is far higher than what was initially put out publicly.”

“Interim Chief Executive, Barbara McKerrow, has also claims only about 20 percent of feedback was positive, but within the consultation responses, around half either broadly support keeping the coat of arms or explicitly say the change should not happen if there would be a cost.”

“The most concerning part is that councillors themselves didn't sign off the decision. We have seen this same story again and again, where major brand changes are driven by council bureaucracy rather than elected representatives.”

“Decisions about a city’s identity should not be made by unelected officials. If councils want to change, that decision should be made by elected councillors who are accountable to the community.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming Gore District Council’s decision to hike rates by 11 percent without public consultation.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Josh Van Veen said:

"Gore ratepayers have already endured a staggering 46.6 percent cumulative rates rise over the past three years. Another big rates hike without even consulting the public is total affront to local democracy and underscores the urgent need for a rates cap."

"If Gore councillors want ideas of how to save money and ease the burden on ratepayers, our report 103 Ways to Save Money in Local Government lists examples of savings across all functions of councils and is on its way to councillors across the country."

The report 103 Ways to Save Money in Local Government is available here.