Dear Supporter,

Our team has just returned from the Beehive, where we attended the media and analysts' lock-up event for the Government’s new “Wellbeing Budget”. This year’s Budget was accompanied by some level of turmoil, with leaks, alleged hacks, and a (very brief) police investigation all entering the headlines throughout the week.

We’ve had two and a half hours to file through the fiscal documents and spending announcements. We now want to give you an insider’s look, before the spin on the 6pm news.

Our overall impression of this Budget is, glossy marketing aside, it is a classic welfare-spending, rail-worshipping, Michael Cullen-style Budget.

You can read Jordan's headline media statement here.

The Government is holding up its big spend on mental health services as evidence of a fresh new “wellbeing” approach, but the figures tell a different story. The Government is spending almost three times as much on rail ($2.14 billion / $1,175 per household) – including KiwiRail, regional rail and the Auckland City Rail Link – than on direct mental health spending ($823 million / $452 per household).

The “wellbeing” focus appears to be nothing more than a communications strategy from the Government. Budget 2019 is indistinguishable from any other normal Labour Budget, with more money for welfare recipients and no room for tax relief.

The big-ticket items

KiwiRail: An additional $1 billion ($549 per household) is being allocated for KiwiRail including $375 million for new wagons and locomotives and $331 million for new track and infrastructure. As a State-Owned Enterprise, KiwiRail is expected to be profitable – but it has never paid a cent in dividends to the Government. An additional billion dollars will not change reality – KiwiRail is a fundamentally unprofitable enterprise. Click here for my comments to the media.

Mental health: An extra $823 million ($452 per household) is being spent on mental health and addiction services. It has high aspirations, but few plans for judging value for money. As Scotland learned in the 1990s, a lot of extra money can go into mental health with little or no effect on measured outcomes. Click here for Louis' comments to the media.

Venture Capital Fund: Wealthy tech entrepreneurs rejoice! The Government is allocating $300 million ($164 per household) for a venture capital fund to help tech entrepreneurs who can’t convince investors or the bank to fund their projects. Worst of all, the project is being routed through the New Zealand Super Fund, which should be focused on delivering returns for future retirees. We say socialism for tech nerds is still socialism. Click here for my comments to the media.

Maori, Pasifika initiatives: Much of the spending on education, health, and even business is targeted on the basis of race, including an $80 million ($44 per household) injection for the Whanau Ora programme. We say targeting spending on race will lead to unfair and inefficient outcomes. Click here for Louis' comments to the media.

Welfare changes: Following the release of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report, the Government has chosen to spend $535 million ($293 per household) to boost up the welfare system. Benefit sanctions for breaking the rules are being withdrawn and beneficiary payments will be adjusted upwards annually in line with wages, rather than inflation. Click here for my comments to the media.

As for the economy…

The economy itself is expected to track slightly weaker in coming years (forecast GDP growth is set to average 2.6 percent in the next five years) but is not projected to enter recession or enter serious headwinds. Business investment growth, however, is expected to fall off a cliff in 2019 (0.7 percent growth) compared to 2018 (6.8 percent growth), which could be a reflection of weak business confidence in response to plans for a capital gains tax and international trade sentiment. The Government also still expects to meet its self-imposed Budget Responsibility Rules, including reducing net debt to below 20 percent of GDP by 2022.

Click here to read my media statement on the economic/fiscal update.

There’s a lot of information we’re still absorbing, so watch out for our next newsletter which will pick up some of the smaller-ticket items.

Until then,

Joe Ascroft Economist New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

 

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that, despite declaring a ‘climate emergency’ on Thursday, Environment Canterbury is the largest spender on combined international and domestic flights of all regional councils, bar Auckland.
 
On one hand, Ecan is making grand gestures indicating ratepayers will have to fork out more for climate change action. But it turns out ratepayers are already paying council staff to create emissions on their way to France, San Francisco, and Germany. One junket in Canada was, ironically, meant to address climate change. Ratepayers will be wishing council staff had just stayed at home.
 
The $21,000 international spend was in addition to a further $241,000 spent on domestic flights. The total $262,000 spent on flights in 2017/18 means Ecan is the seventh-largest spender on flights out of 77 councils across New Zealand, and is (Auckland aside) the highest-spending regional council.*
 
Out of all 77 councils Ecan was also the fourth most frequent flyer with 1,360 domestic flights flown in the 2017/18 financial year.
 
Ecan’s primary functions are local ones, so it’s unclear why any international travel is necessary. Even domestic flights should be limited – in the time of Skype, the cost of constant trips to Wellington is eye-watering and unjustified.
 
The Ministry for the Environment’s advice to those concerned about climate change is very clear: fly less. Ecan should either take this advice, or announce a ‘hypocrisy emergency’ to match its climate one.
 
Background documents:
LGOIMA response
International travel breakdown
 
*Travel expenditure figures for all councils have been obtained by the Union and are set to be released shortly, pending the release of final figures from Auckland Council.

The Mayor of Nelson’s genuine concern for climate change is being questioned, with the Taxpayers’ Union revealing the Mayor flew to Copenhagen for a luxury trip primarily to view a yet-to-be-open climate change museum.

An official information response shows that Mayor Rachel Reese spent four nights at a luxury hotel in Copenhagen costing the ratepayer nearly $2,000, and all ratepayers were left with is the bill and emissions.

Incredibly, there wasn’t even a climate conference, or even a climate conference centre. The Mayor flew to the Norway to look at a 'Climatorium', which is still being built, and a road which absorbs water to heat a kindergarten.

The Climatorium building is not set to be opened until 2020. According to reports, the Mayor hoped to pitch the idea to the European Union of Nelson having their own southern hemisphere Climatorium. In previous public comments, the Mayor has suggest that Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund could foot the bill.

This has all the hallmarks of a classic ‘climate junket’. The Mayor should be sticking to her knitting – Nelson’s roads and rubbish – not swanning off to fight climate change with air-miles.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Waikato Regional Council last year sent out 177 electronic Christmas cards to political insiders – at cost of $9,341*, or $53 per card.
 
The Union was tipped off about the cards by one of the recipients, who was concerned about the extravagance of the ridiculous ‘gesture’. According to the Council, the cards were sent to 177 “leaders of central and local government organisations, Waikato’s ministers [sic] of parliament, and non-government organisations with which Waikato Regional Council works closely.”
 
Investing this much time and money into a feel-good Christmas message for political insiders suggests the Regional Council is either overfunded, or has its priorities completely out of whack.
 
Fellow bureaucrats might have been impressed by the bells and whistles, but ratepayers will be wondering why the money wasn’t instead used for core services like roads and rubbish.
 
This was an unjustifiable indulgence, and the Regional Council needs to confirm it was a one-off. A more ratepayer-friendly option would have been to visit The Warehouse, which is selling 10-packs of Christmas cards for 47 cents.
 
*Including GST and postage.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has revealed that the Whangarei Arts Museum Trust spent $91,168 – including business class flights to Dubai – for 11 people to visit Vienna and see a Hundertwasser painting.

In total, Whangarei Art Museum Trust – a Council CCO – spent $71,308 flying 11 people return to Vienna via Auckland, and $19,860 was spent on accommodation.

Whangarei Council's purpose for the trip was to ‘gain an insight of what is involved in the realisation of a Hundertwasser creation and construction, and to strengthen relationships with our partners abroad.’ If this was a simple fact-finding mission why were 11 people required and why did they travel business class? Better to call it what it is, a junket.

Councils should be focused on core services – like roads, water, and rubbish – not international art trips for 11 people. Whangarei ratepayers deserve better.

Below is the full official information response from Whangarei District Council.

---

Dear Tabitha

I refer to your official information request of 17 August [reference COP002396] seeking information on flights and international trips.

Your request was referred to Council’s Finance Department for consideration. The responses below are based on data provided by our CCOS, our preferred travel supplier, and a high-level analysis of our general ledger accounts for travel expenses.

Domestic travel
1) the total spend on all domestic flights by your Council in the 2017/2018 financial year.
2) the total number of domestic flights flown in the same period.

	1.Total spent on domestic flights ( exc GST)	2.Total flights flown
Council	$80,078	183
CCO’s	$3,093	23
Total	$82,408	206

International travel
3) the total spend on all international flights in the 2017/2018 financial year;

	3.Total spend on international flights
Council  (a)	$8,051
CCO’s – Whangarei Art Museum Trust (b)	$71,308 – costs were incurred in the 17/18 year but travel was not until July 2018
Total	$79,359

4) a list of each international itinerary flown in the same period, including the:

Ref	Destination	Travellers	Reason for travel	Travel class flown
a)i	Townsville, Australia (return trip)	1 person	fact finding trip regarding the effectiveness of recyclables sorting facility	Economy
a)ii	Perth, Australia (return trip)	1 person	Local Government Chief Executive Conference	Premium Economy
a)iii	Adelaide, Australia (return trip)	1 person	Local Government Chief Officers Group Conference	The total cost of the return flights for this trip was $690.  We have been unable to definitively confirm the class of travel in this instance as the flights were originally booked by a third party agency.  However, given the cost of the flights they are assumed to have been Economy class flights
a)iv	Brisbane, Australia (return trip)	4 people	ICT Project Planning Meeting	Economy
b)	Auckland-Dubai, Dubai-Vienna (return trip)	11 people	To gain an insight/ understanding of what is involved in the realisation of a Hundertwasser creation and construction, and to strengthen relationships with our partners abroad	Auckland-Dubai (return): Business Dubai-Vienna (return): Economy

5) costs for each international itinerary, please also provide details of all associated:

Ref	Entertainment	Food	Accommodation	Conference costs	Transport and transfers	Other	Other (details)
a)i	-	122.32	388.00	-	276.76	75.00	Airport Parking
a)ii	-	-	393.14	680.87	435.42	30.00	Lock n Fly
a)iii	-	252.91	320.50	612.55		-
a)iv	-	269.66	2,313.23	-	239.38	-
b)			19,860	Travel did not occur until July 2018. Accommodation was prepaid in June 2018 so has been included for completeness.

6) For each international itinerary, please tell us if a domestic partner also travelled with the official.

a)i-iv: No
b): 3 partners also travelled but covered their own costs. These costs are not included in the above.

I hope this information is of some assistance. If you believe we have not responded appropriately to your request, you have the right by way of complaint, under section 27(3) of the Act, to apply to the Ombudsman to seek an investigation and review of the decision.

Yours sincerely,
[Redacted]

Wow!

Louis and I have just returned to the office from the Beehive, where we watched as Jacinda Ardern announced she has completely and totally ruled out a capital gains tax under her leadership.

This wasn't easy for the Prime Minister. She literally told the media she wanted Michael Cullen's capital gains tax. But you wouldn't let her have it. 

All up, more than 5,000 New Zealanders used our tool at www.AxeThisTax.nz to bombard Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters with messages telling them to scrap this unfair, complex, and costly tax. In addition, our efforts last year ensured that the vast majority of submissions to the Tax Working Group resisted Michael Cullen's efforts. Today's announcement showed that it worked.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, has just told media that the final decision was only taken in the last 'few hours'. That means our campaigning, even in the last few days, made all the difference.

This is why we founded the Taxpayers' Union

Wins like today are why David Farrar and I set up the Taxpayers' Union back in 2013. The 'Axe this Tax' campaign could not have happened without the tens of thousands of people who have donated and supported our campaign efforts over those years.

To our fourty thousand members and supporters, thank you for making it possible.

Two thirds of the forecast revenue from the Tax Working Group’s proposed capital gains tax is the created by the proposal’s failure to adjust for inflation, reveals the Taxpayers’ Union in its new report, Inflating the Cost of Tax: Why failing to adjust capital gains tax for inflation is unfair.

Jordan Williams, Executive Director of the Taxpayers' Union, said:

“Michael Cullen defends his proposal on the basis of ‘fairness’, but it is not fair to tax New Zealanders for inflation that they have no control over. If the Government fails to fix this aspect of the tax, it will be guilty of a cynical revenue grab.”

“This tax will hit New Zealanders at far higher rates than advertised, it would thieve from those who are not necessarily getting any richer, and it would reward politicians who fail to control inflation with extra revenue.”

Joe Ascroft, Economist at the Taxpayers' Union who authored the report, said:

“The compounding effect of inflation creates large ‘paper gains’ on assets in the long term. Under the Working Group’s proposal, these gains would be unfairly taxed, even though they don’t represent any real increase in value.”

“This will result in some asset holders paying real tax rates far higher than the advertised 30 or 33 percent. In fact, in some cases the tax on capital gains will be well over 50 percent.”

Key findings*:

• Over two thirds of the tax’s forecast revenue can be attributed to the effect of taxing paper gains (based on the Working Group’s own assumptions about expected capital gains).

• A typical $500,000 rental property could face a real capital gains tax rate of 55.7 percent when sold after 20 years.

• A typical $450,000 bach could face a real capital gains tax rate of 76.5 percent when sold after 30 years.

• A typical $800,000 family home / lifestyle block could face a tax rate of 30.35% when sold after 10 years.

• A typical $500,000 bach that experiences zero real capital gain could still produce a $64,000 tax bill when sold after 25 years.

* based on an inflation rate of two percent.

The Taxpayers’ Union is campaigning to stop the capital gains tax at AxeThisTax.nz. Inflation adjustment was one of the Five Rules for a Fair Capital Gains Tax published in February.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union today formally launches a major campaign to fight the unfair capital gains tax, proposed by Dr Michael Cullen’s Tax Working Group.

The Union is encouraging New Zealanders to go to axethistax.nz and use the email tool to tell Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters how the tax will hit their family.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says “The capital gains tax proposed by Dr Cullen and the Tax Working Group would be the least fair and most punitive in the world, and would apply to small businesses, farms, shares, and property. We are calling on the Government to Axe this Tax by rejecting the Working Group’s recommendations outright.”

“Our role in this campaign is to make it easier for taxpayers to navigate the Wellington bureaucracy to ensure politicians hear from those who will be personally affected by the tax. That’s why as a first step of the campaign we’re providing taxpayers with a tool to tell Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters to reject the capital gains tax.”

“This is also a public education campaign to increase awareness of the scope of the proposed tax. With the support of our thousands of donors, we have full page newspaper adverts (see below) running across the country and a major digital campaign launching today.”

“While Dr Cullen is trying to convince the public that this is a tax on the wealthy, most New Zealanders will be hit by the tax at some point in their life. If you own your own home but have flatmates, live on a lifestyle block, have a small business, have a rental property for retirement, or have a KiwiSaver account, you will be targeted under Dr Cullen’s proposals.”

More information on the Taxpayers’ Union’s campaign to Axe this Tax can be found at the campaign website www.axethistax.nz.

The Taxpayers’ Union has listed the top 19 details Kiwis will be looking out for on Thursday in the Tax Working Group’s capital gains tax proposal.
 
In our recent report, Five Rules for a Fair Capital Gains Tax, we outlined criteria to assess whether a capital gains tax is ‘fair’. Capital gains taxes can range from moderate to extreme, or simple to convoluted, depending on the detail of the proposal.

On Thursday we will look to see how the proposals stacks up against these criteria, and check off many other details that we encourage commentators and concerned New Zealanders to look out for.

Details to look out for include:

• Rollover relief:
  • will the capital gains tax apply on death or just on sale of an asset;
  • will the tax apply if capital is simply being recycled within the same asset class (selling a smaller farm to purchase a larger farm, for example)?
• The rate:
  • will there will be a discounted or lower rate, like in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States?
• Revenue neutrality:
  • will the revenue be offset with tax cuts;
  • if so, who will receive them;
  • will revenue neutrality be maintained in the medium-to-long term as CGT revenue grows?
• Family home exemption:
  • will there be exemption exclusions for large properties (will lifestyle blocks be subject to the tax?);
  • will there be a ‘maximum value’ for the family home;
  • how much tax will be payable if there is an exemption exclusion?
• ‘Valuation Day’:
  • will asset owners be required to value their property and businesses;
  • if so, will it be at their expense, or will the general taxpayer be required to pay;
  • if the general taxpayer is required to pay, what will be the estimated cost of ‘V-Day’;
  • how much time will taxpayers have to obtain asset valuations;
  • if valuations are not obtained, will other ‘default valuations’ be used?
• Exemptions:
  • are there any sectoral exemptions (e.g. racing, fisheries);
  • will Maori authorities pay capital gains tax, if so, at what rate;
  • how are vehicles, boats, antiques etc. treated?
• Trusts:
  • at what rate are trusts taxed;
  • will they be taxed on accrued or realised gains?

Information released to the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union reveals that just 12 per cent of a $40,000 fashion collection owned by the Central Otago District Council has ever been on display, with the exhibited items only being displayed 14 per cent of the time (269 days) since the collection was initially purchased in 2013.

The collection of the late Eden Hore features 276 garments including lavender sequinned hotpants and a gold bikini bottom decorated with shells.

Only 35 items of the collection have been on display, some of which were only exhibited for a day or two.  

Central Otago District Council should be focused on providing cost-effective core services to boost public confidence – quality roading, water, and waste services. Instead, the Council spent $40,000 on a fashion collection it has only ever partially displayed for a short period of time.

Provided the Council’s $92,750 valuation of the collection is correct, the best course of action is to sell the collection or lease it out to private art galleries. Even if you do believe the Council should be getting into the high fashion business, there can’t possibly be value for ratepayers when the collection is locked away for most of the year.

Documents:

Original LGOIMA response

Report to Council recommending the purchase of the collection

Council's resolution to the purchase

PowerPoint presentation on the Eden Hore collection

Insurance valuation of the collection

Report to Council explaining the background to and results from the feasibility study

Feasibility study on the long term care, management and display of the Eden Hore fashion collection

Eden Hore collection catalogue 

This month’s Waitangi festivities were marked with a string of Government funding announcements, totaling hundreds of millions for development projects intended to make life better for Māori.

Some of these projects will achieve their goals. Others will just line the pockets of the politically-connected. But in every instance, these grand Waitangi gifts and the accompanying media coverage serve a hidden purpose: they distract from existing government policies that actively harm Māori and make such handouts necessary in the first place.

The most appalling case is that of tobacco tax. Adjusted for income, New Zealand has the highest tobacco tax rate in the developed world, causing significant financial damage to smokers – who are predominantly poor, and disproportionately Māori. (At last count, the Māori smoking rate was 33.5% compared to 14.9% for the general adult population.)

Assuming Māori smokers consume tobacco at the same rate as the average smoker, we can calculate that tobacco tax last year took about $519 million from the budgets of Māori smokers and their families.

If that’s too much to comprehend, consider it this way: the Government has been taking more from Māori in tobacco tax than it gives in treaty settlements and targeted social spending.

The average amount spent on Treaty Settlements is $89.6 million per year, and Budget 2018 allowed for $316 million in Māori Development spending. In total, that’s still about $120 million less than Māori pay in tobacco excise.

Even this month’s boost to Māori development spending will be undermined, as tobacco tax revenue is forecast to grow even larger in the coming years. In short, politicians give to Māori with one hand, but take even more with other.

Whatever the intended effects of the tax, the practical result for Māori smokers too addicted to quit is horrid: smaller household budgets, less food on the table, and more miserable lives.

The policy does, of course, convenience the government: by quietly turning Māori smokers into cash cows, both National and Labour have been able to puff up their budgets and loudly announce vote-winning initiatives like those unveiled at Waitangi.

Public health advocates correctly argue that the best way to curb the financial hit from tobacco tax is to help people quit smoking. If the Ministers at Waitangi wanted to mitigate the harms of tobacco tax, they would de-regulate the supply of alternative nicotine products like vapes, heat-not-burn tobacco, and snus.

A new Taxpayers’ Union report examines the increasing body of evidence that some of these products have reduced risks compared to tobacco. Giving nicotine addicts safer ways to meet their habit could be far more effective than trying to get people to quit nicotine altogether.

Unfortunately, the Smoke-free Environments Act makes advertising the reduced risks of these alternative products effectively illegal.

Further, reduced-risk tobacco products face the same rate of excise as cigarettes. A better approach would be to weight excise on tobacco products according to their risk: if (for example) heated tobacco could be extensively proven to cause less harm than cigarettes, it should face less tax.

This would encourage people to switch from smokes to better options, reducing negative health effects and the improving the financial status of struggling families – especially Māori.

Sadly, in Wellington the ‘easy option’ is to simply continue heavy-handed tobacco excise hikes. The Government gets to pat itself on the back for punishing filthy smokers, while plotting the next big Waitangi spend-up.

Jordan Williams is Executive Director of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. The Union’s latest report, Ka Tukuna Atu, Ka Tukuna Mai, is available at www.taxpayers.org.nz/ka_tukuna_atu.

With tobacco excise slamming the country’s most vulnerable communities, the Government needs to urgently deregulate reduced-harm products, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union upon the release of its new report, Ka Tukuna Atu, Ka Tukuna Mai.

Key findings:

1) The Government annually takes $120 million more from Māori via tobacco excise than it gives in Treaty Settlements and Māori Development funding.

2) When calculated as a proportion of income, New Zealand charges smokers the most punitive tobacco tax rate in the developed world.

3) There is increasing evidence to suggest that smokeless tobacco products like snus and heat-not-burn are far less harmful than cigarettes, and encourage people to quit smoking. Excise tax rates on these products should be weighted to reflect risks.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “Revenue from tobacco excise tax alone outstrips the combined value of Treaty Settlements and Māori Development funding by $120 million a year. This is the inevitable result of charging the highest rate of tobacco excise in the world, when adjusted for income. In short, the Government gives with one hand and takes far more with the other, undermining decades of effort to improve outcomes for Māori.”

“Reaching the Smokefree 2025 target doesn’t require never-ending taxes on the poorest. If the Government made it easier for smokeless products like vapes to be marketed, current smokers may be more likely to shift over, improving health outcomes and reducing the burden of tobacco excise on themselves and their families.”

“Additionally, our paper focuses on an alternative approach to tobacco excise: excise on tobacco products should be weighted according to health risks, if reduced health risks can be proven in peer-review. As alternative tobacco products become more popular, there is a growing body of evidence showing reduced health risks for heated-tobacco, snus, and e-cigarettes. Using price signals to encourage smokers to adopt a product with reduced health risks could make an enormous improvement to long-run health outcomes – in addition to limiting the burden of excise.”

The report can be read here.

Earlier this week, Oxfam released its latest findings on global wealth inequality, with widespread media coverage (such as the pictured front-page story in the Dominion Post).

The group’s analysis of inequality in New Zealand was glib and unhelpful.

Citing Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Databook 2018, Oxfam claims that inequality is worsening – two wealthy New Zealanders were better off over the last year by over $1 billion, while the bottom 50 percent of New Zealanders were worse off by $1.3 billion.

On the surface that sounds deeply concerning, but it misses the substance of Credit Suisse’s report, which shows the Gini coefficient – a more comprehensive and internationally-recognised measure of wealth inequality – reduced in the last year from 72.3 to 70.8, indicating wealth inequality actually fell, despite Oxfam’s alarmist claims to the contrary.

Unfortunately, there are more fundamental problems with the analysis, beyond Oxfam’s use of ‘alternative facts’.

If you have just completed university and have a large student loan, Oxfam treats your wealth position as worse than an impoverished worker in the developing world, who despite having very few or no assets, may also have no debt or liabilities. Hence the impoverished worker has zero net wealth, while university graduates in New Zealand and the rest of developed world have ‘negative’ net wealth.

This leads to absurd conclusions in Oxfam’s analysis.

Introducing a student loan scheme in a developing country – opening up access to tertiary education – would show up as a worsening of social capital in Oxfam’s eyes. While the programme would improve the net wealth positions of many families in the long run, young people would temporarily take on debt while they receive an education and seek employment.

Wealth inequality is also only considered domestically, rather than internationally. Inequality  between developed countries and developing countries is collapsing, largely due to the expansion of free markets and free trade.

For example, while Oxfam found in 2017 that inequality was worsening in Vietnam, the percentage of the population living below the poverty line fell from 17.2 percent to 9.8 percent between 2012 and 2016. In the decade between 2007 and 2017, average monthly income grew from 2349.7 VND to 6357.4 VND – close to a tripling in take-home pay.

In other words, while there are more wealthy Vietnamese today than there were ten years ago, the gap in the standard of living between those who live in New Zealand and Australia, and those who live in Vietnam, China, and many other countries quickly ascending from deprivation, is falling.

The developing world understands why their lives are improving as well, even if Oxfam doesn’t.

Evidence from Pew Research’s 2015 Global Attitudes survey suggests 89 percent of Vietnamese believe the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement is good for their country, with only 2 percent believing the opposite. Sadly, Oxfam organised a petition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the same year – bowing to populism, instead of acknowledging the genuine transformative effects of free trade and economic growth on the lives of the most internationally vulnerable.

A final question: how can Oxfam continue to credibly claim tax-free charitable status, when so much of their work is strictly political?

Campaigning for wealth taxes, and other left-wing policies to ‘solve’ wealth inequality is not and should not be treated as charitable – particularly when the Oxfam’s research skews the facts to suit this agenda.

If the likes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust and Family First (or, for that matter, the Taxpayers’ Union) miss out on the tax benefits of charitable status, then Oxfam should too.

Joe Ascroft is an economist at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

While taxpayers wait for the release of the Tax Working Group’s Final Report, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has released a new report which provides a framework – Five Rules – for assessing a possible capital gains tax, expected to be proposed by Working Group.

The exact detail of the capital gains tax will be crucial for determining whether the tax is fair or not, and whether the Taxpayers’ Union will accept the reform – or fight it with everything we’ve got.

To be fair, a new capital gains tax must abide by the following:

1. No Valuation Day: Any capital gains tax regime should exclude a valuation day approach in favour of grandfathering assets into the system upon sale, as was the case in Australia when it introduced a capital gains tax.
2. Indexation for Inflation: Any capital gains tax regime must discount for inflation, so taxpayers are taxed only on their real capital gains, rather than nominal gains.
3. Revenue Neutrality: Given the Government's surpluses, any revenue from a capital gains tax must be used to fund tax cuts in other areas so that the total tax burden does not increase overall.
4. Roll-Over Relief: Tax should be paid only on sale – not death. Further, there should be roll-over relief when capital raised from a sale is then immediately invested in the same asset class.
5. Discounted Rate: Any capital gains tax should apply at a discounted rate, instead of at the full personal income tax rate, to avoid New Zealand having one of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world.

If the Government puts forward a reasonable proposal, focused on fairness and steady reform, the Taxpayers’ Union is ready accept a tax shift. In contrast, if the Working Group process was just an excuse for aggressive tax hikes, we’ll fight it to the end.

Even if the Working Group's proposals fail the five common sense tests, taxpayers will still have opportunities to make their voice heard, either to the Government now, or during Parliament's Select Committee process. We will be working to make sure the new tax legislation follows our Five Rules for a Fair Capital Gains Tax.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has launched a petition calling on Toyota New Zealand to pay back the $391,000 grant secretly given by Palmerston North City Council, for which the Council and Toyota refuse to explain.
 
This kind of corporate welfare is wasteful and unnecessary. With profits of 22 billion USD, Toyota should not be getting free handouts from Palmerston North ratepayers.
 
The Council and Toyota refuse to explain why or how this decision was made. That says it all. If the grant was above board, why was it kept secret?
 
We encourage Palmerston North ratepayers, Toyota customers, and concerned New Zealanders to sign the petition.

--> Click here to sign the petition. <--
 
Toyota needs to apologise and explain that its opportunistic grab of public funds was just a blip in an otherwise solid record of serving New Zealanders. The first step is to pay the money back.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Minister for Local Government Nanaia Mahuta has not met with a ratepayer association since her appointment in 2017. Not even one.
 
Given the challenge every ratepayer in the country is feeling about costs being out of control at most town halls, many will be shocked to learn the Minister hasn’t bothered to speak to a single resident or ratepayer groups. Not even one.
 
Just who is she serving?  The fat cat Mayors and well paid bureaucrats, or those who fund the whole thing? The Minister’s diary suggest the former.
 
We were first tipped off on this as the Minister’s office would not even respond to correspondence sent from our sister group, the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance.  The Alliance is New Zealand’s largest ratepayer group – some 20,000 subscribed members.  It speaks volumes that this Minister can’t be bothered to meet.  She can’t possibly speak for ratepayers, in fact it seems she couldn’t care less.

The relevant Official Information Act response can be viewed here:

While taxpayers are being told to stump up for fuel taxes, off-set their carbon emissions, and watch on as oil and gas jobs face the axe in Taranaki, Ministry for the Environment officials are enjoying luxurious trips abroad, exposes the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

The Union can reveal that since July 2017, the Ministry for the Environment spent $769,955 on international flights, at an average cost per person per trip of $6,637.

The Ministry for the Environment has a section on its website where it explains to New Zealanders what they can do to help combat climate change, including flying less, working remotely, and using video-conferencing. The Ministry claims that flying less is ‘one of the most effective climate change actions you can take’.

But clearly Environment officials are not practicing what they preach. Despite the age of Skype and video conferencing, Environment Ministry officials are opting for first class flights on the taxpayer. Do as I say and not as I do.

The environmental hypocrisy isn’t the only issue. Why did it cost $14,112 to fly a single Ministry Director to Thailand? Was business class not sufficient?

Sending policy analysts on first class trips to international conferences is an insane use of money for a Ministry who tells Kiwis not to fly.

The Ministry also instructs taxpayers to pay to offset their carbon emissions when travelling, but when we asked the Ministry whether the costs of flights included carbon off-set charges, they said no.

A list of transactions for International Flights by Ministry for the Environment Officials between 1 July 2017 and 10 December 2018 can be viewed here.

The Taxpayers' Union is exposing that the Palmerston North City Council has given an economic grant to Toyota – one of the world’s largest car manufactures - for a local warehouse expansion, costing local ratepayers $391,000.

It’s great to see a business investing in Palmerston North, but they should do so out of their own pocket, not using ratepayers’ hard-earned money.

Toyota is the world’s second largest car manufacturer with posted profits of more than 22 billion US dollars.  Why on earth does the Council think it a good use of local ratepayer money to fund corporate welfare to this giant?

The corporate gift sets a dangerous precedent. Other large companies will eye up Palmerston North City Council for their own subsidies and special favours. In American and Canadian cities we see multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded corporate welfare campaigns.  Ratepayers will be poorer if we see that here.

If the Council wants to create jobs in Palmerston North, it should look to cut rates and run a more efficient operation. Charging local ratepayers more just to send corporate welfare gifts to multinationals, is economic sabotage. Even if it does create a couple of jobs, it robs poor Peter, to pay rich Paul and is immoral.

This story came about due to a confidential 'tip-off' from one of our supporters. The subsequent official information request is below.

Early next year, the Tax Working Group will deliver its final report to Cabinet. That report will contain a series of recommendations for reform of our tax system, including any details on a proposed capital gains tax. Once Cabinet receives the report, it will have to decide which recommendations to implement and campaign on heading into the 2020 election.

One important detail for the Working Group (and Cabinet) to consider is how to initially value assets for the purpose of taxing any capital gains. Since the capital gains tax is not intended to apply retrospectively, any asset potentially subject to the tax will require an official value as of 31 March 2021 – valuation day or ‘V-day’, the day before the tax is expected to be implemented.

Valuing those assets is an enormous – and expensive – task.

Every single rental property, commercial property, and business will need to be valued. There simply may not be enough qualified local valuers to assess the hundreds of thousands of properties pulled into the tax system overnight.

While valuation is simple for publicly listed companies (the implied value is derived from the share price) valuing private companies is more difficult.

Some businesses – think real estate agencies, restaurants, and tech start-ups – are notoriously difficult to value. Much of their value is derived from the particular mix of skills of their employees.

For example, a restaurant owned by Gordon Ramsey might be worth far less in the hands of a bad chef. But how accurately can a valuer make this distinction?

This ambiguity creates real problems: if the business is over-valued on V-day then the Government receives less tax revenue than it should, but if it’s under-valued then the owner is forced to pay more tax than they should when the restaurant is sold. 

Using objective financial data like revenue or profit can also be complicated. While Xero has never run a profit or delivered a dividend to its shareholders, according to the stock market the company is worth $5 billion. How can we accurately value a company like Rocket Lab, which neither runs profits nor is publicly listed? 

Valuation is an art, not a science – and it can’t be rushed.

Like art, valuation will be expensive.

OliverShaw – a specialist tax advisory firm – conservatively estimates the cost of V-Day to taxpayers as $1.3 billion, although they claim the cost could run to $2-3 billion. Total tax revenue in the first year is only expected to equal $270 million.

Putting the cost aside, even completing valuation will be straining. Attempting to value hundreds of thousands of properties and businesses after the detail of the capital gains tax has been finalised, but before it kicks in, would be a logistical nightmare.

A better approach would be for the Government to ‘grandfather’ the valuation process, meaning capital gains tax reference prices are determined by the first sale of the asset after the tax is introduced. This would mean that only assets that have already been sold at least once after 1 April 2021 would be subject to the tax.

No V-day would be required and asset owners could be confident that capital gains tax would only be applied based on the price they paid, not the subjective valuation of an over-worked, over-stressed valuer.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that in the last year the Government has paid $356,466.61 to the consultancy firm of Peter Nunns – the partner of Associate Transport Julie Anne-Genter – without a single open tender process.

The firm in question is MRCagney – for which Mr Nunns is principal economist.

A significant proportion of the 19 engagements – namely around light rail – falls directly within the Associate Transport Minister’s own portfolio allocations.

Under the previous Government, MR Cagney was paid an average of $50,346.66 per year, compared to $356,466.61 under the current Government.

This marked increase in spending on a particular consultancy since Ms Genter became the Minister raises obvious questions. If she had a sense of accountability to taxpayers, the Minister would have recognised the name of her spouse’s firm, identified the clear conflict of interest, and demanded that at least one of the 19 tender processes were opened to other firms. From what we have been provided to date, there is no evidence of this happening.

Even if the Minister has stepped aside from the decision-making, how can we have confidence that taxpayers are getting value for money, and that the firm is the most qualified if no-one is bothering with a competitive process?

One thing is clear: Julie-Anne Genter’s Government has been very good to MRCagney. The previous Government engaged MRCagney just six times in four years, compared to the current Government’s 19 engagements inside of 12 months.

The Union obtained this information under the Official Information Act, having been tipped off to the spending by a concerned public servant. The information can be viewed below.

When Sir Michael Cullen’s Super Fund was established, its explicit purpose was to help ensure that superannuation would remain fiscally sustainable long into the future while the population ages.

It’s an expensive scheme. The Government has devoted $15.45 billion to the Fund since inception, approximately $8,935 per household in higher taxes or government debt.

Wisely the quid-pro-quo for taxing New Zealanders much more to fund the Super Fund was that the Fund must be operated completely independently from the political whims of Government. The Fund was justified to the public on the basis that it would make superannuation affordable for future generations: allowing political interference in investment decisions would inherently reduce the Fund’s return and undermine the central purpose of investment performance.

Independence has served the Super Fund – and taxpayers – well. Since inception, the Super Fund has delivered an average return of 10.37 percent per annum, while the fund’s benchmark portfolio has only delivered 8.88 percent per annum on average: equivalent to a $7.6 billion premium in returns. While some economists (including our own Jim Rose) have argued that the Fund’s return merely reflects the high risk investments it chooses, the point is that it is independently managed and performs well.

Except now, the Government wants to kill the Golden Goose.

Last month the Minister of Economic Development David Parker said he wants to seize on hundreds of millions of dollars of the Super Fund to establish an ‘angel investment fund’.

The purpose of an angel fund is to invest in early stage ‘start-up’ companies. ‘Angels’ evaluate these start-ups and determine the likelihood of their future success, and the size of any returns if they are successful. If the start-ups appear to be a good investment opportunity, the fund will buy a stake in the company to deliver funding required for growth.

A well-known example of this investment strategy is Facebook, which received US$500,000 of investment from now New Zealand citizen Peter Thiel in 2004.

Angel investment strategies can be extremely profitable, but they are also enormously risky. For every Facebook there are thousands of scrap-heap start ups that never become profitable. The most adept analysts in the world seek to sort the wheat from the chaff. Most can’t.  

Establishing an angel fund is incredibly risky, especially for an agency like the Super Fund investing public money. It does not have the experience or knowledge in the tech start-up world to take full advantage of any available opportunities.

If the Fund is also directed to disproportionately focus on New Zealand investments, delivering good returns will be even more difficult.

Mr Thiel told us last year that the reason he has not invested in New Zealand start ups to the extent that he had hoped is that there are no promising investment opportunities. 

More importantly: is the Government best placed to direct the Super Fund’s investments?

The Super Fund is doing a good job at finding investment opportunities and delivering reasonable returns to taxpayers. If adopting an angel investment approach made good economic sense, why does the Government need to direct them to do so? The Fund has more than enough capital to start such a fund on their steam, without Ministerial directives.

If David Parker could do a better job with the Super Fund than its current managers, he should apply for a job there, rather than externally interfere.

Funding the next Facebook or Netflix might be politically appealing for an ambitious Minister of Economic Development, but taxpayers deserve better than to have the Government gamble away their retirement savings.  

The budget blowout for Kelvin Davis’ Māori-Crown Relations engagement meetings shows the danger of taxpayer-funded ‘hui’ and koha payments.
 
Calling a meeting a ‘hui’ shouldn’t be an excuse for lavish catering and bureaucratic extravagance. Besides, the fact Kelvin Davis had to hold 33 meetings to figure out what his new job involves suggests the Māori-Crown Relations portfolio probably isn’t needed in the first place.
 
Especially concerning is that a significant proportion of the blowout comes from ‘koha’ payments. The Government should never be paying anyone ‘koha’. These payments, at best, obscure real costs and skirt tax requirements. At worst, they’re taxpayer-funded bribery of special interest groups.

The Taxpayers' Union's new report The Bitter Truth: Why don't sugar taxes work?  focuses on the regressive economic effects of sugar taxes and responds to the central claim from public health lobbyists that sugar taxes will improve health outcomes. 

Whatever the good intentions the evidence shows that unfortunately sugar taxes haven’t actually worked to curb obesity where they have been tried. They fail to deliver meaningful health outcomes, but consumers still get hurt by the tax – especially low-income households who are disproportionately punished. Promoters of these taxes claim that the small health benefits are progressive, but the evidence for this is at best mixed.

There is also no evidence for the existence of a market failure that would justify intervention. Just because you might find someone else’s behaviour distasteful does not mean the market has failed. Many people simply enjoy drinking sugar-sweetened beverages and are fully aware of any health consequences.

The health lobbyists that campaign for sugar taxes have good intentions but they need to pay attention to the evidence. Good public policy requires a sound evidence-based approach and we hope this report goes some way to promote that.

Summary

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Horizons Regional Council Chairman Bruce Gordon cost ratepayers $97,000 with the most expensive vehicle for a local government elected representative – a swanky BMW X4.

The Union asked every council in the country for expenses associated with their vehicles. The full spreadsheet of expenses is available here.

A week ago, we identified the most expensive mayoral vehicle in the country, that of Invercargill Mayor, Tim Shadbolt. But we have now looked at vehicles for chairs of regional councils, and discovered that Horizons Regional Council Chairman Bruce Gordon manages to make Mayor Shadbolt look frugal.

Bruce Gordon is someone most people, even in Manawatu, probably haven’t heard of. It is a disgraceful sense of entitlement that he sees fit to have the most expensive vehicle of any elected local official in New Zealand.

Maybe, when the Council purchased the $97,000 BMW X4, they thought this kind of luxury was the norm. It’s not – the cost of Mr Gordon’s vehicle sticks out like a sore thumb, making other council chairs and even the most extravagant mayors look frugal.

Mr Gordon risks giving ratepayers in Manawatu-Wanganui the impression that their money is taken for private luxuries instead of essential services.

Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt drives the most expensive ratepayer-funded mayoral vehicle in the country, the New Zealand Taxpayers Union can reveal. 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has asked every council in the country for expenses associated with their mayoral vehicles. The full spreadsheet of expenses is available here.

Invercargill District Council topped the chart for mayoral vehicles, having spent $72,323 on a Chrysler 300C for Mayor Tim Shadbolt in November 2015. This is despite the Council’s budget for mayoral vehicle spending being $55,000.

The reasons the Council provided for overspending were:  

- The Chrysler 300C "best suited the Mayor’s needs".
- The Chrysler 300C has "better road handling".
- The considerable mileage undertaken in the Southland region.
- Intention to retain the vehicle for a longer period than usual, until after the 2019 Local Council elections.

Invercargill ratepayers might be surprised to know their humble town has the country’s most extravagant mayoral vehicle.

The excuses for using ratepayer money on such a flash vehicle don't add up. Why does Mayor Shadbolt need to fork out $72,000 for 'better road handling'? Roads in New Zealand don't get much straighter than Invercargill’s.

Mayor Shadbolt’s previous vehicle was bought in 2012, a Chrysler 300C purchased for $58,087. This was sold in November 2015 for $20,000, meaning his previous car only had a three-year lifetime, and lost two-thirds its value.

This raises concerning questions on the expected lifetime of a mayoral vehicle. Invercargill City Council implies a car lifetime of four years is a longer period than normal, which would surprise many ratepayers.

The car is admittedly very stylish. It’s up to Invercargill ratepayers to decide whether gleaming chrome is worth the price tag.

Today at Parliament the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union presented the inaugural Jonesie Waste Awards, recognising the best of the worst in government waste revealed in the last 12 months.

The full details of the 2018 Jonesies are available as a report, which was launched at the awards ceremony (see below).

The Jonesies celebrate the best of the worst of government waste, greed and graft, foolishness and flagrancy, at the local and central government levels.

The sheer scale of troughing is not the only criteria for a Jonesie nomination – some smaller extravagances have earned nominations thanks to their absolute absurdity or how they encapsulate a corrosive culture of frivolous waste.

While we’ve hosted this ceremony with our tongues firmly in cheek, there is a serious point. These examples of waste make a lie of the claim that governments deserve more and more of your taxpayer money.

This is envisaged as the first event of an annual tradition. We suggest that in future, any politician or bureaucrat pondering ways to fritter away taxpayer money ought to consider whether they might end up with a Jonesie on their desk.

The awards were inspired by the Canadian ‘Teddies’, which have been hosted at the Federal Parliament in Ottawa for 19 years.

Local Government Nominees:

• Hastings District Council spent $116,371 on catering in 2017 – more than $50,000 of which was for elected members.
• Auckland Council spent $91,742 on a Hunua Ranges goat cull in 2016/17 that killed zero goats.
• Christchurch City Council spent $1.25 million on a seven-metre touch screen for their new library, information that it refused to release even after intervention from the Ombudsman.
• Auckland Council spent $260,000 on a 2.4-metrewide mirror, hung between buildings in the centre city – only to have it crack open a week after its unveiling.
• Auckland Transport spent $4 million on a Grey Lynn cycleway, but now must spend $23-35 million fixing it, despite minimal use.

Winner: Auckland Council’s vegan-approved goat hunt.

Central Government Nominees:

• Callaghan Innovation spent $1,141,230 on ‘entertainment’ and gifts in the four years to 2017 – including boozy dinners, drag queens, and even pedometers for staff.
• The New Zealand Film Commission paid American producers of the children’s TV show “Power Rangers” $1.6 million to include references to New Zealand in its script, such as a plot involving a pavlova.
• Inland Revenue paid $40,000 to The Spinoff to publish a series of articles on “Tax Heroes”, promoting the tax system and tax compliance to the point of stating “Tax is love”.
• The Provincial Growth Fund saw Gisborne’s ‘Chardonnay Express’, a locomotive wine tour, receive a share of $60,000 given to three tourism businesses.
• The Ministry of Social Development spent $150,000 developing a video game to teach people how to run a business.

Winner: The Film Commission’s ‘Power Rangers pavlova’.

2018 Lifetime Achievement Award Winner:

• Hon Shane Jones, Minister for Regional Economic Development, Infrastructure, and Forestry, receives this award in recognition of the scale of pork-barrelling achieved via his $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund – of which so far only 10 per cent has been allocated.

A new report from the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union shows the success of benefit sanctions, explains why efforts to make life on a benefit easier simply encourage a culture of welfare dependency and fraud, and exposes that more than one third of unemployment and single parent beneficiaries admit to failing on their obligation to seek employment.

The release of the report, Benefit Sanctions, coincides with a Green Party campaign to remove sanctions for beneficiaries who don’t comply with associated obligations. The report also works as a submission to the Government’s working group tasked with providing recommendations to overhaul the welfare system.

Beneficiary advocates have good intentions, but their prescriptions – removing requirements to seek work and removing sanctions – are a social and moral failure. The Green Party’s policy to make life on a benefit will simply encourage a culture of welfare dependency and fraud.

Rates of welfare fraud are many times higher than most New Zealanders would expect or find acceptable under the current system. The report canvasses the evidence that easing up on sanctions and obligations for beneficiaries would dramatically increase fraud and dependency. That means driving up the cost of the welfare system for taxpayers and leaving less room in the Budget for other forms of social spending.

If the Government wants to reduce child poverty, it should encourage the unemployed and single parents back into work and off welfare.

Our report advocates a help-but-hassle approach that nudges beneficiaries back into work, leaving more to spare for those in genuine need.

If the Government took this approach, it could afford to be more generous, within existing budgets. The difference is that the money would be more targeted to those who most need it.

Benefit Sanctions is available at www.taxpayers.org.nz/benefit_sanctions and was written by Taxpayers’ Union research fellow Jim Rose.

Benefit Sanctions: Key Findings

• The Green Party wants to remove sanctions on beneficiaries despite extensive evidence from data matching by MBIE of benefit fraud under the current system.
  • More than one third of unemployment and single parent beneficiaries admit to failing on their obligation to seek employment;
  • ten percent of single parent beneficiaries acknowledge living as man and wife; and
  • ten percent of unemployment beneficiaries work full-time.
• Ministers, the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and even the Ministry of Social Development are unaware of the extent of this fraud because MBIE failed to publish the 2012 report containing this data. The report was begrudgingly released three years later under the Official Information Act after an appeal to the Ombudsman.
  
  
• The Government’s plan to remove sanctions for refusing to name the father will encourage many more single mothers on the benefit to not identify the father and make under-the-table arrangements.
  
  • Nearly 20 percent of single parent beneficiaries currently refuse to name the father and face sanctions.
  • About $186 million is currently deducted from benefits because the father is named and successfully chased for support.
    
    
• Benefits conditional on seeking work are highly effective in moving parents into jobs that bring their children out of poverty with the support of Working for Families. A credible sanction for not looking for work increases job finding rates by 25 percent or more.
  
  
• For the sake of taxpayers, any reforms must guard against abuse – especially in an ageing society where already-stretched budgets will only get tighter over time. No social safety net can successfully increase benefits and loosen eligibility if it fails to run a tight ship against abuse.
  
  
• Marriage booms in Sweden, Canada and the US after sole parent benefit and widows pension reforms suggest a major fiscal risk from adopting Green Party-style relationship definition, which requires marriage, or two years living together.
  
  
• The Greens’ fiscally-neutral costing of their policy is untenable: if the overseas experience is any guide, the number of sole parent beneficiaries will likely double under the Greens’ proposals, costing $1.1 billion.

Below is the statement we provided to the NZ Herald in the lead up to publication of this article.

The Taxpayers’ Union is a heavy user of the Official Information Act, comparable to media organisations such as the New Zealand Herald.

The vast majority of public sector organisations respond to Taxpayers’ Union information requests quickly and transparently. However on occasion government bodies stonewall us – treating information requests from our staff and volunteers differently than requests from other organisations, or members of the public.

Callaghan Innovation is one of the worst.  We had an insider approach us who disclosed that information requests from the Taxpayers’ Union were being deliberately sidelined as our previous investigations had led to embarrassing media coverage for the agency wasting public money.

Therefore, on rare occasions, our research staff have been forced to use personal email accounts, or have even encouraged our people to use pseudonyms, to ensure the public can have full and prompt access to information. This is one way to make it harder for officials and politicians to discriminate or play silly games with official information. The fact anyone would find it necessary to do this should disgrace these public entities.

The fact the media covered the information our requests revealed from Callaghan Innovation speaks for itself in terms of the public interest.

So, while we are not currently using the method, we do not rule it out, and if it takes this to get at the truth, we would expect the same from a good journalist.

Finally, we note that it appears many of the information requests made using the NZ Herald-sponsored website ‘fyi.org.nz’ appear to use pseudonyms – indeed, the anonymity of the system appears to be one of its key selling points.

Christchurch City Council spent $350,208 on entertainment, gifts, and catering in 2017 – including $51,572 on milk, reveals the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

This makes Christchurch City the council with the highest level of ‘indulgence spending’ in New Zealand (aside from Auckland Council, who say they are unable to provide equivalent figures).

The bulk of these expenses ($336,130) came from catering, with the largest source of such expenses being the Antarctic Office, which spent $54,348, followed by the all-of-council spend on milk, at $51,572, followed by catering for citizenship ceremonies, at $36,840.

Fifty grand spent on milk alone is an astounding figure, that reflects just how bloated Christchurch’s army of council bureaucrats has become. Either that, or the Mayor is taking milk baths.

Catering expenses are largely non-essential, and should be near first in line for budget cuts when ratepayers are getting squeezed. The fact that the Antarctic Office, totally tangential to core council business, managed to spend $54,000 on wining and dining should warrant an audit from councillors.

Canterbury ratepayers are also under the pump from the Regional Council, which spend $287,087 on entertainment, gifts, and catering, including $155,253 at one catering business, Pulp Kitchen Catering.

Ecan’s indulgence spending was higher than any other regional council in the country. For comparison, Wellington Regional Council’s total equivalent spend was $37,450.

Below are spending figures for all Canterbury territories, ranked from highest total to lowest.

Christchurch City Council
Entertainment: Included with gifts and catering
Gifts: $14,078.42
Catering: $336,130.00
Total: $350,208.42

Canterbury Regional Council (Ecan)
Entertainment: Included with gifts and catering
Gifts: $8,125.70
Catering: $278,962.19
Total: $287,087.89

Ashburton District Council
Entertainment: $20,370.67
Gifts: $4,036.88
Catering: $81,330.76
Total: $105,738.31 

Waimakariri District Council
Entertainment: Included with gifts and catering
Gifts: $7,989.23
Catering: $69,915.91
Total: $77,905.14

Timaru District Council
Entertainment: $1,065.93
Gifts: $2,936.65
Catering: $40,967.73
Total: $44,970.31

Waitaki District Council
Entertainment: $0.00
Gifts: $0.00
Catering: $25,958.41
Total: $25,958.41

Hurunui District Council
Entertainment: $0.00
Gifts: $3,664.62
Catering: $9,232.64
Total: $12,897.26

Mackenzie District Council
Entertainment: $0.00
Gifts: $779.46
Catering: $8,528.32
Total: $9,307.78

Selwyn District Council
Entertainment: $0.00
Gifts: $0.00
Catering: $9,060.00
Total: $9,060.00

Kaikoura District Council
Entertainment: $5,596.87
Gifts: $1,063.50
Catering: $1,795.02
Total: $8,455.39 

Waimate District Council
Entertainment: Included with gifts and catering
Gifts: $3,615.00
Catering: $3,729.13
Total: $7,344.13

All figures were obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

Breakdowns for Christchurch City Council and Ecan are available here:

Christchurch City Council catering (including milk)
Christchurch City Council gifts
Ecan catering
Ecan gifts

On Tuesday, the Taxpayers' Union team visited the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment offices to see if staff are willing to take the new taxpayer-funded $500 bonus for joining the Public Service Association – a union that helps the Labour Party during election campaigns.

Sign the petition against this rort here: www.taxpayers.org.nz/psa

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is using taxpayer money to bribe workers into joining the Public Service Association.
 
The following email was circulated to all MBIE staff and has been passed on to the Taxpayers’ Union. It reveals that, as a result of recent pay negotiations, MBIE will be paying a one-off $500 bonus to members of the PSA.
 


The Labour-led Government is bribing MBIE staff to join the union – meaning they’ll start paying membership dues immediately. No doubt any additional income to the PSA will be used to fund campaigns for higher taxes, more public spending, and to keep the current Government in power in 2020. It is disgraceful.

Labour Party members will be thrilled that the Government is already diverting taxpayers' money for a left-wing campaign war chest for the 2020 election, but taxpayers watching debt projections creep higher by the day will be disgusted by the brazen take-over of the country's public finances.

If the shoe was on the other foot and a National-led Government was giving subsidies for businesses to join pro-National lobby groups there would be a march to Parliament, a book by Nicky Hager, and a prime-time television exposé. Rightly so: pay-deals should not be weaponised for political purposes.

Instead, it's just another example of Union bosses claiming the moral high-ground in politics while playing by another set of rules, all at the expense of the humble taxpayer.

We have now launched a petition against this 'Union-Welfare' and handouts.  Click here to add your name.

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union, in partnership with the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance, have today published this year's Ratepayers' Report  – online local government league tables – at www.ratepayersreport.nz. 

With these league tables, New Zealanders can easily compare their local council performance and financial position against similarly sized councils and types.

By setting out more than two thousand data points, Ratepayers' Report provides transparency, so no-one can credibly claim cherry-picking or a political agenda. The league tables set out metrics such as Council debt, assets, spending and staff costs, all on a per-ratepayer basis.

Some councils do very well in the league tables, some not so much. Every council has checked its own numbers and approved it for accuracy.

Across the country council borrowing continues to skyrocket. On average, councils have increased the share of debt for each of their ratepayers by $244 – a 5.3 percent increase in borrowing in just a year!

The data shows why Auckland Ratepayers, in particular, have cause for real concern, with Council liabilities now $19,537 per ratepayer, up more than $600 since last year. This is second only to Christchurch, and almost four times the national average of $4,876.

Every dollar spent by a Council was earned by a hard working ratepayer. Ratepayers' Report allows ratepayers to see how their money is being spent.

Notable Findings:

• Christchurch City Council has more debt on a per ratepayer basis than any other council in the country ($21,137). Auckland Council is the second most indebted authority, with debt per ratepayer of $19,537.
• The average debt per ratepayer of all councils is $4,876.
• Auckland Council pays 2,250 of its staff salaries in excess of $100,000. Auckland Council also employs more staff per ratepayer than any other unitary authority (17 staff per 1,000 ratepayers). Marlborough District Council, another unitary authority, employs 10 staff per 1,000 ratepayers.
• The highest average residential rates in New Zealand are in Western Bay of Plenty ($3,234 per year).
• The lowest average residential rates in New Zealand are in the Mackenzie District ($1,637 per year)

Editors' notes:

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

Ratepayers' Report facilitates straightforward comparison of average residential rates via a formula first used by Napier City Council which allows for an 'apples to apples' comparison of average residential rates and charges. Only Westland District Council was unwilling to provide the Taxpayers' Union with the necessary rates information.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has written to every local councillor in the country, challenging them to follow the Prime Minister’s lead and freeze their pay rates until local government finances are brought under control.

Last week, MPs showed courage in rejecting a pay rise to reflect pressure on teachers, nurses, and other New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet.

We say that local councillors should do the same for ratepayers, who are being told to expect rate hikes averaging 50 percent or more over the next decade.

We have written to every councillor and mayor in the country, challenging them to follow the Prime Minister’s lead. We have offered each a template they can use to instruct their Chief Executive to return any additional remuneration to the Council’s consolidated fund.

Remuneration around the Council chamber should reflect the pressures currently faced by ratepayers. This wouldn’t just save money – it would give elected members a powerful incentive to more carefully manage ratepayer money.

We look forward to publicly identifying and congratulating elected officials who take this step.

The letter to councillors can be viewed here.

The payroll instruction template can be viewed here.

Earlier this morning, Radio New Zealand's Jo Moir revealed that the racing industry is set to receive funding for all-weather tracks from the Provincial Growth Fund, along with funding for a digital centre in Dunedin and a sports hub in Northland. 

Regional Economic Development Minister Shane Jones described the projects as: "a coalition dividend", and that "the origins go back to the formation of government."

These projects are just new examples of Winston's Dowry - the cost of entering into coalition 'marriage' with New Zealand First. 

It's an open secret in Wellington that New Zealand First is a long-time friend of the racing industry, which is why it was no surprise that the Government announced subsidies for hot horses on Budget Day. Now we know that the racing industry was an important part of the coalition negotiations. 

If this Government is committed to being "the most open, most transparent Government" it should release the full terms of the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First. Taxpayers deserve to know which projects and subsidies were promised prior to the formation of this Government. 

Winston's Dowry as at 23 August: $5.168 billion ($2989 per household)

The total cost so far is $5.168 billion - or $2989 for the average New Zealand household, although if officials continue to increase the expected cost of policies, this figure will grow. 

"The Dowry" to date:

• Provincial Growth Fund: $3 billion or $1735 per household, which includes funding for the racing industry revealed today. 
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade: $1.144 billion or $661 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Defence: $426 million or $246 per household
• Additional funding for learning support: $272.8 million or $157 per household
• Additional funding for Oranga Tamariki: $269.9 million or $156 per household 
• Adjusted 'Hot horses' tax break, the new Forestry Hub, and a rename for the Ministry of Children: $55.4 million or $32.05 per household
• Haumaha Inquiry: $150,000

 

It was revealed at the Acting Prime Minister's post-cabinet press conference yesterday that Tracey Martin (a New Zealand First Minister) will be in charge of an inquiry into the appointment process of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Wally Haumaha. 

Haumaha was selected as New Zealand First candidate in 2005, but did not contest the election. 

According to Thomas Coughlan of Newsroom, the inquiry does not answer 'key questions' regarding the appointment of Wally Haumaha, including whether Cabinet would have appointed him to his role if they had been aware of comments he had made regarding a 2004 investigation of police sexual offending. 

The result for taxpayers is a $150,000 inquiry with serious flaws. 

Winston's Dowry as at 24 July: $5.168 billion ($2989 per household)

The total cost so far is $5.168 billion - or $2989 for the average New Zealand household, although if officials continue to increase the expected cost of policies, this figure will grow. 

"The Dowry" to date:

• Provincial Growth Fund: $3 billion or $1735 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade: $1.144 billion or $661 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Defence: $426 million or $246 per household
• Additional funding for learning support: $272.8 million or $157 per household
• Additional funding for Oranga Tamariki: $269.9 million or $156 per household 
• Adjusted 'Hot horses' tax break, the new Forestry Hub, and a rename for the Ministry of Children: $55.4 million or $32.05 per household
• Haumaha Inquiry: $150,000

As reported in the Hawke's Bay Today, a New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union analysis of catering costs at Hawke's Bay councils has revealed Hastings District Councillors to be guilty of ratepayer-funded gluttony. 
 
Hastings District Council spent $50,375.88 on catering for its elected members in 2017 – or about $1,000 a week.  Across all of Council, the total catering expense was a staggering $116,371.19.
 
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council also spent a significant $44,955.63 on catering across Council. At Central Hawke’s Bay District Council this figure was $34,362.36, and even the small Wairoa District Council spent $29,623.77.
 
In contrast, Napier District Council spent just $4,285.44 on catering across all of Council.
 
Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, “Why is it that Hastings District Councillors need to spend more than ten times the amount on food than Napier’s entire Council? What could possibly be the explanation for this? Do Hastings’ Councillors have eyes bigger than their stomachs, are they forgetting to eat their morning Weet-bix?”
 
“A tip-off reveals a possible explanation – Instagram posts from a local caterer advertise the lavish platters prepared for the Council. It appears Councillors are eating better than the ratepayers who fund their salaries.”
 

 

 
“Ratepayers are forced to pack their own lunch to save money, while the Council’s feasts are featured on Instagram. This gluttony is a slap in the face for ratepayers who expect their money to be used on essential services. Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst ought to make a captain’s call, and scrap ratepayer-funded feasts in favour of the old-fashioned packed lunch.”
 
Catering expenses at Hawke’s Bay Councils, 2017:

• Hastings District Council: $116,371.19 (Further enquiry revealed $50,375.88 was for elected members)
• Hawke's Bay Regional Council: $44,955.63
• Central Hawke's Bay District Council: $34,362.36
• Wairoa District Council: $29,623.77
• Napier City Council: $4,285.44

All figures were obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

Catering expenses for councils across the country will be released by the Taxpayers' Union in coming days.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has today released 102 Ways to Save Money in Local Government – a report that lists big and small opportunities for local councils to save money and reduce the burden on ratepayers.

The 102 suggestions, many of which were provided to the Union by mayors across the country, range from the common-sense to the novel. Taken together, they serve as a challenge to unimaginative and undisciplined councils who allow wasteful spending to accumulate and then tell ratepayers to expect rate hikes.

The Taxpayers’ Union advocates instead for a culture where fiscal prudence is not a cause for celebration, but an expectation, just as it is within private organisations and households across the country.

Some highlighted suggestions:

• Pay down council debt (#1)
• Offer prizes to staff who suggest efficiencies – but allow anonymous entries (#2)
• Scrap political advisors (#10)
• Stop sending staff to conferences (#30)
• Rent out under-utilised office space (#68)

Some more novel ideas:

• Graze cattle and sheep on council land to save on grass cutting (#6)
• Pay cafés to open bathroom facilities to the public, instead of building new toilets (#17)
• Transition to LED lighting (#33)
• Turn down the heating at council buildings (#37)
• Ditch colourful, photography-heavy annual reports (#81)

New Plymouth Mayor Neil Holdom, in a foreword to the report, says, “I support this Taxpayers’ Union initiative to highlight opportunities for councils, large and small, to identify savings or efficiencies in their operations to minimise costs to ratepayers and deliver value. While I do not advocate some of the more radical ideas which the authors of this document have included, no doubt to grab a few headlines, I celebrate those who are committed to sharing ideas and encouraging open and honest debate.”

Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance spokesperson Jo Holmes says, “Some of the initiatives included in this report run the risk of being dismissed as mere common sense. We don’t mind a dose of common sense where it saves money at the town hall - exactly what ratepayers are calling for.”

The Taxpayers’ Union would like to thank the Mayors who responded to the Union's invitation to submit ideas and examples of how their councils have saved ratepayer money.

After being faced with legal action from the Taxpayers’ Union (and potentially the Attorney General), Christchurch City Council has buckled and confirmed the amount spent on its seven-metre ‘touch wall’ – $1.245 million.

This was an eleventh-hour backdown from the Council. We literally had the affidavit signed, papers prepared, and were ten minutes away from filing in the High Court.

The fact this spending, originally requested back in January, is now exposed is a major win for transparency. It send a message to councils across the country that ratepayers expect and will demand transparency. Councils that ignore freedom of information laws will face very real legal consequences. This was to be in court in a matter of days.

The cost of this touch wall is, as we suspected all along, enormous. It says everything about the Council’s priorities that they would spend over a million dollars on a touch screen while basic infrastructure is in poor shape and rates are skyrocketing.

Like media organisations and other watchdog groups, we are heavy users of freedom of information requests, but we have never seen such stubborn secrecy over what you would expect to be a relatively minor spending item. This secrecy has now backfired – in a kind of ‘Streisand effect’, the touch wall’s cost has turned into a much bigger story. Let this be a lesson to politicians try to hide where our money is being spent.

The Ombudsman has invited the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union to bring enforcement proceedings to the High Court over Christchurch City Council’s failure to release the spending figure for the seven metre ‘touch wall’ in its new library. He has also asked the Attorney General to consider doing the same.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “Over a month after the Ombudsman recommended releasing the spending figure, we’ve seen nothing from the Council. This is brazen, especially under a mayor who has been promising more transparency over the use of ratepayer money.”

“The Ombudsman has made an excellent and correct decision, first in recommending the release of the information, and now in approaching the Attorney General. We’ve never seen such a damning judgement against a public body.”

“We are currently seeking legal advice – bringing action against the Council ourselves is something we are considering, regardless of whether the Attorney General does the same.”

“Christchurch ratepayers have a significant interest in this kind of spending, especially as both the library and town hall projects face budget blowouts, and rates are being hiked by an average of six percent annually.”

“But this issue is bigger than Christchurch. For too long public agencies have flouted freedom of information law. If we need to take Christchurch City Council and Lianne Dalziel to Court to set a precedent that this sort of disregard for transparency has consequences, then it’s worth the effort.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is pleased to announce that former Wellington City Councillor Rex Nicholls has joined the organisation's board of directors.
 
Rex’s background is in engineering, project management, and property investment. His mix of civic and private achievements place him perfectly as an ambassador for taxpayers.

Rex says:

“I’ve always operated on the basis that money in my pocket will be much more efficiently spent than if I run it past a Government Department first. Spending other people’s money should carry a huge duty of care – but it seldom does.”

More information about the Taxpayers’ Union team is available here: www.taxpayers.org.nz/our_team

It was revealed last week, that the tax break for racing industry bloodstock is expected to cost significantly more than previously anticipated. The tax breaks for the racing industry have faced ridicule as the only tax cut in Budget 2018.

That's not surprising: the racing industry has historically been a strong supporter of New Zealand First. The Electoral Commission recently found that Sir Patrick Hogan was in breach of the Electoral Act when he funded a full page ad in support of the party prior to the General Election last year. 

At Budget 2018, the cost of the tax break was expected to equal $4.8 million over the next four years, however IRD officials expect the tax break will cost up to $40 million - a 733% increase in the cost of the policy. That means taxpayers will be on the line for an additional $35.2 million over the next four years, which is all added onto Winston's Dowry!

Winston's Dowry as at 2 July: $5.168 billion ($2989 per household)

The total cost so far is $5.168 billion - or $2989 for the average New Zealand household, although if officials continue to increase the expected cost of policies, this figure will grow. 

"The Dowry" to date:

• Provincial Growth Fund: $3 billion or $1735 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade: $1.144 billion or $661 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Defence: $426 million or $246 per household
• Additional funding for learning support: $272.8 million or $157 per household
• Additional funding for Oranga Tamariki: $269.9 million or $156 per household 
• Adjusted 'Hot horses' tax break, the new Forestry Hub, and a rename for the Ministry of Children: $55.4 million or $32.05 per household

As part of our campaign to Clear the Air, we have written to Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Kris Faafoi to highlight the government-led misinformation that prevents smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives, and saving up to $2 billion a year in excise tax.

With Jacinda Ardern now on maternity leave, Winston Peters has finally grasped the wheel of power.

However, Mr Peters has had significant control over spending since the Government was formed late last year. Since then, Winston has negotiated for an array of projects, policies, and prizes for him and his NZ First Ministers.

This includes the Provincial Growth Fund, significant increases in spending for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Ministry of Defence, a vanity project (re)re-branding of the Ministry for Children, and a tax credit for hot horses, among other initiatives. 

Winston's Dowry as at 21 June: $5.132 billion ($2960 per household)

The total cost so far is $5.132 billion - or $2960 for the average New Zealand household, although depending on how Winston behaves from the 9^th floor, that figure could grow in coming weeks. We'll be watching closely for announcements from NZ First Ministers and the acting Prime Minister so we can update Winston's Dowry. 

"The Dowry" to date:

• Provincial Growth Fund: $3 billion or $1735 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade: $1.144 billion or $661 per household
• Additional funding for the Ministry of Defence: $426 million or $246 per household
• Additional funding for learning support: $272.8 million or $157 per household
• Additional funding for Oranga Tamariki: $269.9 million or $156 per household 
• 'Hot horses' tax break, the new Forestry Hub, and a rename for the Ministry of Children: $20.2 million or $11.70 per household

 

Over the last 25 years, public sector incomes have grown much faster than the private sector, while public sector employees also enjoy a higher rate of sick leave costing taxpayers $173 million, according to Public Sector Wage Gap: The taxpayer-funded premium for working for the government, a new report we've released today.

If you work for the Government, you earn a third more on average, with taxpayers footing the bill.

This report seriously undermines the public sector unions’ claim for 9-15 percent pay hikes for their members. It blows to bits claims the last Government did not pay bureaucrats enough.

The public sector pay gap nearly doubled since the 1990s. If anything, a wage freeze, not hikes, would be fairer.

Left wing activists and unions would have the public believe that the public sector has undergone nine years of neoliberal hell. But this shows that to be a lie.

Key findings of the report:

• The gap in weekly earnings between the public and private sectors has grown since 1990, from 18.9% of private sector earnings to 34.6% in 2017. The gap peaked in 2010 at 38.4%. The premium is even higher for hourly earnings (as public sector employees, on average, work fewer hours).
• If the Government had retained a public sector earnings premium of 20%, taxpayers would save $2.5 billion per year, or $1,445 per household in lower taxes or reduced Government debt.
• The public sector took an average of 8.6 and 8.4 days of sick leave in 2016 and 2017, compared to the private sector average of 4.7 days per year.
• If the public sector reduced its rates of sick leave to private sector levels, the taxpayers would save $173 million per year, or approximately $100 per household per year in lower taxes, or reduced Government debt.

Key recommendations:

• The Government should set a goal of returning to a 20% public sector earnings premium by placing constraints on public sector wage growth and focusing on growing productivity.
• If private sectors stagnate or decline (such as in a recession) the Government should be willing to cut public sector wages to match.

You can also download the report here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters has now released the terms of reference for his review of the racing industry, due to intervention of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union and the Ombudsman.

New Zealand First has a long history of promoting handouts for the racing industry, with an all-weather track and new tax breaks just the latest examples. So naturally, we were very interested when Winston Peters announced a review of the sector.

Whether this type of review leads to impartial policy advice or just proposals to prop up an industry with taxpayer money depends on the questions raised in the review’s terms of reference.

We were stunned when the Minister refused to release the terms, saying there was no document literally titled ‘terms of reference’. After we involved the Ombudsman, the Minister has now released to us the letter to the review head that outlined the scope of the review.

There seems to be nothing remarkable about the released terms of reference, which begs the question of why Mr Peters’ office was so secretive in the first place.

Mr Peters could avoid the perception of cronyism if he were more transparent about his tinkering with the racing industry.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that The Spinoff have broken the terms of their agreement with IRD to publish content in their Tax Heroes project.

The Tax Heroes project, which featured a number of articles from writers associated with The Spinoff, intended to highlight the public good of paying taxes, and in doing so promote compliance with tax obligations among the public.

Due to an official information request, the Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that The Spinoff was paid $40,000 ($46,000 including GST) by the IRD to publish the series.

The IRD is required to be politically neutral – especially so for matters currently under consideration by Sir Michael Cullen’s Tax Working Group.

The Spinoff’s contract with the IRD specifically states: The Spinoff agrees not to refer to any political party or their policies in the content.

However, an IRD-branded article by Maria Slade, published on 31 March, ignores the contractual obligation.

See also the disclosure statement at the end of the article:

The article “Why the lack of a capital gains tax is letting property companies off lightly” advocates for a Green Party policy, a capital gains tax, violating the agreement.

Further, the article’s very first sentence references Labour, which again violates the agreement.

Other overtly political articles bear the ‘Tax Heroes’ tag, but without IRD branding. IRD and The Spinoff must explain whether any of these articles were paid for with taxpayer funds.

If not, and IRD funding was only used for the articles labeled ‘partner content’, then the cost per article was approximately $6,600 – which seems extraordinary.

Taxpayer’s Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “The Spinoff appears to have misused $40,000 of taxpayers’ money to push a political message. It is disgraceful, and they should pay the money back."

“The IRD needs to be extremely careful about its place in our constitutional environment. Taxpayers expect our revenue collection service to be strictly apolitical. Any movement away from that norm is unacceptable.”

“Putting aside the breach of agreement, the Tax Heroes series was a terrible use of $40,000 in taxpayer money. The articles were effectively taxpayer-funded pro-tax propaganda, with the first article pushing the Orwellian message that ‘Tax is love’.”

“This kind of taxpayer-funded media rort may keep quasi-news platforms like The Spinoff afloat, but do it does no good for ordinary taxpayers. The IRD should not have been funding pay-for-play websites in the first place.”

Amazon’s decision to pull out of Australia in response to a new online shopping tax shows the peril of the New Zealand Government’s plan to introduce its own ‘Amazon tax’, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, in conjunction with its sister organisation the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance.
 
Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance Director of Policy Satya Marar (who is currently on secondment in New Zealand) says, “The Australian Government’s online shopping tax denies shoppers and families the same consumer choice available to billions of shoppers worldwide.”
 
“If this happens in New Zealand, Kiwis will be denied access to about 500 million products, most of which are unavailable locally. So instead of creating a level playing field, it only harms consumers.”
 
“Last year, an Australian senate inquiry was told that the online shopping tax would not make Australian retailers competitive, would not raise a significant amount of revenue and that the cost of implementing the tax would force major online platforms to exit the market or cease serving Australians entirely. Now we see these consequences in action.”
 
“New Zealand faces the same risk as it introduces its own Amazon tax. The Government wouldn’t need to assist domestic retailers with taxes on overseas competitors if it addressed local pressures such as zoning laws, strict labour regulations and red tape.”

In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new project: Winston's Dowry. 

Marriage can be expensive, but normally the guests aren't given a bill at the end of the ceremony. In a political marriage, the cost of attendance can be significant. The aim of Winston's Dowry is to calculate the total cost to taxpayers from the demands of two-time coalition divorcée, Winston Peters. 

We will be updating the Dowry regularly as new vanity projects, expensive trips away, and pork-laden policies are announced or appear on our radar. If you have any examples of expensive projects or eye-watering trips abroad related to Winston Peters' presence in Government, you can send them through to our tipline. 

Dear Supporter,

Our analysts have just left the Government’s Budget lock-up having pored through the largest budget media/analysts pack we can recall and listened to an early version of Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s speech which he has just read to Parliament.

You can read our summary comments to media here.

Except for the appropriations, Budget documents are essentially political. The key announcements the Government is hanging its hat on, are listed at the bottom of this email.

Government books and the economy looking rosy

Robertson’s first budget was written in extraordinarily benign circumstances. The economy is growing at a sustainable rate of around 3%, tax revenues for the June 2018 year will exceed Budget 2017 estimates, unemployment is down to 4.5%, employment levels are very high at 73.1%, and public debt at 21.7% of GDP is low and trending downwards. 

The economy is in vastly better shape than any new Government has inherited since 1972. That year Labour leader Norman Kirk won with a thumping majority and an inexperienced team. Labour lost to National’s Rob Muldoon, with a similar majority in 1975, and no more clues as to how to manage structural problems with the economy, which led to the economic crisis of 1984 and the Lange/Douglas reforms. 

Prime Ministers Bolger, Clark and Key would have been over the moon if they could have assumed office with today's economic fundamentals.

Two big wins for taxpayers:

1. Fiscal responsibility

It is very encouraging that the Government is remaining within the pre-election ‘Budgetary Responsibility Rules’.  We think Steven Joyce's allegations that Labour had an $11.7 billion hole (which Labour vehemently denied) had also been helpful in keeping the Government restrained in the face of criticism from some on the left who say they should borrow more. 

1. Independent election policy costing office

Budget 2018 announced that “public consultation will be launched in August on establishing an independent body to better inform public debate in our democracy.”   This is something the Taxpayers’ Union has been pushing for since 2014 – for transparency and accountability of what political party policies will cost taxpayers.

For decades political parties during election campaigns have made allegations about expenditure policies of others.  That’s why we worked so hard last year with our election “Bribe-O-Meter”. 

Tax cuts for hot horses

In terms of tax relief, unless you breed horses you are out of luck. Winston Peters has announced $4.8 million in tax reductions for ‘high quality’ horses (defined in the media release as being based on bloodlines, looks, and racing potential!).

More corporate welfare (this time green)

The Greens’ major budget announcement was a “Green Investment Fund” to “transition to a net-zero-emissions economy by 2050.”  The budget sets aside $100m for this corporate welfare capital funding.

Treasury forecasts average earner paying top tax rate by 2022

Budget 2018 projections show that the average worker will be on an annual income of $72,000 by 2022. That puts them in the highest income tax threshold (33%) which still kicks in at $70,000.

This was inevitable after eight successive Budgets that have not delivered income tax relief, or indexation of tax brackets. We will be using these new projections in the next round of submissions to the Tax Working Group to push for indexation.

Growing the pie vs dividing it

Overall, Budget 2018 is far more focused on dividing the pie than growing it.  With the exception of the already announced R&D tax credits, there is nothing to stimulate business confidence, industry, investment, and wages.

In terms of the R&D tax credit scheme, our view is that the breaks are marginally better than handing out corporate welfare grants (which are bureaucratic intensive with high transaction costs) but will almost certainly lead to gaming of the tax system.

Initial reaction

In the weeks to come our team will be working through more of the detail, but in the mean time our initial comments to media are available here:

Labour Delivers Predictable Budget In Sweet Economic Times Barrie Saunders

A Billion Dollars A Year For 900 Fewer Tertiary Students. WTF? Jordan Williams

Megan Woods Breaks Word – Gives Into Callaghan Self-Interest Jordan Williams

Government Acknowledges Merits Of Full Capital Expensing – But Why Just Bloodstock? Joe Ascroft

Budget Win For The Taxpayers’ Union With Announcement Of Independent Costing Office Joe Ascroft

New Green-Tint Corporate Welfare Scheme Mistaken Joe Ascroft

Treasury Predict Average Working Paying Top Tax Rate By 2022 Joe Ascroft 

Thank you for your support in ensuring there is a strong voice for taxpayers in the corridors of power.

Barrie Saunders
Chairman
New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

 

Key announcements of Budget 2018

- $4.05 billion for Health, including:

- $2.2 billion in additional funding for DHBs.

- $362.7 million in free GP visits for under-14s and subsidised GP visits for community service card holders.

- $750 million in capital funding over the forecast period for hospitals and health infrastructure.

- $100 million in capital funding for deficit support will be available to DHBs in the 18/19 financial year.

- $1.934 billion for Education, including:

- $394.9 million in capital funding for new schools and classrooms.

- $370 million for 1,500 new teacher places by 2021.

- $590.2 million in additional funding for early childhood education.

- $249.3 million in additional funding for learning support programmes.

- $1.216 billion for Justice, including:

- $298.8 million to fund an additional 1,800 police officers over the next five years.

- $1 billion for R&D tax credits over five years.

- $1 billion in funding for the Provincial Growth Fund, including:

- $245 million for the One Billion Trees planting programme over ten years.

$904.9 million in additional funding for Foreign Affairs, including:

- $190.7 million in direct funding to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to hire an additional 50 diplomats and open an embassy in Sweden.

- $714.2 million in additional foreign aid and development spending.

- $367.7 million in additional funding for the Defense and Veterans portfolios.

- $100 million for a 'Green Investment Fund' to invest in low-emissions projects and businesses.

- $181.6 million in additional funding for the Department of Conservation

This morning our team delivered our petition to end taxpayer funding for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation. All up, the petition received an impressive 6,400 signatures. 

In addition, around 1,800 people have used our website to write to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, imploring him to stop the rort.

We had hoped to deliver it straight to Winston Peters’ front desk, but his staff insisted we used Parliament’s (taxpayer-funded!) mail service.

No doubt, the heavy stack of papers will have made an impression. Now we await his official response.

Budget 2018 projections show that the average worker will be in the top income tax bracket by 2022 unless urgent changes are made to tax thresholds to adjust them to wage inflation.
 
Taxpayers’ Union Economist Joe Ascroft says “This is the eighth successive Budget that has not delivered income tax relief. While most New Zealanders expect only the most well off should pay the top rate of tax, if the current trend continues, even the average taxpayer will be paying the top rate.”
 
“In fact, much of the wage growth over the last eight years has actually just been keeping up with inflation, so while many families don’t feel much better off, they are paying more in tax than ever before. Inflation will similarly push families into the top tax bracket over the next four years.”
 
Note to editors: Treasury project the average annual income will be $72,000 by 2022. The highest income tax threshold (33%) kicks in at $70,000.

Putting aside $100 million for a “Green Investment Fund” to compete with investment bankers is a mistake, says the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union. 
 
Union Economist Joe Ascroft says “James Shaw says international investors are ‘already shifting into climate-aligned investments.’ If that’s the case, then why does the Government need to set up a fund to compete with them?”
 
“If low-carbon products and investments make good economic sense, there will be plenty of investors willing to fund them, and the fund won’t be required.”
 
“Instead of fuelling economic growth, this is just another example of picking winners, and taxing already successful businesses to fund potential failures. If the Government is interested in growing the economy, it should commit to scrapping all corporate welfare – including the Green Investment Fund – and put the savings into across the board corporate tax cuts.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is celebrating that a policy it has pushed for since 2014 has been adopted by the Government.
 
Jordan Williams, the Executive Director of the Taxpayers’ Union, says:
 
“Since we launched our election ‘Bribe-O-Meter’ we have argued that New Zealand needs an independent election policy costing office.  This increases transparency, improves democracy, and helps prevent politicians and parties from getting away with pulling numbers from thin air.”
 
“Shortly after our lobbying, the Green Party picked up the idea, and today the Government formally announced public consultation on establishing an independent body to provide parties and the public non-partisan costings on their policies.”
 
“It’s not often the Taxpayers’ Union loudly endorses new spending initiatives, but here it will be difficult to find any taxpayer who will disagree with this initiative.

The Taxpayers’ Union is fuming that Minister for Research, Science and Innovation Megan Woods has broken her word and capitulated to Callaghan Innovation’s pressure to keep its precious corporate welfare grant schemes, rather than phasing them out in favour of the new R&D tax credit.

Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “When Minister Woods announced Labour’s R&D tax credit scheme earlier in the year, she said it would replace the growth grant scheme administered by Callaghan Innovation. But buried in the Budget appropriations we see that Callaghan Innovation’s funding for corporate welfare hasn’t been cut by a cent. Not even one.”

“Megan Woods has let down taxpayers, and we will be working day and night to redouble our efforts to defeat this corporate welfare industry that picks winners and favourites, and keeps Callaghan Innovation’s feather-nesters in their taxpayer funded make-work scheme.”

Treasury has ripped off the political veil and exposed the Prime Minister’s flagship ‘free’ tertiary education policy with Budget showing that the numbers in tertiary education set to decline by 900 in the 2018/19 year.
 
Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, says:
 
“The whole reason the Prime Minister pushed ahead with the billion dollar policy was apparently to increase the numbers accessing tertiary education. That was seen as more important than various other pre-election commitments which were pushed aside.”
 
“The Government wants to spend $1.2 billion a year – $694 per household – on free tertiary fees and the projected impact is 900 fewer students. Is this possibly the most wasteful policy ever?”

The Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming the underlying principle in the only tax change announced as part of today’s Budget 2018 to promote economic growth: full capital expensing of bloodstock.
 
“Allowing full expensing of capital investments is the best tax reform no one has heard of,” says the Union’s Economist Joe Ascroft.
 
“This is the rocket Donald Trump has put under the American economy in its recent tax reform.  The economic advice is that it would massively increase business investment in capital and accelerate productivity growth.  Productivity growth is the most relevant factor in determining income growth – the measure will lead to increased wages.”
 
“The obvious question is why the Government would choose to favour just a single industry or special interest?  That’s an outrageous way to run a tax system, and isn’t fair to the hard working employees and employers in other sectors.”
 
Editor’s note: The fiscal impact of full capital expensing is largely temporal. Full expensing pulls forward any existing tax benefits into a single year, rather than increasing the total value of any tax benefits. More information can be found at paragraphs 71 to 77 in the Taxpayers’ Union submission to the Government’s Tax Working Group, available at http://taxpayers.org.nz/twg_submission.

From the Budget 2018 lock-up, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is welcoming Labour’s adherence to its pre-election ‘fiscal rules’ despite delivering significant Labour-Party style sweeteners in the Budget delivered today.
 
Taxpayers’ Union Chairman, Barrie Saunders, says:
 
“This is a classic Labour Party Budget, in probably the best economic times inherited by a new Government since Norman Kirk’s election in 1972. As a result Labour have been able to deliver significant spending initiatives, and keep to the prudent fiscal targets.”
 
“Nevertheless, much of the Government’s claims about boosting funding to health and education do not match the numbers, with the growth of overall funding actually growing at a slower rate than the final budget delivered by the last National Government. The big growth is actually in Social Security and Welfare, with spending increasing by 10.9%, compared to 3.2% in the last budget.
 
“Of real disappointment is the focus in this budget of dividing the pie, rather than growing it. The only economic initiative is the R&D tax credit change announced earlier in the year.”
 
“In terms of tax relief to grow business, the only initiative comes in the form of allowing tax deductions for racing studs – full deductibility for capital stock. The Taxpayers’ Union has been arguing that this measure would be the most effective way of boosting industry and wages across the whole economy. Winston Peters has traditionally had a close relationship with the racing industry, however we do not support favourable treatment for business types in the tax system."

UPDATE: You can email the Minister of Foreign Affairs about this issue by clicking here.

A subsidiary of the controversial Clinton Foundation is set to receive US$3.9m (NZ$5.5m) in taxpayer money in 2018/19, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can confirm. This is in addition to NZ$8m given to the organisation since 2014.

MFAT claims that the organisation in question, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, is a separate entity. This is absurd – the Clinton Foundation appoints the organisation’s directors, making it a subsidiary in legal terms.

The Foundation is currently under investigation by the FBI over the way it obtained donations while Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State – the same period in which the New Zealand Government began giving the initiative money.

Taxpayers deserve confidence that aid commitments are made to help the world’s poor, not to win favours with foreign politicians.

Even if aid money was meant to be used for diplomatic purposes, the funding’s justification for no longer holds with Secretary Clinton out of public office. It seems that all taxpayers have to show for our generosity is a stop on her book tour!

The new Government should follow Australia’s lead and cut ties with Hillary Clinton’s potentially corrupt organisations. She is perfectly capable of raising money without handouts from the little New Zealand taxpayer.

--> Click here to sign our petition to end taxpayer funding for the Clinton Foundation. <--

This is the kind of nonsense that our Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters prides himself on exposing and cutting out. He should politely wait until Secretary Clinton leaves the country, then announce an end to the funding.

The documents confirming the funding, released to the Taxpayers’ Union under the Official Information Act, are available below.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has finalised and presented its submission to the Tax Working Group, along with submissions from more than 800 Taxpayers’ Union members and supporters.
 
We look forward to hearing the Working Group acknowledge not just our own submission, but those of the 800 or so taxpayers who have submitted via our website.
 
The basic message from our supporters is clear: the Tax Working Group should not be used as an opportunity to dig even deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. This theme is reflected in our own submission, which says that any proposals to hike or introduce new taxes should be offset with tax cuts in other areas.
 
A big thank you to all of our supporters who gave us helpful feedback on our Exposure Draft, ensuring our constructive suggestions for the Working Group are comprehensive and of a high standard.
 
Our full submission can be read here, or at the bottom of this page. Key points include:

1. Where new taxes are recommended, we say the Tax Working Group should make them revenue neutral – i.e. balanced with tax cuts in other areas.
 
2. No taxation without indexation: we call for income tax thresholds to be indexed to changes in average earnings or, at minimum inflation (as happens in Canada). This would end fiscal drag (also called 'bracket creep').
 
3. We call for the company tax rate to be cut for all businesses rather than cutting tax rates for smaller businesses (as the Working Group’s Background Paper proposed). Having multiple levels of company tax would create perverse incentives.
 
4. We call for full tax deductibility for businesses’ capital spending within the first year of purchase to increase incentives to invest in capital and productivity, and increase wages.
 
5. The loophole allowing charity-owned businesses (such as those owned by churches and iwi even when none of the profits are used for the 'charitable' purpose) to operate tax-free should be closed.
 
6. Similarly, Māori Authority-owned businesses should operate under the same tax rate as their competitors paying 28% income tax - and not be allowed pay the special 17.5% rate.
 
7. We explain why introducing a complex Australian-style capital gains tax would be a step backwards and bad for investment, growth and employment.
 
8. On retirement investment, we say taxpayers should be allowed to deduct inflation from taxable interest income.

We've made it easy for you to make a submission to the Government's Tax Working Group, chaired by Sir Michael Cullen. Our online tool will make sure your voice is heard.

Will you take a moment to send the Working Group a clear message? The Tax Working Group should not be used as an opportunity to dig deeper into our pockets.

--> Use our customisable template to make a submission to the Working Group <--

As if fuel taxes weren’t enough, the Group's chair, Sir Michael, has been talking about wealth taxes, asset taxes, environment and water taxes, and capital gains taxes. He's even been talking about taxes for 'bad behaviour', covering sugar, salt, fat, plastics, and more.

Our full submission is currently out for consultation with our members. You can view the Exposure Draft here (feel free to give feedback using this form).

Our key submissions are:

1. Where new taxes are recommended, we say the Tax Working Group should make them revenue neutral – i.e. balanced with tax cuts in other areas.

2. No taxation without indexation: we call for income tax thresholds to be indexed to changes in average earnings or, at minimum inflation (as happens in Canada). This would end fiscal drag (also called 'bracket creep').

3. We call for the company tax rate to be cut for all businesses rather than cutting tax rates for smaller businesses (as the Working Group’s Background Paper proposed). Having multiple levels of company tax would create perverse incentives.

4. We call for full tax deductibility for businesses’ capital spending within the first year of purchase to increase incentives to invest in capital and productivity, and increase wages.

5. The loophole allowing charity-owned businesses (such as those owned by churches and iwi even when none of the profits are used for the 'charitable' purpose) to operate tax-free should be closed.

6. Similarly, Māori Authority-owned businesses should operate under the same tax rate as their competitors paying 28% income tax - and not be allowed pay the special 17.5% rate.

7. We explain why introducing a complex Australian-style capital gains tax would be a step backwards and bad for investment, growth and employment.

8. On retirement investment, we say taxpayers should be allowed to deduct inflation from taxable interest income.

9. Any environmental tax proposals should (in addition to being revenue neutral) be sector neutral – i.e. politicians should refrain from targeting specific industries.

Our suggested submission can be altered as you wish.

--> Click here to make your submission to the Tax Working Group <--

Submissions to the Working Group close on Monday at midnight.

Thank you for ensuring there is a strong voice for taxpayers.

Taxpayer-funded health activists ignored advice from the Ministry of Health, Auckland Council, and Auckland Transport, to bully a company into dropping a promotion to raise money for Youthline, reveals the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.
 
Healthy Auckland Together (HAT), a coalition of public agencies and taxpayer-funded health groups, used taxpayer money to try and shut down a Youthline fundraiser because they objected to a Coca-cola billboard.
 
HAT complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about a Coca-cola bus stop billboard because it was 550m away from a school. This particular billboard encouraged people to text a number to donate to Youthline.
 
You would think that a public health group would be concerned about youth mental health, but in this case, HAT is blocking vital Youthline revenue for the sake of nannyism and anti-capitalism.
 
This organisation is turning into a group of zealots. They ignored advice from their own partner organisations Auckland Council, the Ministry of Health, and Auckland Transport.

Correspondence obtained under the OIA reveals all three had explicitly asked to be left off the ASA complaint, with the latter two citing a lack of evidence for making a complaint. The correspondence can be below.

 
At worst, we are looking at out-and-out dishonesty; at best, it is unprofessionalism of the worst kind.
 
The question remains as to why other taxpayer-funded groups are backing this political campaign. The New Zealand Transport Agency, for example, should have no role in this sort of thing.

 

You did it!

Earlier today our mascot “Porky the Waste Hater” presented our petition calling on the Hamilton City Council to ditch the proposal to change its name, to the Mayor and Councillors.

It is fair to say that the Mayor was NOT happy with the attention and our presence.  He wouldn’t even talk to us, or address our submission on his personal proposal to spend tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars to change the name of Hamilton City Council to Kirikiriroa City Council.

Your efforts – more than 1,500 signatures in only 36 hours – meant the Mayor didn’t even have a Councillor to second his motion.  Not even one. He withdrew the proposal soon after we presented the petition.

In the context of the Council wanting to hike rates by 20% in only two years, our spokesperson Louis Houlbrooke  – who presented to the Councillors – summed it up like this:

"Cases like this pose the question, if this is what you do with ratepayers' money in the light of day, then what are you doing when we're not looking?"

You can read more about what happened at the meeting on the New Zealand Herald.

Thank you to the fifteen hundred people who stood with with us on this issue to hold local to account on wasteful spending.

It is astounding that Hamilton City Council’s mayor is pushing a name change while Hamilton ratepayers face rate hikes of 9.5% a year, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, launching a petition on the issue.
 
Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Louis Houlbrooke says, “The Mayor should be dealing with a rates crisis, not spending even more ratepayer money on something completely non-essential.”
 
“When the smaller Stratford District Council changed its logo, it was estimated to cost at least $65,000. The cost to ratepayers will be far higher in Hamilton. Perhaps a better comparison is when Auckland’s tourism agency updated its slogan, costing ratepayers $500,000.”
 
“Even setting the cost aside, the Mayor insults ratepayers by prioritising window-dressing rather than improving the city’s finances or basic services. It looks like a classic political distraction – dead-cat-on-the-table style – so people don’t see the Mayor’s hands reaching deeper into ratepayer pockets.”
 
“These types of vanity projects are costing ratepayers across the country. We must send a message to mayors across the country that they are paid to serve ratepayers, not to craft legacies for themselves.”
 
The Taxpayers’ Union has launched a petition to encourage Hamilton City Councillors to vote down the name-change project at Thursday’s meeting. Sign the petition here:  https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/name_change_petition

New Zealand Police handed out $2,505,317 in clothing allowances to non-uniformed staff in 2017, according to figures obtained by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Most of this spending was on 1,412 staff in the Criminal Investigator Branch staff who receive allowances of $1,413.72 a year.

$1,400 a year would give you a pretty nice-looking wardrobe, but it’s not clear who the police need to impress.

Outside of the media, most people in the private and public sectors pay for their clothes personally. Why do the police have a different standard?

There is no way of tracking whether this allowance is actually spent on clothes, so it is really just a salary top-up.

High salaries for investigators might be justified – but it would be more transparent to just increase the main remuneration figure, instead of hiding wages in secret benefits.

The full set of figures, obtained via the Official Information Act, can be viewed below.

Wellington has seen a flurry of activity this week as Bill English declared that he would be stepping down as National Party Leader and resigning from Parliament. We thanked Mr English for his service on behalf of taxpayers, noting his success in cutting taxes in 2010 and making state owned enterprises more efficient in the previous Government’s second term. You can read our media statement here.

However, minds must now turn to the race for the leadership. So far Amy Adams, Simon Bridges, and Judith Collins have declared, although there is speculation that Mark Mitchell and Steven Joyce are also considering entering the contest.

The National Party leadership will be determined by a run-off vote among the Parliamentary caucus, with the vote scheduled to take place on the 27^th of February.

So, who should win?

Members and the media have contacted us asking who the Taxpayers’ Union will be endorsing.

The Taxpayers’ Union won’t be endorsing any of the candidates for the National Party leadership. However, it is important to acknowledge that the leadership race will shape the largest centre right party, and its policy platform, for years to come.

That’s true of any political party – you only need to look at the Liberal Party in Australia to see the difference between the leadership of Tony Abbot and Malcolm Turnbull. Closer to home, we saw very different visions of the Labour Party during their widely publicised leadership races in 2013 and 2014.

Whoever wins this race will have a significant impact on the political landscape, including issues facing taxpayers. We all have a stake in this race.

This contest is not proceeding behind closed doors. Candidates appear eager to prove their chops in the media. This is an opportunity for the public, because, while we may not have a vote on the leadership, we can secure some basic commitments from the candidates.

Here’s are the questions journalists should be asking the contenders:

- Will you retain National’s commitment to cutting personal taxes?
- Will you, in addition to cutting tax, index tax brackets to inflation?
- Will you cut the company tax rate to make New Zealand businesses more competitive on the global stage?
- Will you reverse Labour’s policy of free tertiary education?
- Will you rule out a sugar tax?
- Will you rule out an Auckland fuel tax?

But isn’t this a caucus matter?

Yes, and no.

While it’s true that only caucus members get a vote, Members of Parliament are ultimately accountable to the electorate.

Every National Member of Parliament will have a say in the leadership, and when the next National Party leader only needs 29 people to support their bid, your local National MP could be determinative.

Letting your local National MP know that taxpayers deserve a voice in the leadership could be crucial in shifting votes.

Contact details for all National MPs are available here.

Five months after it was requested under the Official Information Act, Callaghan Innovation has now released its 2016/17 entertainment expenses.

The bill increased from the previous year, going from $304,675 to $308,969.

It’s another long laundry list of taxpayer-funded purchases, largely of booze, fine dining, and flat whites for Callaghan staff and the bigwigs they entertain.

Earlier in the year, when we expressed concern about the last set of excesses, the public were assured that Callaghan had tightened up its spending policies. In fact, that looks to be a lie.

The Taxpayers’ Union requested an explanation of this policy change, and the date of implementation, but Callaghan has refused to meet with us or provide any information.

Callaghan refused to release the latest round of expenses to the Taxpayers’ Union last year, suggesting it would instead be included in their annual report. As this never came to pass, the Taxpayers’ Union filed a complaint with the Ombudsman. Callaghan Innovation is currently under investigation.

On Wednesday, Callaghan finally released their 2016/17 expenses by dumping them on its website.

Callaghan’s initial failure to release the 2016/17 spending figures allowed some journalists to dismiss earlier examples of spending largess as ‘historic’. We now see that Callaghan’s waste is anything but. This taxpayer-funded agency has a culture of gluttony. Sadly, it’s no surprise that an agency tasked with doling out grants to businesses would have little regard for taxpayer money.

One more note: certain pages of the latest expense figures are presented as images, not text, making it impossible for us to collate or search spending data. So, we asked Callaghan to provide us the information in a text-based format – and they have decided to process this request as another 20-day official information request. This is the same week they complained how many information requests we send them!

Callaghan Innovation claims to be focused on transparency, while using every possible tool at their disposal to withhold information from the public.

The key figures released to the Taxpayers’ Union this week are in the right-hand column:

Actual expenditure	2013/14	2014/15	2015/16	2016/17
Entertainment	205,416	322,172	304,675	$308,969
Domestic Airfares	667,500	875,954	1,014,171	$966,964
Domestic Accommodation/Travel Expenses	556,006	723,973	855,309	$783,621
Overseas Airfares	490,364	478,885	414,305	$402,459
Overseas Accommodation/Travel Expenses	359,314	483,925	308,341	$285,801

The full breakdown of entertainment purchases can be viewed below. We’re encouraging our 32,000 members and supporters to scan these records and see what stands out.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union expresses gratitude on behalf of its 32,000 members and supporters to Rt Hon Bill English for his service to taxpayers.
 
Under his tenure as Finance Minister and Prime Minister in 2008-2017, the burden on taxpayers reduced, with core Crown revenue as proportion of GDP cut from 32.6% to 30.5%. That is despite having to respond to the Global Financial Crisis and rebuild our second largest city.
 
The tax cuts implemented by Bill English in 2010 were significant and working New Zealanders continue to reap the benefits today.

Partial privatisation, while controversial at the time, has been a resounding success, working to both reduce debt and improve dividend flows by applying market discipline to what were lazy state owned assets.

And with social investment, Bill English has championed value for money in spending on social services.

We wish Mr English all the best for his career after politics.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has today released the full breakdown (attached) of Callaghan Innovation’s entertainment expenses for 2015/16.

Earlier this month, we revealed Callaghan spent $304,000 on ‘entertainment’ in 2015/16. We can now confirm this was mostly purchases at cafes, bars and restaurants, and we have obtained receipts and explanations for the biggest purchases, showing booze forms up to 40% of a typical Callaghan dinner bill.

Examples (GST excluded) include:

• $5,212 on 188 visits to the Beer & Burger Joint, downstairs from Callaghan’s Auckland office
• $4,298 on lunches and dinners at Marvel Bar and Grill
• $3,290 at Mojo coffeehouses
• $2,063 on a team dinner at a drag queen cabaret bar (K Road’s Caluzzi)
• $1,719 on lunches and dinners at The George Hotel
• $1,225 on dinners for staff and clients at Da Vinci’s Italian restaurant
• $1,134 on one dinner with clients at Dunedin’s No. 7 Balmac
• $869 at a dinner the Kiwifruit Innovation Symposium & Hayward Medal Dinner hosted by Zespri
• $861 at Empire Tavern on a staff induction dinner
• $817 on dinner for ‘customers’ at Grand Century Chinese
• $769 on a lunch and team building function at The Conservatory
• $508 (GST included) on a dinner for seven at Dockside, including $201 of wine (40% of the bill), plus a $50 tip.
   

Much of this spending is justified as entertaining 'clients' – but that’s absurd considering this agency’s ‘clients’ are actually businesses receiving Callaghan’s taxpayer-funded handouts. These ‘clients’ are already getting taxpayer pork; boozy dinners and latte lunches are just the gravy on top.

One dinner at Wellington’s Dockside came with a $50 tip. Tipping is rare in New Zealand, it’s something you do to flaunt your wealth. So why are bureaucrats tipping with public money?

Callaghan staff are trying to ingratiate themselves with the corporate culture of the businesses they give money to. That would be fine if they were using their own wages, but instead they’re using taxpayer-funded credit cards.

Callaghan's travel costs also ballooning

The Taxpayers' Union has also learned that over $1 million was spent on domestic airfares, and over $400,000 on international airfares in 2015/16.

Divided by 384 staff (as per their 2016 Annual Report), that’s $2,641 in domestic airfares and $1,079 international per staffer – $3,720 per staffer all up. This figure seems extraordinarily high. It's enough money to fly every staffer to London and back, twice, in one year.

Where on earth is Callaghan flying? They already have teams based in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.

The international travel spend is just as bad. Callaghan only operates in New Zealand, but still spent $414,000 on overseas airfares in just a year.

We suspect part of this travel expenditure is for ‘customers’, i.e. businesses applying for grants. This is absurd – these businesses are receiving taxpayer money, now we discover we also pay for their flights, accommodation, wining and dining.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that only 60% of seats were filled on the ratepayer subsidised Wellington-Canberra flight route, compared to an average of nearly 80% for all flights in and out of Australia.

Figures published by the Australian Government in their international airline review for 2016/17 make for sober reading. No one at the office is surprised that Singapore had to move their flight route to Melbourne after examining the flight utilisation figures from 2016/17. Making profit, even after ratepayer subsidies, on a route where 40% of seats are empty on an average flight would be very difficult. Unfortunately it's difficult to ascertain whether Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency expected this kind of result, because the documentation surrounding the subsidies (which according to some reporting, amount to $8 million over ten years) is extremely limited.

Changing the route to Melbourne is unlikely to be successful either. Jetstar had to discontinue their Wellington-Melbourne route in 2016 because it was unprofitable to compete with Air New Zealand and Qantas. Are ratepayers really getting a good deal by subsidising flights on a route which is already serviced by two airlines?

The failure of Singapore Airlines' Wellington-Canberra route shows what an utter waste the route’s multi-million dollar subsidy has been.
 
The Wellington-Canberra route should never have been subsidised in the first place. Now that the spending has proven to be a complete waste, you would expect WREDA (Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency) to scrap it. Instead, the agency says they’ll subsidise the new route – despite there already being regular flights between Wellington and Melbourne.
 
At this point unelected bureaucrats are just giving free ratepayer money to Singapore Airlines for no benefit. It’s corporate welfare at its worst.
 
Remember, the Wellington-Canberra route was celebrated with a $50,000 ratepayer-funded party. Can Wellington ratepayers get a refund now? They certainly deserve one.

The Taxpayers' Union has launched a petition to end ratepayer subsidies to Singapore Airlines. You can sign it here: http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/wreda_petition

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that a small government agency spent over $300,000 on ‘entertainment’ in 2015/16 – including a drag queen dinner and show for staff.

The Union gained receipts for Callaghan Innovation’s entertainment purchases via the Official Information Act.

From a laundry list of receipts from bars, cafes, and restaurants, we're still working through abuses of taxpayer money. Already we've discovered a blatant example: $2,063 ($2,372 including GST) spent on a team dinner at a drag queen cabaret bar, K Road’s Caluzzi.

Dinner at Caluzzi includes a show, and a promise that ‘you will be entertained and served by our fabulous drag queen hostesses throughout the night.’ The bill included eleven bottles of wine, and one non-alcoholic drink.

We’ve got nothing against drag queens, but this was an event for staff, funded by taxpayers. It’s an appalling display of largesse from an agency the average taxpayer hasn’t even heard of.

All up, $304,675.22 was spent on entertainment in the 2015/2016 year. That’s enough money to host a Sunday barbeque for the entire city of Invercargill*.

Our researchers have also requested and are awaiting the entertainment expenses for 2016/17 with anxiety.

*Based on a barbeque for four, including 1kg of sausages ($6), a box of Lion Red ($15.99), a can of tomato sauce ($1.60), and a loaf of bread ($1).

To coincide with the implementation of the latest tobacco excise hike of 10%, plus inflation, we've released a new report that shows the ineffectiveness of tobacco tax hikes as a tool to reduce smoking rates, and reveals the unintended consequences of the policy: direct financial harm to smokers and their families, and crime towards retailers.

The goal of excise tax – to reduce smoking rates and prevent smoking-related illness – is a noble one. But it’s not enough to judge a policy by its intentions. Our new report evaluates tobacco excise tax based on its actual results, both intended and unintended.

Impact on smoking rates

Despite tobacco prices increasing by over 60% since 2012, only one in ten adult smokers quit. Amongst Maori and Pasifika, there has been no statistically significant reduction in smoking rates over the last decade. In other words, it’s completely failed to achieve the goal of reducing smoking rates in those communities where they are the highest.

Cost to households

We could tolerate an ineffective policy if it caused no harm. But tobacco tax hikes cause enormous harm, devastating the incomes of the vast majority of smokers who haven’t quit.

A pack-a-day smoker is nearly $3,000 per year worse off in real terms than they were in 2010. This direct financial harm will only worsen as the tax is hiked year after year – salt in the wound for New Zealanders already addicted to a harmful substance.

Crime

Higher tobacco prices have made smokers more willing to purchase black market tobacco, and there is an increased incentive for illegal supply, sourced through burglaries and robberies.

Robberies, many of which are violent, have increased by 26.6% since 2014. Frustratingly, we don’t know the exact extent to which this is caused by tobacco tax hikes, because Police haven’t been asked to record the data.

It’s a huge concern then that, without relevant data, we have a four-year plan to hike the tax. To proceed blindly with this policy is to disregard the physical safety of law-abiding retailers and their staff.

Alternatives

The best the Government could do would be to hurry and legalise the sale of nicotine e-cigarettes, which are still technically illegal to sell, but are a much safer alternative to smoking, and a proven pathway to quit.

Dragging the chain on nicotine e-cigarettes suggests the Government is more interested in the money tobacco taxes bring in, than reducing the harms of the addiction.

14 DECEMBER 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

With the Budget Policy Statement indicating fiscal restraint, and the Government not signalling increases in revenue over and above nominal growth and fiscal drag, the Tax Working Group should be tasked to offer fiscally neutral solutions says the Taxpayers’ Union.
 
Jordan Williams, the Union’s Executive Director, says:
 
“We were pleasantly surprised, and welcomed, Grant Robertson’s public comments resulting from our calls prior to the election that any policy changes by the Tax Working Group could be fiscally neutral. Now that he’s in office Mr Robertson should task the Tax Working Group with finding ways to reduce existing taxes to compensate for the costs of any new taxes it suggests.”
 
“Today’s mini-budget is a signal to Kiwis that the Government does not intend to smack taxpayers with an expensive rejig of the tax system. A credible way to do this, would be to make sure the Tax Working Group understand this.”

ENDS

14 DECEMBER 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“Grant Robertson’s pre-Christmas spend-up appears to tie his hand in years to come, and offers a welcome dose of fiscal restraint,” says the Taxpayers’ UnionExecutive Director, Jordan Williams, reacting to today’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update.
 
“Today’s HYEFU was a mini-budget – it changes the direction of the Government’s spending priorities in the short term, and returns the tax system to a more complex tax and credit churn system.”
 
“But on the other side of the coin, Labour deserve real credit. There is no enormous tax grab forecast and Mr Robertson is signalling that he will run a very tight ship. Uncommitted operational spending is only $6.6 billion, or $660 million per year, out to 2022. That is only about half what National budgeted over recent years, and will need to also cover those coalition agreement policies not already costed and factored into the books.”

ENDS

14 DECEMBER 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

By the next election, the Government will have spent two billion dollars on KiwiBuild, but only a little more than a third of that will have translated into additional houses according to Treasury analysis pointed to by the Taxpayers’ Union. 

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union Economist Joe Ascroft, says, “Treasury has highlighted capacity constraints that means only 35% of the two billion dollars being spent by the Government will translate into additional housing by the next election.”

“When there are only so many builders, and so much land, big Government building schemes just take away from private investment and construction. That’s exactly what we’ll see for at least the next three to four years.”

“While residential investment is expected to increase over the long term, that relies on a number of assumptions, including increased work visas for foreign workers, and the use of foreign firms to encourage greater competition. That alone is totally inconsistent with Treasury’s assumption used for its financial modelling that net migration will reduce from 75,000 per year down to 15,000 by 2022.”

“Reform to the RMA, and freeing up contrants on building, would lead to a much larger increase in housing investment, and wouldn’t cost anywhere the two billion dollars Labour have budgeted for KiwiBuild. Better for the Government to get out of the way, rather than throw $2 billion of our money into a fund which will raise the costs of construction for such little gain.”

ENDS

14 DECEMBER 2017
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

With the Budget Policy Statement indicating fiscal restraint, and the Government not signalling increases in revenue over and above nominal growth and fiscal drag, the Tax Working Group should be tasked to offer fiscally neutral solutions says the Taxpayers’ Union.
 
Jordan Williams, the Union’s Executive Director, says:
 
“We were pleasantly surprised, and welcomed, Grant Robertson’s public comments resulting from our calls prior to the election that any policy changes by the Tax Working Group could be fiscally neutral. Now that he’s in office Mr Robertson should task the Tax Working Group with finding ways to reduce existing taxes to compensate for the costs of any new taxes it suggests.”
 
“Today’s mini-budget is a signal to Kiwis that the Government does not intend to smack taxpayers with an expensive rejig of the tax system. A credible way to do this, would be to make sure the Tax Working Group understand this.”

ENDS

Earlier this week, we sent this Offical Infomation Act request (OIA), to the Cabinet Secretary (a senior official in the non-political Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet) asking what information he has, or knows, about the contents of the 36-page secret document. 

Even if the DPMC does not actually have the document, any knowledge of its contents is 'official information' for the purposes of the Official Information Act. So, that is precisely what we have asked for.

Back in November the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, said her Government would be "the most open, most transparent Government that New Zealand has ever had". So we started a petition calling on the secret 36-page agreement between Labour and New Zealand First, to be released. 

If you want the Government to live up to their campaign promise, click here to sign our petition.

 

 

 

$380 million = $190,000 each

Earlier this week, the Government announced the details of its plan to make the first year of tertiary study free fully taxpayer funded. For the princely sum of $380 million, an extra 2,000 students are expected to pursue tertiary study from next year – that’s $190,000 each.

Giving every student free education in order to encourage a small number to pursue university or a trade offers anything but value for money. If the Government is concerned about some young people not receiving an education, they should target their policies, not give in to universalism.

As covered in our report published prior to the election, 'Robin Hood Reversed', this policy represents a huge wealth transfer from middle-income earners to tomorrow's rich.

The Government's policy gives every future doctor, lawyer and accountant a free ride — at the expense of the average taxpayer. We say it would be much cheaper to give scholarships for those who need them, and spend the money improving the quality of courses (or boosting the funding of schools or education providers).

The officials agree with us

Yesterday, the post-election "Briefings to Incoming Ministers" (BIMs) were released. Our team has been busy working through them and were interested to see the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) BIM fire darts at Labour's policy.

TEC points to poor decision-making from prospective students as a major problem already. It advises the new Minister that students already change their course, drop out, or act impulsively too much. How much worse will that be once students have no financial stake?

In addition, TEC explain that an increasing focus in recent years has been on 'investing in outcomes' rather than simply measuring success by the number of participants in tertiary education, or the number of degrees awarded. Nevertheless, the Government has ploughed ahead with a "free fees" policy specifically designed to do the opposite: get more bums on seats.

The Value(s) of Auckland DHB

Earlier this week we blew the whistle on the Auckland DHB spending $171,000 updating its ‘values’. That involved holding a ‘values week’ which entailed 17 workshops and 750 hours of staff time. A London business consultant was even flown in – twice – to provide expertise.

The ADHB’s former values of ‘Integrity, Respect, Innovation, Effectiveness’ were replaced with ‘Welcome – haere mai, Respect – manaaki, Together – tūhono and Aim High – angamua.' 

Put another way, the DHB spent $170,000 to replace the value of ‘effectiveness’ with merely ‘aiming high’!

The Taxpayers’ Union was happy to offer the ADHB some alternative values, except our suggestions were free of charge. We thought ‘Sticking to our knitting’, or ‘Not flying in a London consultant to legitimise our waffle-fest when sick people are literally relying on DHB resources for survival’, were both good options. You can read our comments to the media here, and coverage on Stuff here.

175,000 more questions for Wintec

The CEO of Wintec, Mark Flowers, appears to be scared of the media. He's reportedly spent an incredible $175,000 of public money hiring lawyers to protect him from the local Waikato Times questioning him about an investigation relating to serious allegations. The allegations are yet to be made public, but if they are as untrue as he claims, why spend $175,000 of our money on lawyers and literally hide in his car in the polytechnic's carpark to prevent having to answer questions?

Our research team are digging deep into this story — as well as similar issues at other polytechnics — so watch this space.

 

Our 2017 Ratepayers' Report - local government league tables - has identified Otorohanga, and Grey District Councils as the only two local authorities in New Zealand to govern without an Audit and Risk Committee.

Earlier in the year, Ratepayers' Report showed that Otorohanga, Grey and Waitomo District Councils were the only New Zealand councils failing to follow best practice in this area. Now that Waitomo District Council has introduced an Audit and Risk Committee it means Otorohanga and Grey District Councils are the only two not in line with the rest of the country.

Today we launched a campaign on behalf of the Otorohanga, and Grey District ratepayers, calling on their Council to introduce an Audit and Risk Committee.

According to LGNZ, Audit and Risk Committees provide councils with:

• Internal control framework and financial management practices;
• internal and external reporting and accountability arrangements;
• and financial risk management.

The costs associated with having a dedicated Audit and Risk Committee are minimal when weighed against the millions in potential savings of ratepayer money.

How can Otorohanga and Grey District Councils assure they are delivering value for money and managing risk, when they both refuse to implement the most basic oversight that is standard at nearly every other town hall in New Zealand?

If you agree that both Otorohanga and Grey District Councils should have an independent committee to oversee financial risk, click here to sign our petition.

 

Ratepayers' Report is free to access and online at www.ratepayersreport.nz.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The secret agreement

When the new Government was formed, Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, let slip that a "hidden addendum" to the Labour-NZ First coalition agreement had been agreed to, which clarified how the new Government will operate. Mr Peters promised that the document, apparently 38 pages long, would be released at a later date.

That document is of obvious public importance – it contains Ministerial directives and records the deal between the two parties. Despite that, and Mr Peters' comments, the Prime Minister’s Office has refused to release the document in responses to requests under the Official Information Act. Incredibly, Ms Ardern claims the document doesn’t represent “official information”. 

We say that’s absurd. This document allegedly sets down to Ministers the rules and expectations of the coalition. Matters such as whether NZ First has a veto on budget expenditure, or changes in tax settings, are apparently covered. It is at least as constitutionally significant as the Cabinet Manual - the core of Executive Government.

We say that taxpayers, voters, and the public are entitled to know what is in the document and what the Government has agreed to.

Jacinda Ardern made much of transparency and freedom of information while in opposition. We say she should walk the walk and are asking our supporters to join us in signing this petition to tell the Prime Minister to follow the Official Information Act and release the secret agreement.

"We call on Jacinda Ardern to respect the official information act and release the secret 38-page addendum to the Labour - NZ First coalition agreement."

We can shed more light on the expense scandal at the Waikato DHB, with the release of documents we requested under the Official Information Act arriving on Friday. Documents were released showing a number of important details for taxpayers (see below).

To our surprise, and despite numerous assurances that the money has been (or was about to be) paid back, the documents reveal that the former DHB CEO, Dr Murray, still owes up to $50,000 in unauthorized spending that’s not been paid back. What makes this particularly disappointing is that Dr Murray was earning $560,000 a year. 

Waikato DHB ended their investigation partially in exchange for a commitment from Dr Murray to pay back all unauthorized spending. There’s no good reason that debts are still outstanding. 

The documents also reveal a timeline of events related to the DHB’s investigation.

It was pleasing to see that Waikato DHB Chair Bob Simcock visited the State Services Commission the day after he was informed of issues related to Dr Murray. That shows prompt action by Mr Simcock who we’ve been calling to front up more information about the investigation into Dr Murray’s actions. Hundreds of people have even signed a petition calling on Bob Simcock to resign for his failure to hold the CEO to account during his tenure at Waikato DHB.

There are still a number of questions that need answers, however, it appears Waikato DHB were under significant pressure to end their investigation. Since the release of the documents, the Minister of Health, David Clark, has announced an enquiry investigation into the events at Waikato DHB and the expense scandal.

We’ll keep you posted.

Our new report, titled Fare Game? Flagging down the cost of public sector taxis, shows that bureaucrats choosing more expensive taxi services over ride-sharing apps like Uber have cost taxpayers at least $9.81 million since Uber’s introduction in mid-2014.

Currently, the 28 tier-one public service departments spend about $9.3 million a year on taxis. That’s compared to just $77k on ride-sharing apps. If all public servants opted for ride-sharing apps over taxis, we calculate the potential savings for taxpayers being around $3.27 million per year.

Despite the recent regulation of the ride-sharing industry, a number of departments still have policies in place banning their staff from using Uber or Zoomy for staff travel. Not only is that not keeping up with the times, it means many more millions are wasted on flash cabs, when a cheaper Uber would do just fine.

The report also assesses the opportunities for increased efficiency in departments who embrace ride-sharing as a means of staff travel. It also shows that internationally, the New Zealand public service is lagging behind.

Gone are the days of paper receipts and employee reimbursement forms. Ride-sharing’s electronic based system facilitates remarkably efficient internal staff travel processes. It’s no wonder federal officials in the United States and Australia have been encouraged to use the new technology.

Key findings:

• Over the 28 public service departments, $9,334,755.87 was spent on taxis over the period of a year, up until 1 June 2017. This is compared to just $77,102 spent on ride-sharing apps.
• By applying fare estimates between Wellington Airport and MBIE offices, the report estimates that using Uber over taxis saves around 35%.
• Applying that figure to government departments, taxpayers could have saved $3.27 million if public servants used ride-sharing over taxis, or $9.8 million since Uber launched in mid-2014.
• Five government departments have travel policies banning their staff from using ride-sharing for staff travel (Department of Conservation, Ministry of Justice, Crown Law, Ministry for Women, and the Department of Internal Affairs).
• Only tier one government departments were included in the survey data.  That means that many more millions are likely to have been wasted (and have the potential to be saved) across the wider public sector.

Disclaimer: Neither Uber, or any other ride-sharing interest, have donated, joined, or financially contributed to the Taxpayers’ Union or the publication of this report.  To join the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who have, donate now at www.taxpayers.org.nz/join

 

 

Labour’s coalition agreements with New Zealand First and the Green Party were released on Tuesday. While they set out the policy priorities of the new government, they do not breakdown the costs. Failing to mention the expenses, both in the agreements and most of the media commentary, should be of real concern to taxpayers. 

Headlining the agreements was a new one-billion-dollar “Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund”. Despite its infancy, both Labour and NZ First are touting it as a bonanza to their respective supporters. No wonder, ‘Regional development’ is usually code for corporate welfare and pork-barrel politics.

At a cost of $645 per year for the average Kiwi household, more than just political whim will be necessary for any sort of ‘provincial growth’ to result. For every dollar ‘invested’, a dollar is taken from a hard working taxpayer. Disciplined cost-benefit analysis, similar to that done for major roading projects, will need to be legislated to prevent the fund from turning into a slush fund, or make-work scheme.

The risk for taxpayers is the billion being sucked into projects with very low cost-benefit ratios. It could see more government agencies such as Callaghan Innovation, who ‘pick winners’ by giving money to favoured businesses and fashionable industries.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is already indicating the fund will include “a number of regional rail projects” even though KiwiRail is notoriously unprofitable. Treasury have been advising the Government for decades that money spent improving roads offers far more bang for buck than rail. A report released by KiwiRail last year concluded that closing its own freight lines entirely delivered the most long-run value to taxpayers. Ouch. Ms Ardern is picking political popularity of trains, over sound economics.

Some policies don’t even have a budget number attached. 

The Green Party has negotiated for "significantly increasing the Department of Conservation’s funding”. The amount? Unknown. It could double the funding of DOC, be a cunning trick on the Greens, or an invitation to the new Green Party Minister of Conservation to raise revenue, such as taxing tourists entering national parks.

To get to power, Ms Ardern has also promised to expand benefits for SuperGold Card holders. The coalition agreement is light on detail, but if NZ First get what they want, expect the annual costs to shoot up by $300 for the average household. That would buy a free annual GP visit and discounted power bills for everyone aged over 65. 

Clearly, some would benefit from cheaper power and a free doctors’ visit. But offering universally, instead of targeting the support to those who need it most, suggest this was about satisfying a voter constituency than improving living standards.

There are also the ‘studies’ and ‘reviews’ NZ First has negotiated. A ‘feasibility study’ into moving the Ports of Auckland could see billions spent shifting freight services to Whangarei. Another report, again published by KiwiRail, indicated that just the cost of upgrading the rail freight line from Northland would be up to four billion dollars. The cost to the average household would be $2580.

With Mr Peters’ support so expensive, Finance Minister Grant Robertson’s will need to find a way to pay for it all. Labour’s ‘alternative budget’ made no allowance for coalition negotiations, and very little allowance for new spending.

Jacinda Ardern has indicated that Labour’s tax working group will plough ahead. In any case the new Labour-led government will need to find the money to pay for the coalition ‘compromises’ somehow. Taxpayers, brace yourself to have your pockets opened.

Inland Revenue’s new IT system, implemented in February for their GST services, has been a disappointment. According to official data from IRD, the time spent handling GST related enquiries increased by 50% when the system was first introduced in February earlier this year. As of August, months after implementation, there was still a 20% increase in wait times compared to the previous year.

 

 
The point of investing in a new IT system was to make services more efficient at IRD, but this data shows taxpayers are receiving a worse service after the new system was introduced.
 
Many callers can’t even get to the hold tone. When the system was introduced in February, it faced so much pressure that nearly 2000 callers to the GST line were disconnected without even being put on hold. In the two months prior to implementation, that didn’t happen once.
 
Over 10,000 calls to the GST line were disconnected in May because IRD systems simply couldn’t cope. Inland Revenue either needs to train existing staff more thoroughly, or bring in additional staff during months they know will be busy. How the IRD is proposing to cut 1,500 jobs in this environment is astounding.

See the IRD's OIA response below:

Auckland Council has been caught out providing false information regarding the average rates paid by Auckland households, with revised figures showing that Aucklanders pay the second highest rates in New Zealand.

Over multiple years, officials have provided incorrect information to the Taxpayers’ Union and Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance researchers under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, presumably as an attempt to avoid criticism of the Council’s very high costs in comparison to the rest of the country.

As a result of these illegitimate figures, Auckland Council came out much better in our local government league tables than justified. It appears the Council has coordinated responses to deliberately mislead the public on what the average ratepayer pays.

In the initial report, Auckland Council's rates were comparable to New Zealand’s average. Now that the Council has coughed up the true figures, we know Auckland rates are actually the second highest in the country.

Before the Ratepayers’ Report local government league tables were published, we wrote to Auckland Council’s CEO and specifically asked for the rates figure to be checked a third time and were assured it was accurate.
 
With light finally shed on the truth, we have exposed that Aucklanders pay the second highest residential rates in the country.

This new set of data shows that if Auckland Council were as efficient as others in New Zealand, they would be better fiscally prepared to invest in the infrastructure that our city desperately needs.

Ratepayers’ Report was jointly published by the Taxpayers’ Union and the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance.

The ‘please explain’ letter sent to Mayor Phil Goff is here:

An article published last week by Fairfax has left an incorrect impression on the reason why the Taxpayers' Union objects to the Government signing an R&D cooperation agreement with Israel. 

The Union wishes to clarify that it is the nature of the agreement – that Callaghan Innovation's corporate welfare R&D grants will favour companies working with a particular country – not that the agreement is with a particular country.

Our staff just issued a media release where I clarify:

"When asked by the journalist who called, I specifically said that as an organisation the country is irrelevant and tied my comments back to our long-held position against corporate welfare."

"The journalist then asked whether some taxpayers would have an objection to it being Israel, and I agreed but said that personally, and as an organisation, we didn't."

I'm very annoyed that the caption below my picture on the Stuff website suggests that I objected to the agreement because of being "a deal with Israel whose military is in violent conflict with Palestine". Those words are Fairfax's, not mine. Similarly, where the article states: "Williams said many taxpayers would have an issue with New Zealand signing an agreement with a Middle Eastern country whose military continued to engage in violent conflict" - again not my words.

The Taxpayers’ Union has accepted a settlement and apology from Local Government New Zealand President Dave Cull relating to public statements he made about the accuracy of the Taxpayers’ Union’s local government league tables, ‘Ratepayers Report’, and honesty of the organisation.

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

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

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

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

Well known former Wellington lobbyist and former journalist, Barrie Saunders, has been appointed to the board of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cost of party coalition combinations 

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

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

Transparency Rating

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

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

Key findings (as at 9am 18 September):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency Rating

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

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

Key Findings (As of 9am 12 September):

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

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

Getting in on the ACT

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

Transparency Rating

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

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

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

Key Findings (as at 5 September):

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

 

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

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

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

More Labour Party lollies

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

Other party promises

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

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

Transparency Rating

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

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

Key Findings (as at 28 August):

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

National Party Doubles New Spending Promises In Just Seven Days

National spends-up large...

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

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

...so does the Maori Party

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

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

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

Little Difference with Ardern

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

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

United Future removed

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

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

Transparency Rating

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

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

Key Findings (as at 22 August):

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

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

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

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

Click to here to view the 2017 Ratepayers' Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

See IRD's OIA response below: 

Bribe-O-Meter week 3: All minor parties added, NZ First spending in excess of $22.5b

In this weeks update, all parties currently in Parliament have been added to the Taxpayers’ Union Bribe-O-Meter, which tracks the costs of election policies as they are announced.

To date, NZ First has the most expensive set of policies, totalling $22.5 billion in new spending over the next three years. This is equivalent to $13,024 per household. 

It should be noted that this is a conservative estimate and likely understates the true cost of the NZ First manifesto. A significant amount of NZ First policies are yet to be included because they lack sufficient detail.

ACT are the only party that will reduce Government spending, by eliminating $3.4 billion of corporate welfare and reversing the welfare increases announced in Budget 2017. ACT will save taxpayers $5.35b over the next three years – or $3,103 per household. 

United Future has promised $4.7b in new spending, or $2,737 per household. This comprises an estimated $2.7 billion to build the Ngauranga Gorge Tunnel and $1.9 billion to abolish tertiary tuition fees.

The Maori Party are yet to release their election manifesto so the only policy included to date is IwiRail, which is estimated to cost $1.55b over the next parliamentary term.

There have been few changes to National, Labour and the Green Party from last week. 

NZ First have proposed a set of policies that are largely ambiguous and lack detail. $22.5 billion is by far the most expensive set of policies of any party so far. However, even this understates the true cost of the NZ First manifesto because a significant number of policies lack enough detail to be included.

Notably expensive NZ First policies include: 

• Write-down of student debt: $4.6b per annum
• Buy-back of Meridian, Mighty River Power and Genesis: $4.3b
• Northland rail: $850m
• Installing 200km of new median barriers: $443m over three years
• Banning 1080 and undergoing pest control with solely traps: $386m over three years
• Reintroducing a non-commercial public service television channel: $45m over three years

It is worrying that New Zealand First shows no inclination of explaining to voters how they intend to fund their policies. They promise the world without any indication of how it will be fulfilled.

As it stands, and not accounting for some crossover of policy, a Labour-Green-NZ First coalition would spend $50 billion extra over the next parliamentary term. Considering Core Crown revenue is expected to be $80 billion in 2017, this figure is material.

Next week we intend to release policy costing’s for the Opportunities Party.

Key Findings 

• National has promised $1.4 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $814 per household.
• Labour has promised $17.6 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $10,223 per household.
• The Green party has promised $8.1 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $4,692 per household.
• NZ First has promised $22.5 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $13,024 per household.
• ACT has promised $5.4 billion in taxpayer savings over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $3,103 in savings per household.
• United Future has promised $4.7 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $2,737 per household.
• The Maori party has promised $1.6 billion in new spending over the next parliamentary term. This equates to $899 per household. Although this only includes one policy (the Maori party manifesto is expected to be released this week). 

You can read detailed breakdowns of each party's policies (and the costs) here:

• National Party cost breakdown
• Labour Party cost breakdown
• Green Party cost breakdown
• New Zealand First cost breakdown
• Maori Party cost breakdown
• ACT Party cost breakdown

• United Future cost breakdown
  

Click here to view the Bribe-O-Meter

The Taxpayers’ Union mascot, "Porky the Waste-hater", visited Rotorua this morning, and awarded the Rotorua Mayor a “Supreme Achievement Award” for imagination and achievement in wasting public money, following the Mayor’s decision to spend $90,000 of public money to import five tonnes of mud from South Korea. The mud is to supplement the local variety at Rotorua’s ‘Mudtopia' festival later in the year.

After some waiting, Ms Chadwick failed to front (apparently she was too busy). Nevertheless, an official accepted the award on her behalf.  

The award recognises the most creative use of taxpayers’ money we have seen yet. The favourite pastime of our mascot Porky is playing in mud, but even he condemns this total waste of money.

Steve Chadwick has created New Zealand’s very own ‘coals to Newcastle’ story.  Even the BBC has covered this ridiculous and frivolous waste.

The whole reason Rotorua Lakes Council received a tourism grant from MBIE was to promote Rotorua and its mud as a destination.  Instead, these geniuses flew to Korea and used the money to buy the foreign variety.

We elect politicians to be guardians of the ratepayer and taxpayer purse.  Unfortunately, that’s clearly not happening here in Rotorua.

What makes this Council’s behaviour particularly galling is the fact that Councillors tried to defend the spending in local media by saying that it’s ‘only taxpayer’ money, since a large amount was funded from an MBIE grant. What a disgraceful attitude to the hard-working taxpayers who earned that money.