The Executive Director of the Taxpayers' Union was interviewed by Duncan Garner on RadioLIVE's breakfast show. Click here for audio on demand. RadioLIVE - 12/12/2013
Anger at ATEED spending on America's Cup NewstalkZB - 6/12/2013
The New Zealand Taxpayers Union is lashing out at council-controlled Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) for spending more than $200,000 on sending staff and media to the America's Cup in San Francisco.They say sending a few key staff is justified, but 11 staff and seven members of the media is more of a junket than a work trip.Executive Director Jordan Williams says its would have contributed more to San Francisco's economic development than Auckland's.He says they are filing an Official Information Request on the nature of the spending."We want to know precisely what they were doing over there. Were they sitting on boats watching the America's Cup, or were they actually working?"That's the key question for ratepayers."
Yesterday the Labour Party confirmed its proposal for a new Children's Ministry and Minister. The Taxpayers' Union emailed Jacinda Ardern, the party's Spokesperson for Children.
Dear Ms Ardern,We understand from your public comments today that the Labour Party is proposing a new “Children’s Ministry” and “Children’s Minister” (refer to http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1312/S00106/report-slams-government-inaction-on-protecting-our-kids.htm).The Taxpayers’ Union supports all evidence based measures to help Kiwi kids succeed. We are not certain what yet another ministry (and job title) will achieve in terms of results on the ground. As you are probably aware we welcomed your announcement last month to abolish the Families Commission quango, a move we hoped signalled Labour’s intention to divert resources into front line services, rather than bureaucrats writing reports such as the one titled “Eating Together at Mealtimes”.As such, we seek the background material on the proposed Ministry/Minister that would answer the following questions:
- What are the cost projections to establish the Ministry?
- What is the projected per year baseline funding?
- Will the Ministry’s primary focus be policy advice or service delivery? If the latter, what responsibility and resources will be taken away from CYF, MSD or other ministries/departments?
- In terms of the number of FTE employees, how large do you propose the Ministry to be?
- Can you point to any overseas models or research which would indicate how you propose the new Ministry will work, its service delivery, and outcomes?
- How would the Ministry differ from the existing Families Commission?We propose to post this email on our website. If you have any objection, please let me know without delay.New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc.
Once we have a response, we'll post here.
In the mean time, we're planning our activities for election year. We're considering a 'cost calculator' service to track the promises from each party and check what politicians plan to do with taxpayers' money. Do you think it's worth us doing? Give us your thoughts by commenting on our Facebook page.
The report of the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the EcoCare wastewater project was released on Tuesday. It revealed serious failures in the management of the project, and strongly criticises Audit NZ. Inaccurate record keeping, mismanagement of the project, lack of financial advice and expertise, and reliance on private partnerships saw a huge budget blowout, with costs exceeding over $63m. For example, the effluent disposal bill alone increased from $361,000 to $14m.
How did the Council pay for this budget blowout? By raising rates for Mangawhai residents. The annual cost to ratepayers was a consideration in assessing the affordability of the project. However, the summary of the report reveals that the Council in fact decided to “increase the number of estimated ratepayers that would be covered by the scheme and contribute to funding it”. This is a fundamental flaw, and the Auditor-General concluded that this decision was not based on an adequate account of predicted growth in the area. This, as well as the undisclosed liabilities are precisely the things Audit NZ should have picked up on.
Overall the report suggests Audit NZ was failing audit 101
The Auditor-General's office (which includes Audit NZ) is supposed to provide assurance that government departments are performing as they should. The report details that:
- audit quality of the project was varied;
- the quality of documentation for some audit files were inadequate, especially those explaining why judgments were reached;
- there was a failure to reassess the project between 2006-2009 despite significant changes that could have been an audit risk; and
- the auditor’s reliance on information from Kaipara District Council’s management (which, from our examples above, were also clearly inadequate).
Joel Cayford has written a blog post evaluating the report. He’s gone a step further than the Taxpayers’ Union, and believes that an unreserved apology does not cut it, concluding that the Auditor-General's 'head is on the block'.
Many audit failures internationally have led to large payouts by audit companies and their insurers to shareholders. Here, the tab was left with Kaipara ratepayers. The report does not address what we think the issue is: redress for the Kaipara ratepayers who paid the bill.
Kaipara blow-out a warning stuff.co.nz - 4/12/2013
A damning report into the $63.3 million budget blowout on Mangawhai's wastewater scheme comes with a warning for other councils. The Taxpayers' Union reacts to the report.
Pay top state bosses even more: report - DominionPost 30/11/2013
Jordan Williams, executive director of the Taxpayers' Union, said the report acknowledged the "tenuous" connection between performance and pay in the public sector, but overlooked difference with the private sector.
"Traditionally public sector employees have expected less pay in exchange for having better job security and it's disappointing that the report doesn't acknowledge that," he said.
Organisations in both the public and private sectors were now in a race to pay senior staff the most.
"Instead of asking 'how much do we need to pay to get this person', the question seems to be 'what's everyone else paying, let's go just above that average', and we have a race skywards."
What's the difference between a 'cafe-style space' and a cafe?
Not a lot, but according to the government-owned monopoly Transpower, a $1.2million 'cafe-style space' is value for money unlike asking staff to visit the dozen cafes within a few hundred metres of its Wellington office building.
In 2012, the taxpayer owned company spent $1.2million refurbishing its reception and building "The Wire" a place where, according to Transpower CEO Patrick Strange, "we can engage and collaborate with each other, and with our guests."
Back in September, a Taxpayer's Union volunteer asked about the new cafe Transpower had built at 96 The Terrace, Wellington. It seems that calling it a "cafe" caused some offence. Transpower said (even bolding the text to emphasis the point):
The space on the ground level of Transpower House is not a café – it is a space for Transpower staff to meet internally and with our key stakeholders.
We were told that the combined cost of the cafe space and adjacent reception area was $1.2million.
Unfortunately, Transpower would not initially tell us how long its lease for the building had remaining. After some haggling, we learned that the current lease expires in 2014.
Is $1.2million on a cafe and reception value for money?
Entries close tomorrow for our competition for the householder who can provide evidence of the highest percentage increase in Auckland Council rates and user-charges. The prize is a lawnmower - just perfect for mowing those berms.
At the same time the Auckland Council is reducing services, a quick flick through the 50 or so entries we've have in so far, show many rates and user charge increases well over the 10% "cap".
Please scan and email your entries to email@example.com as any sent by post will no longer arrive in time.
Well it's taken a few weeks, but Auckland Council has finally responded to the Taxpayers' Union 'please explain' letter regarding a reported instruction by the Mayor's Chief of Staff, Phil Wilson, to refer all enquires about a secret January 2013 Mayoral trip to China to his office, and appears to be a misleading response to our enquiry about the trip under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
To recap, after a tip-off that there was inappropriate expenditure on a mayoral trip to China in early 2013, we asked the Council for the identify of the person who we were informed was responsible for the spending. It is our practise to use official information channels and verify any information we receive via our tip-line (or otherwise). We were told that the last trip was in 2012. April 2012.
No mention was made of the early 2013 trip.
As has been widely reported, we now know that the January 2013 did indeed happen.
A few weeks ago we spoke to an official at the Auckland Council who told us that the Council had misled us and implied that she was instructed that all requests from the Taxpayers’ Union relating to the January 2013 China trip, be directed to Mr Wilson.
But instead of explaining the inconsistency, Mr Wilson has today emailed a veiled threat that our statements are "being monitored and reviewed through legal channels".