This morning the New Zealand Herald covered figures released by the Taxpayers' Union show that MPs are chewing through more than $65,000 per month on payouts to avoid messy employment grievances.

Parliamentary Service spent nearly $400,000 on payouts for former staff in the second half of last year, a period in which the agency was mired in controversy.

Figures released by the Speaker showed that since June, 20 former employees had received a severance payment. On average, former staff received nearly $20,000 each.

Parliamentary Service employed around 650 people including assistants and advisers for MPs in Wellington and regional offices, and also staff within the parliamentary precinct such as security guards.

Eleven of the people who received severance packages had worked for MPs.

Parliamentary Service group manager shared services Anne Smith said the number and amount of payments was higher than usual because the agency was being restructured and because of a high turnover of MPs in the second half of the year.

She said the costs would be offset by the improvements made in the restructuring.

Labour Party MP Grant Robertson said that the payments reflected a turbulent period for the agency.

"It would be fair to say that morale has been pretty low in the Parliamentary Service and obviously from the point of view of MPs we don't want to see that carry on."

General manager Geoff Thorn resigned in August after it was revealed that Parliamentary Service had passed on emails between Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance and United Future leader Peter Dunne to an inquiry investigating the leak of a sensitive report.

Taxpayers' Union spokesman Jordan Williams criticised the costly use of public money to pay out former staff. He claimed that Parliamentary Service was "buying the silence" of workers who had been sacked on the spot by MPs.

A clause in parliamentary staff contracts allowed instant dismissal of staff in cases of "irreconcilable differences".

Mr Williams said he knew of two dismissals in which a minor party leader refused to hear their employee's response to allegations made by other colleagues.

Parliamentary Service would not confirm how many of the payments related to the irreconcilable differences clause, but said the agency followed strict processes in dealing with employment disputes.

The payments usually covered three months' wages and any outstanding leave or other entitlements.

The figures released did not include ministerial staff.

Severance payments

MP support staff: Eleven payments totalling $122,935.
Other staff: Nine payments totalling $273,006.

The two instant dismissals referred to in the Herald story, were due to a minor party leader being unwilling to hear his employee’s response to a minor allegation made by a colleague. The former employees were offered confidential payouts from Parliamentary Service well above what the individuals were advised they would likely be awarded in court. 

While every other New Zealander must follow the letter of employment law, information released to the Taxpayers' Union suggests that MPs are often ignoring it and having taxpayers fund the resulting payouts. It appears that parliamentary officials offer generous settlements to avoid cases going to the Employment Relations Authority. We think that protecting MPs with such a practise affords them a privilege that only invites further abuse. 

To date Ministerial Services has refused to provide the equivalent information for ministerial staff. The Taxpayers' Union currently has a complaint regarding that decision before the Ombudsman.

This morning's NZ Herald covers an opinion poll it commissioned on public support for lowering the threshold GST is applicable to for purchases made on foreign websites:

Taxpayers' Union positive about royal visit Newstalk ZB 21/12/2014

A body set up to critique the way taxpayers' money is spent is feeling positive about next year's royal visit.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - William and Kate - have confirmed a trip to New Zealand in April.

It's not yet clear if Prince George will travel with them.

Taxpayers' Union spokesman Jordan Williams says while the cost of the trip isn't yet known....it may not be as bad as some people expect.

He says New Zealand is only picking up the tab for the few days the royals are here, while other countries have to carry the cost of a royal family or a president all year.

The Taxpayers’ Union revealed a massive cost overrun of a mismanaged IT project jointly commissioned by DoC and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).  Two independent reports on the project are damning of DoC.  They blame mismanagement and ineffective governance for the project’s failure. It appears that LINZ has walked away from the project and has left DoC to pick up the pieces.  A selection of the media coverage is below.

Another govt IT project failure - this time at DoC New Zealand Herald - 18/12/2013

Yet another Government IT project has gone off the rails with a new Department of Conservation land management system costing taxpayers millions in budget overruns while still failing to deliver as promised.

And as in the case of the Novopay debacle, officials have blamed an Australian IT company.

The National Property and Land Information System (NaPALIS) initiated two years ago was joint programme intended to replace the Department of Conservation's (DoC) and Land Information NZ's (Linz) existing systems, with Tasmanian company ICS winning the contract.

However documents obtained under the Official Information Act by activist group the Taxypayers Union reveal the $5.6 million project was completed several months late in September last year, required an extra $588,967 to complete and even then failed to function as required by DoC.

DoC has now allocated about $2 million of additional funding to make the programme fully operational.

Personality clashes causing budget blowout Newstalk ZB - 18/12/2013 

Trouble between LINZ and DOC 

Personality clashes between government departments could be to blame for a failing and over budget information system.

Documents released to the Taxpayers' Union show efforts for the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand to work together to create a database of the country's land have been dodgy at best.

Union spokesperson Jordan Williams says the project is now $2 million over budget, and still not fully operational.

He says two independent reports blame ineffective governance, and even officials from the the two departments not getting along.

System now top priority

An expensive and overdue information system is now the top priority for Department of Conservation bosses to see fixed.

The National Property and Land Information System was due to be finished early last year, but still isn't fully operational, and needs an injection of $2 million for bug fixes.

Director-General Lou Sanson says he doesn't like waste, so he's determined to get it sorted.

He says taxpayers can be assured he'll wring maximum value out of the system to make up for the delays.

DoC admits failings over IT blow-out Radio New Zealand - 18/12/2013 

Click here to listen to Checkpoint interview with Lou Sanson, Director General, DOC

Click here to listen to Checkpoint interview with Jordan Williams, Taxpayers' Union

Cost overruns with DOC computer system Otago Daily Times - 18/12/2013

Taxpayers' Union 'uncover massive IT screw up' Yahoo! New Zealand - 18/12/2013

Jordan Williams joined Paul Henry on Thursday's RadioLIVE Drive. Click here for audio on demand RadioLIVE 19/12/2013

The tip line works

Just after publicly launching in October, the Taxpayers' Union received an anonymous tip off that there was a massive cost overrun of a mismanaged IT project jointly commissioned by DoC and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).  The National Property and Land Information System (“NaPALIS”) had allegedly been a failure, with DoC still picking up the pieces 18 months after the project was scheduled to be complete.

This morning a DoC official hand delivered the response to the requests for information by the Taxpayers' Union. We understand that the Director General will be making a public statement this afternoon.

The material includes two independent reports that are damning of DoC.  They blame mismanagement and ineffective governance for the project’s failure. It appears that LINZ has walked away from the project and has left DoC to pick up the pieces.

We're still reviewing the material, but to summaries one of the independent reviews of the project (conducted by Deloitte), it found:

• ineffective governance;
• inadequate business ownership;
• lack of shared vision and shared outcome by DoC and LINZ for NaPALIS;
• the NaPALIS Programme’s failure to deliver benefits to DoC;
• lack of effective and inclusive requirements and development phase;
• ineffective work on cultural alignment and change management between DoC and LINZ;
• personality clashes between the DoC and LINZ;
• an “us and them” approach -the report says:
• “The Programme Manager was seen to be working only for LINZ most of the time, leaving DoC to flounder”;
• lack of focus by the Programme Manager on achieving a join outcome;
• lack of accountability by the Programme Manager;
• ineffective vendor management; and
• lack of independent quality assurance.

Update:

The NZ Herald have now picked up the story. Our media release is copied below.

MEDIA RELEASE

TAXPAYERS’ UNION UNCOVER MASSIVE I.T. SCREW UP WITHIN DOC

18 DECEMBER 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Taxpayers’ Union has uncovered an IT screw up within the Department of Conservation as a result of a tip-off to taxpayers.org.nz relating to DoC’s National Property and Land Information System (“NaPALIS”).

Two independent reports by accountancy firm Deloitte are damning of DoC. They blame mismanagement and ineffective governance for the project’s failure. NaPALIS was joint project between DoC and Land Information New Zealand. Despite DoC allocating over $2 million in additional funding, the system is still not fully operational. The IT project has cost taxpayers over $6 million and LINZ appear to be leaving it to DoC to fix up the mess.

“This is DoC’s very own Novopay,” says Jordan Williams, Executive Director of theTaxpayers’ Union. “The two independent reviews show how mismanaged the project was from day one. It appears that LINZ have now walked away from the project and left DoC with a system which isn’t up to the replacing the old one.”

“The warning bells were ringing from the start. There needs to be accountability for the taxpayers’ money that has been wasted on a computer system that doesn’t work.”

“DoC’s internal ‘closure report’ skims over the two damning Deloitte reports. It suggests that no lessons have been learned.”

“While the Taxpayers’ Union is troubled by what has been uncovered, at least the public can now see how badly the project was mismanaged by DoC. The Taxpayers’ Unionbegan researching the issue after an anonymous tip off at taxpayers.org.nz.”

The information and reports by Deloitte released by DoC to the Taxpayers' Union are available at www.taxpayers.org.nz.

Q & A

What is the NaPALIS Programme?
The NaPALIS Programme and resulting new Land Management Information System was to bring together 9 business groups across LINZ and DoC to create a single, shared ‘source of the truth’ for over 40% of New Zealand’s Land totaling over $6 billion in value.
 
When was NaPALIS expected to go live?
NAPALIS was scheduled to go live in February 2012. In March 2012, this was revised to May 2012. It went ‘partially operational’ in September 2012. For DoC, the system is still not operational.

How much did the programme cost and is it finished?
The programme is now 18 months overdue and it still doesn’t work. To fix the bugs, DoC and LINZ initially increased the budget by $588,967 to $6,194,134. It appears that LINZ has now walked away from the project leaving DoC to allocate another $2 million to complete it.

What’s the latest $2 million for?
Despite the extra spending by DoC and LINZ, NaPALIS is still only partially operational.  The new $2 million allocated is to address (among other things):

• work to resolve the majority of system defects necessary to make NaPALIS operational;
• including the backlog of necessary changes that were not part of the initial data migration;
• completing a technical review and considering design solutions;
• resolving essential architecture issues; and
• process development and system changes relating to Treaty of Waitangi matters.

• the role and authority of the NaPALIS was being “undermined”;
• there was no external member of the Steering Committee;
• there were issues of scope; and
• that delays were persistent.

• “There was a lack of clarity around business ownership with DoC and LINZ”
• “The Programme did not have a consistent approach to Independent Quality Assurance (‘IQA’) from the outset.”

• ineffective governance;
• inadequate business ownership;
• lack of shared vision and shared outcome by DoC and LINZ for NaPALIS;
• the NaPALIS Programme’s failure to deliver benefits to DoC;
• lack of effective and inclusive requirements and development phase;
• ineffective work on cultural alignment and change management between DoC and LINZ;
• personality clashes between the DoC and LINZ;
• an “us and them” approach - the report says:
• “The Programme Manager was seen to be working only for LINZ most of the time, leaving DoC to flounder”;
• lack of focus by the Programme Manager on achieving a joint outcome;
• lack of accountability by the Programme Manager;
• ineffective vendor management; and
• lack of independent quality assurance.

• NaPALIS went live in September 2012 after a number of delays.  It was implemented over budget and several months after it was expected to be implemented.  We believe that there was potential to deliver a join successful outcome.  However, ineffective governance and management of the NaPALIS Programme has meant that a successful outcome has not been delivered forboth organisations. LINZ are using the new tools and processes that NaPALIS provides, whilst DoC do not feel able to use these new tools and processes effectively.  DoC are indicating that another Programme of work is required costing several hundred thousand dollars to get NaPALIS to a point where it will meet their business needs.”
• “We do not believe that the Programme was set up well from the outset and that the Governance and Programme/Project Management controls that were put in place fell short of good practice.

Can the public access the material?
We’ve uploaded the information released by DoC under the Official Information Act is copied below.

ENDS 

DoC's reponse to Taxpayers' Union requests on NaPALIS

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a deal with Hollywood studios that will allow up to 25% tax rebates on film production expenditure within New Zealand.

While we can all applaud our world-class film industry and the jobs the deal will create, why is the film industry so special? Many industries are still suffering from a high dollar and increased international competition. As the Government acknowledges (at least for film producers) tax matters when it comes to business choosing what country to invest - we compete against the world.  Why should less high profile or ‘cool’ industries shoulder the burden while the film industry is sheltered – would we better off if the Government worked harder to lower taxes for all?  

KPMG have a useful tool to compare tax rates (corporate, individual and indirect) on their website. 

Click here to comment on this blogpost via the Taxpayers' Union Facebook page. Should we working to become more competitive overall, or should we encourage our politicians to 'cut more deals'?  At what point does it become corporate hand-outs?

Click here or the image below for video on demand.

Tough questions over affair ahead for Auckland mayor 3 News - 14/12/2013

As widely covered by media over the weekend, the EY report into suspected misuse of Auckland Council resources by Len Brown is deeply concerning. In addition to the undeclared freebies (including undeclared gifts from Skycity - at the same time as publicly championing the convention centre deal) the report fails to deal with the concerns raised by the Taxpayers' Union in relation to the Mayor's trip to China in January 2013.

We still don't know for example:

1. What was Mayor Brown's spending on the trip?
2. Why was the trip not announced in the same way as other official trips by Mr Brown?
3. Why did officials mislead us about the existence of the trip?
4. Why were officials instructed to refer all enquires about the trip to Mr Brown's Chief of Staff?
5. Were officials instructed not to disclose the existence of the trip?
6. What was/is the Council or Mayor trying to hide?

Apology hollow without offer to refund Auckland ratepayers

Today we called on Mr Brown to pay back the money for both his personal expenses and undeclared gift listed in the EY report.  Without the offer to pay the money back, we think the apology made by Mr Brown today to ratepayers is meaningless.

MEDIA RELEASE

BROWN APOLOGY HOLLOW WITHOUT OFFER TO REFUND RATEPAYERS

16 DECEMBER 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Auckland Mayor Len Brown to pay back the amount owed to Auckland ratepayers for his personal expenses and undeclared gifts listed in the EY report released on Friday.
 
“Len Brown’s apology is meaningless without an offer to pay the money back,” saysTaxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams.
 
“Mayor Brown hasn’t addressed whether he will be paying back the $2,898 EY calculated were the costs of personal calls borne by ratepayers. While the nearly $40,000 worth of gifts Mayor Brown received were mostly services in kind, his failure to disclose them puts a moral obligation on Mayor Brown to pay for them.”

"Mayor Brown is one of the few senior Labour Party figures to publicly back the SkyCity Convention Centre deal. That we now know he was secretly receiving gifts of SkyCity raises serious questions. At the very least he should pay the money back," concludes Williams.

ENDS

Yesterday the Taxpayers’ Union  announced the winner of its competition for the Aucklander with the highest percentage increase in rates and user-charges.

The winner is Mrs Glenys Smith of Howick, whose rates have more than doubled since 2003.

Mrs Smith is a classic example of an Auckland householder paying more but getting less. In 2003 Mrs Smith’s rates were $1,371 in 2003. They are now more than double, up to nearly $3,100 for 2013/2014.

Mrs Smith also pointed out in her entry that, “When the wastewater charges were taken off the rates, the rates didn’t go down to compensate!”

Mrs Smith wins a KraftMaster petrol lawnmower (perfect for mowing the berms).

The other winner is Mr Colin Shearer of Sunnyhills. Though Mr Shearer didn’t provide the required user charge details to qualify for the lawnmower, his un-capped rates increase was the highest we received. As a discretionary prize, the Taxpayers’ Union is giving Mr Shearer a weed-wacker.

Mr Shearer’s uncapped rates increase is 34.2 per cent, from the 2011/2012 base year. That means that his rates will be over a third higher, in less than four years.

While Len Brown is hiding behind the ‘average’ figure of 2.5 per cent, this is merely an attempt to disguise just how much extra some Auckland households are paying. As the entries show, many Aucklanders are paying much more, while the Council is reducing services such as berm mowing.

Brown thinks Aucklanders just want Council to get on with work Newstalk ZB - 14/12/2013

He may have been officially cleared, but the Taxpayers' Union believes Len Brown still has questions to answer.

An Ernst and Young review has revealed the Auckland Mayor failed to declare tens of thousands of dollars worth of complimentary hotel rooms and upgrades.

It also shows ten percent of texts and calls on a cellphone the ratepayers funded, were to his mistress.

Taxpayers Union spokesman Jordan Williams doesn't buy the idea the report puts the Mayor in the clear.

Len Brown is hoping Aucklanders will consider his conduct, including extensive personal use of a council cellphone, in context.

The Mayor thinks he's done nothing wrong, and says the rules aren't clear.

Len Brown says an overhaul of the issues will make the rules more clear.

Report doesn't address secret trip to China - Taxpayers' Union Yahoo! New Zealand - 13/12/2013

The Executive Director of the Taxpayers' Union was interviewed by Duncan Garner on RadioLIVE's breakfast show. Click here for audio on demand. RadioLIVE - 12/12/2013

Anger at ATEED spending on America's Cup NewstalkZB - 6/12/2013

The New Zealand Taxpayers Union is lashing out at council-controlled Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) for spending more than $200,000 on sending staff and media to the America's Cup in San Francisco.

They say sending a few key staff is justified, but 11 staff and seven members of the media is more of a junket than a work trip.

Executive Director Jordan Williams says its would have contributed more to San Francisco's economic development than Auckland's.

He says they are filing an Official Information Request on the nature of the spending.

"We want to know precisely what they were doing over there. Were they sitting on boats watching the America's Cup, or were they actually working?

"That's the key question for ratepayers."

Yesterday the Labour Party confirmed its proposal for a new Children's Ministry and Minister. The Taxpayers' Union emailed Jacinda Ardern, the party's Spokesperson for Children.

Dear Ms Ardern,

We understand from your public comments today that the Labour Party is proposing a new “Children’s Ministry” and “Children’s Minister” (refer to http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1312/S00106/report-slams-government-inaction-on-protecting-our-kids.htm).

The Taxpayers’ Union supports all evidence based measures to help Kiwi kids succeed. We are not certain what yet another ministry (and job title) will achieve in terms of results on the ground. As you are probably aware we welcomed your announcement last month to abolish the Families Commission quango, a move we hoped signalled Labour’s intention to divert resources into front line services, rather than bureaucrats writing reports such as the one titled “Eating Together at Mealtimes”.

As such, we seek the background material on the proposed Ministry/Minister that would answer the following questions:

1. What are the cost projections to establish the Ministry?
2. What is the projected per year baseline funding?
3. Will the Ministry’s primary focus be policy advice or service delivery? If the latter, what responsibility and resources will be taken away from CYF, MSD or other ministries/departments? 
4. In terms of the number of FTE employees, how large do you propose the Ministry to be?
5. Can you point to any overseas models or research which would indicate how you propose the new Ministry will work, its service delivery, and outcomes?
6. How would the Ministry differ from the existing Families Commission?

We propose to post this email on our website. If you have any objection, please let me know without delay.

New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc.  

Once we have a response, we'll post here.

In the mean time, we're planning our activities for election year. We're considering a 'cost calculator' service to track the promises from each party and check what politicians plan to do with taxpayers' money.  Do you think it's worth us doing? Give us your thoughts by commenting on our Facebook page.

The report of the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the EcoCare wastewater project was released on Tuesday. It revealed serious failures in the management of the project, and strongly criticises Audit NZ. Inaccurate record keeping, mismanagement of the project, lack of financial advice and expertise, and reliance on private partnerships saw a huge budget blowout, with costs exceeding over $63m. For example, the effluent disposal bill alone increased from $361,000 to $14m.

How did the Council pay for this budget blowout? By raising rates for Mangawhai residents. The annual cost to ratepayers was a consideration in assessing the affordability of the project. However, the summary of the report reveals that the Council in fact decided to “increase the number of estimated ratepayers that would be covered by the scheme and contribute to funding it”. This is a fundamental flaw, and the Auditor-General concluded that this decision was not based on an adequate account of predicted growth in the area. This, as well as the undisclosed liabilities are precisely the things Audit NZ should have picked up on.

Overall the report suggests Audit NZ was failing audit 101

The Auditor-General's office (which includes Audit NZ) is supposed to provide assurance that government departments are performing as they should. The report details that:

• audit quality of the project was varied;
• the quality of documentation for some audit files were inadequate, especially those explaining why judgments were reached;
• there was a failure to reassess the project between 2006-2009 despite significant changes that could have been an audit risk; and
• the auditor’s reliance on information from Kaipara District Council’s management (which, from our examples above, were also clearly inadequate).

Joel Cayford has written a blog post evaluating the report. He’s gone a step further than the Taxpayers’ Union, and believes that an unreserved apology does not cut it, concluding that the Auditor-General's 'head is on the block'. 

Many audit failures internationally have led to large payouts by audit companies and their insurers to shareholders. Here, the tab was left with Kaipara ratepayers. The report does not address what we think the issue is: redress for the Kaipara ratepayers who paid the bill.

Kaipara blow-out a warning stuff.co.nz - 4/12/2013

A damning report into the $63.3 million budget blowout on Mangawhai's wastewater scheme comes with a warning for other councils. The Taxpayers' Union reacts to the report.

Pay top state bosses even more: report - DominionPost 30/11/2013

Jordan Williams, executive director of the Taxpayers' Union, said the report acknowledged the "tenuous" connection between performance and pay in the public sector, but overlooked difference with the private sector.

"Traditionally public sector employees have expected less pay in exchange for having better job security and it's disappointing that the report doesn't acknowledge that," he said.

Organisations in both the public and private sectors were now in a race to pay senior staff the most.

"Instead of asking 'how much do we need to pay to get this person', the question seems to be 'what's everyone else paying, let's go just above that average', and we have a race skywards."

Our Executive Director joined Seven Sharp's Heather du Plessis-Allan to check out taxpayer owned company, Transpowers' new $1.2million cafe on The Terrace, Wellington.  Click the image below for video on demand.

What's the difference between a 'cafe-style space' and a cafe?

Not a lot, but according to the government-owned monopoly Transpower, a $1.2million 'cafe-style space' is value for money unlike asking staff to visit the dozen cafes within a few hundred metres of its Wellington office building.

In 2012, the taxpayer owned company spent $1.2million refurbishing its reception and building "The Wire" a place where, according to Transpower CEO Patrick Strange, "we can engage and collaborate with each other, and with our guests."

Back in September, a Taxpayer's Union volunteer asked about the new cafe Transpower had built at 96 The Terrace, Wellington. It seems that calling it a "cafe" caused some offence. Transpower said (even bolding the text to emphasis the point):

The space on the ground level of Transpower House is not a café – it is a space for Transpower staff to meet internally and with our key stakeholders. 

We were told that the combined cost of the cafe space and adjacent reception area was $1.2million.

Unfortunately, Transpower would not initially tell us how long its lease for the building had remaining. After some haggling, we learned that the current lease expires in 2014.

Is $1.2million on a cafe and reception value for money?

Entries close tomorrow for our competition for the householder who can provide evidence of the highest percentage increase in Auckland Council rates and user-charges.  The prize is a lawnmower - just perfect for mowing those berms.

At the same time the Auckland Council is reducing services, a quick flick through the 50 or so entries we've have in so far, show many rates and user charge increases well over the 10% "cap".

The terms and conditions are available here.

Please scan and email your entries to [email protected] as any sent by post will no longer arrive in time.

AUDIO: Politicians "don't deserve" payrise RadioLIVE - 22/11/2013

Politicians' pay rises and more on way DominionPost - 22/11/2013

Jordan Williams, executive director of the Taxpayers' Union, said MPs were getting a "Christmas bonus" at a time when the Government was borrowing millions of dollars a day to cover its spending.

He said Errington's comments about the gap to executive pay were "deeply concerning" and seemed to overlook the nature of ministerial roles.

"By pegging MPs' remuneration to the private sector, you're effectively saying they're in a job. Well, for MPs, it's not a job, you're not even a bureaucrat.

"It is public service and the Remuneration Authority seems to have forgotten that," he said.

MPs don't deserve pay rise - Taxpayers' Union Yahoo News - 22/11/2013

Community service key to MPs' happiness Waikato Times - 22/11/2013

Following our waste-watch press release (our blog post is here), Seven Sharp picked up the story (click the picture for video on demand).

We've been looking into the claims by Auckland Council politicians relating to promises of a 'living wage' for Auckland Council employees.

An Auckland Council internal report obtained by the Taxpayers’ Union raises questions about the potential for job losses and casts the $3.75m price-tag for the policy into doubt. 

The Council’s report explains that the living wage is ‘not an effective, general tool for alleviating poverty’ and that ‘large proportions of minimum wage workers do not live in poor households.’

When you put aside the political rhetoric, the economic impact of the living wage policy will be disastrous for low-skilled Council workers, diversity and ratepayers according the Council’s own analysis.

If the Council’s aim is to reduce poverty, the report suggests that living wages for Council employees is not the way to do it.  According to the report, workers aged 15 - 24, women and ethnic minorities are over-represented in the category of people not earning more than $18.40 per hour. Artificially inflating Council wages may see less of these groups gaining future employment with the Council as competition for these positions increase.

In addition to increased competition for Council positions, the report indicates the potential for job losses and shows that workers may see overtime slashed.

The living wage policy will not only burden Aucklanders with higher rates, it also threatens Council workers with the prospect of job losses.  The true cost of the living wage policy may be much higher than the $3.75m quoted in the media.  For example, the Council’s analysis only considers workers within a 10% wage differential.  It has not factored in the potential for a domino effect of wage increases emanating from the introduction of the living wage.

We've uploaded the full report here.

Len Brown's Hong Kong trip confirmed New Zealand Herald - 12/11/2013

The Taxpayers' Union was also upset about the release of details about Mr Brown's trip to Hong Kong.

Union executive director Jordan Williams said it appeared from LGOIMA requests to the council on the matter that council officers "deliberately misled'' about the existence of the trip to avoid scrutiny.

"In addition, Auckland Council staff have apparently been instructed not to speak about the particular trip and to refer all inquiries to the mayor's office,'' he said.

ONE News (click the picture for video on demand)

Calls for MPs to declare property 'perk' One News - 11/11/2013

MPs' property loophole 'stings taxpayers' New Zealand Herald - 11/11/2013

The newly formed Taxpayers' Union, set up to "give Kiwi taxpayers a strong voice in the corridors of power", said it was shocked that the MPs were told to remove the relevant properties from their respective declaration of pecuniary interests.

Executive director Jordan Williams said the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, which was Dame Margaret Bazley at the time, should ensure the public is fully informed.

"We are shocked that she has advised Ministers to withhold information, contrary to the purpose of the register.

"Today's revelations show that the MPs' Register of Pecuniary Interests is unfit for purpose and needs to be amended. These entitlements are stinging taxpayers in the pocket. There is no excuse for not ensuring that there is full transparency."

The Taxpayers’ Union has today welcomed the New Zealand Herald’s investigation revealing six MPs claiming $78,000 per year in taxpayer-funded subsidies for their investment properties.

The Taxpayers' Union believes that taxpayers are entitled to know what personal benefits and remuneration MPs receive.

The Herald reports that Simon Bridges was ‘given clear advice’ from Dame Margaret Bazley to take out the relevant properties from his declaration of pecuniary interests. We think that Dame Margaret should be doing everything she can to ensure the public is fully informed.  We are shocked that she has advised Ministers to withhold information, contrary to the purpose of the register.

Today’s revelations show that the MPs’ Register of Pecuniary Interests is unfit for purpose and needs to be amended.  These entitlements are stinging taxpayers in the pocket. There is no excuse for not ensuring that there is full transparency so that Kiwis can judge for themselves whether MPs entitlements are fair.

Radio Live cover our competition looking for the Auckland ratepayer with the highest percentage rates increase.

Marcus Lush interviews Jordan Williams RadioLIVE - 8/11/2013

The Taxpayers’ Union this afternoon announced that it is offering a lawn mower to the householder who can provide evidence of the highest Auckland Council percentage increase in rates and user-charges.

We understand that some Auckland residents have suffered cumulative rate increases of over 30 per cent in the last few years.  At the same time the Auckland Council is reducing services such as berm mowing.

We are worried that while Len Brown is hiding behind the ‘average’ figure of 2.5 per cent, this is merely an attempt to disguise just how much extra some Auckland households are paying.  It ignores, for example, increased user charges.

The proposed rate increase is almost double the rate of inflation.  Aucklanders should be expecting more, not less, services from their Council.

Our press release is available here.  

COMPETITION TERMS: 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union Incorporated seeks rates and user-charge invoices for Council services showing the total uncapped percentage increase in rates and user-charges since the 2011/2012 baseline.  The resident who provides the largest percentage increase for the same property, as determined by the Taxpayers’ Union, will win.

Documentation must be sent to the Taxpayers’ Union, PO Box 10518, The Terrace, Wellington.  To be eligible, entries must be received before 5pm Friday 29 November 2013.

Entrants are only eligible to win the prize if they include their contact email and phone number on the documentation entered, are willing to certify the accuracy of the documentation provided and are willing to have their name publicly disclosed.

Please contact the Taxpayers’ Union (via [email protected]) if you require further information.

The winner will receive a CraftMaster Petrol Lawnmower model KM375PM, or similar.

The Taxpayers’ Union decision on entitlement to the prize is final.

UPDATE: Please scan and email your entries to [email protected] as any sent by post will no longer arrive in time.

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that the New Zealand Transport Authority's 'Drive Social' campaign cost taxpayers $1,492,395 on advertising, $985,019 on communications and advertising consultancy fees and $301,872 in other related costs.  This website alone cost $186,142.

The 'Drive Social' campaign was organised by NZTA to educate road-users that they “share the road with other drivers” and instructs them to “be considerate” (we're not making this up!).

We think that the funds for these sort of self-evident campaigns would be better spent on improving roads or preventing drink driving.  The Taxpayers’ Union asked the NZTA to provide cost-benefit analysis of the campaign. Instead, it could only provide us the costs to the taxpayer and ‘media monitoring’ reports.

We can all support advertising efforts to reduce the road toll, but here is an agency spending nearly three million dollars to tell drivers that there are other drivers on the road.  It’s bureaucrats spending our money to treat us like children.

Complete with a condescending tone and nursery rhyme-like music the ‘Drive Social’ website would insult the intelligence of most drivers.  Judge for yourself at www.drivesocial.co.nz.

Here is an example of one of the campaign billboards:

Union not a party in the making The Nation - 2/11/2013

Union not a party in the making The National Business Review - 2/11/2013

The country’s newest union will never become a political party, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union co-founder.

Jordan Williams, who co-founded the union with Kiwiblog’s David Farrar, said it was a bottom line of his involvement that the union wouldn’t become a political party - and if it ever became one, he would leave.

The Marlborough Express covers the figures on website spending released by the Taxpayers' Union
showing that Marlborough District Council spend three times as much as Nelson / Tasman / West Coast combined.

Council website 'astronomical' cost 'Marlborough Express - 31/10/2013

Council website 'astronomical' cost

The Marlborough District Council has spent more than $400,000 on website redevelopment over the past two years, nearly three times as much as Nelson, Tasman and the West Coast put together.

Figures released by the Taxpayers' Union show that only Auckland Council has spent more than Marlborough on website upgrades since July 2011.

Councils of a similar size to Marlborough, like Kapiti Coast, Upper Hutt and Wanganui, have all spent less than $15,000.

In comparison, Dunedin City Council spent only $35,520 over the same time period.

Wellington City, which redeveloped its award winning website earlier in the year, spent almost $100,000 less than Marlborough.

Taxpayers' Union executive director Jordan Williams said the astronomical amount was potentially a huge waste of ratepayer money.

''Even if we assume that half of Marlborough's residents have actually visited the site, it would probably have been cheaper for the council to pay for a taxi for them to visit the office.''

Council acting chief executive Mark Wheeler defended the spend, saying figures released by the union were not comparing apples with apples.

The council had undertaken a major upgrade, involving the design and development of three separate websites, in the last two years, while Dunedin, for example, might not have carried out any, Mr Wheeler said.

''Maybe they will do it next year, or did it five years ago,'' he said.

''You cannot compare how much has been spent over two years and say one is more efficient than the other.''

The figures did not take into consideration the services being provided on the websites, Mr Wheeler said.

The total cost of $410,550 covered the redesign of the council's website and the electronic access to property files, the development of an on-line payment and application system, the redesign of the separate Marlborough District Libraries website, which serves Blenheim and Picton, and the establishment of a Marlborough Youth website, he said.

Providing on-line access to thousands of property, building and resource consent files held by council was a major project and involved much more than a few tweaks to the existing website.

''The work is an important part of the council strategy to improve on-line customer service and, in fact, the on-line file access has been a first for local government in New Zealand.''

Other councils would likely have to follow Marlborough's lead over the coming years, he said.

Mr Williams said the amount spent by Marlborough District Council on its three websites was still excessive.

''Even if we did divide the amount by a third, the amount spent by Marlborough District Council is still astronomical compared to other councils of equivalent size,'' he said.

The Taxpayers' Union website cost $7000 to develop, Mr Williams said.

''We cannot figure out how they spent so much, even on three websites,'' he said.

''It's a nice website but it's not space age.''

www.marlborough.govt.nz

Twelve Questions: David Farrar The New Zealand Herald - 31/10/2013

3. And now you've set up the NZ Taxpayers Union. What's a right-wing political blogger doing with a union?

It's a lobby group representing the views of the taxpayer and targeting government waste. I've never been anti union - I've signed people up to unions in the past and I think they are important when there is a big power imbalance and workers are vulnerable. I think Unite has been pretty effective in some of the stuff they've done. This is something I've been working on for several years and I'll give you an example of the kind of thing we're targeting - the $30 million subsidy to Rio Tinto. I can't imagine we'd be saying that was great. Or the $3 million the Government spent on a road safety campaign telling us to be nice to our fellow drivers. No, it's not the new Act Party. And it's not anti left or right. I suspect we will somewhat annoy whoever is in government at the time.

Council website 'astronomical' cost The Marlborough Express - 31/10/2013

The Marlborough District Council has spent more than $400,000 on website redevelopment over the past two years, nearly three times as much as Nelson, Tasman and the West Coast put together.

Figures released by the Taxpayers' Union show that only Auckland Council has spent more than Marlborough on website upgrades since July 2011.

Councils of a similar size to Marlborough, like Kapiti Coast, Upper Hutt and Wanganui, have all spent less than $15,000.

In comparison, Dunedin City Council spent only $35,520 over the same time period.

Wellington City, which redeveloped its award winning website earlier in the year, spent almost $100,000 less than Marlborough.

Tax Payers Union eyes up first target Newstalk ZB - 30/10/2013

The newly established New Zealand Tax Payers Union has already eyed up it's first target - the Marlborough District Council.

It says since July 2011, the council has spent $410,550 on its website design and development.

In comparison, Dunedin City Council is said to have spent only $35,200 on its website.

Tax Payers Union co-founder Jordan Williams says the Marlborough Council's spent an exuberant amount of money.

"If, let's say, half the population of that district has actually been to the website, we estimate it would have actually been cheaper to have brought them all a taxi chit to physically go into the council."

Mr Williams says the union will be putting the microscope on spending across the political spectrum.

"We're not a political party and the Taxpayers Union will never become one. The success depends on us being a grassroots organisation for people that think there is too much waste and extravagance in Government."

The Taxpayers’ Union has welcomed Labour MP Jacinda Ardern’s announcement that if elected, Labour will scrap the Families Commission quango.

Government funding for an organisation churning out reports such as ‘Eating Together at Mealtimes’, is better spent on the frontline. We support Labour’s stance.

The Families Commission was only ever a result of an election deal with a minor party. We are glad Labour realise the need for money to be spent where it will be most effective for taxpayers.

The Families Commission’s ‘Eating Together at Mealtimes’ report is available

at http://www.familiescommission.org.nz/publications/research-reports/eating-together-at-mealtimes

Our Executive Director was interviewed on TV One's Breakfast show on the launch of the Taxpayers' Union and what it stands for.  Click below to watch (via the TVNZ website).

Grassroots group takes aim government spending (4:08) TVNZ Breakfast TV - 30/10/2014

Since July 2011, the Marlborough District Council has paid $410,550 for website design maintenance and development costs.  In comparison Dunedin City Council spent only $35,520 over the same time period.

“The only council that spent more on web design than Marlborough was Auckland Council” says Jordan Williams, Executive Director of the Taxpayers’ Union. 

“Even if we assume that half of Marlborough’s residents have actually visited the site, it would probably have been cheaper for the Council to pay for a taxi for them to visit the office.  It is potentially a huge waste of ratepayer money.”

Wellington City, which redeveloped its award winning website earlier in the year spent almost one hundred thousand dollars less than Marlborough.

Spending on website design maintenance and development costs since July 2011.

Click 'read more' for raw data.

1. Inappropriate Spending

This may be the CEO spending up large at Hooters, personal use of taxpayer or ratepayer money, and other spending which is simply not appropriate for a taxpayer funded organisation.

2. Excessive Spending

This is where the spending is on something appropriate such as a Council website, but the amount spent is excessive for the value gained. Just because something is worthwhile, doesn't mean that there should be no reasonable budget for it. For example, spending $300,000 on a website for a district of less than 50,000 residents.

3. Misdirected Spending

This is spending where the policy is misdirected and the spending is inefficient. An example from across the Tasman is Tony Abbott's paid parental leave scheme which rather than cap the subsidy at a level to target low and middle income parents, will provide the greatest subsidies (up to $2,900 a week) to the richest parents - who least need it. 

A local example would be the Supergold transport subsidy which has been a financial windfall for transport operators, or interest free-student loans. If the desire is to help low income pensioners with transport costs or to make tertiary education more affordable, there are alternative policies which would achieve these outcomes more efficiently.

Over the coming months we'll be exposing corporate and union welfare we think is wasteful or unfair on Kiwi taxpayers.  If you have an example you think our researchers or members should look into, please let us know via our online tip line.

Though we are new, we already know of examples where bureaucrats are not respecting the hard earned income of the New Zealanders who pay for their spending decisions through taxes.  Over the coming weeks we will be exposing some of those examples.

To stay up to date by following us on twitter or liking us on Facebook.

Follow @TaxpayersUnion

We are encouraging insiders to help.  Maybe you're a respected official, frustrated with waste you see in a department.  If so, please visit our tip line page - we guarantee the confidentiality of all out tip line sources.

A copy of our press release is available here.  You can find out more about on the what we stand for and a Q&A pages available at www.taxpayers.org.nz.

Yours faithfully,

The members of the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union