This blog post is written by Taxpayers' Union Economist Karan Menon.

Facing the biggest economic shock in our lifetime, Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr is signaling his support for the use of “alternative monetary policy” to jog the Kiwi economy.

He is currently holding the Official Cash Rate at 0.25%, the lowest it has been since the OCR was introduced in 1999, till March 2021.

The cash rate is predicted to be cut even further by the end of the year to fall below zero – that means banks will now be charged on their deposits with the Reserve Bank. The intention of this expansionary monetary policy is to curb a deflationary spiral (an overall decrease in price levels) caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to disincentivise retail bank deposits held in the central bank.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is already implementing another form of ‘alternative’ monetary policy with its LSAP (Large Scale Asset Purchase) programme.

The LSAP programme will reduce market interest rates further and thereby reduce borrowing costs for retail banks as their wholesale borrowing costs have reduced. This is due to interest rates being inversely related to bond prices. As the RBNZ purchases government bonds, the demand for bonds increases, thereby increasing the price of those bonds and decreasing interest rates.

The RBNZ will purchase $60 billion of government bonds over the next 12 months to achieve these reductions in interest rates on mortgages and term deposits. This value roughly amounts to 29% of NZ GDP.  This process is known as an open market operation where money supply is linked to the sale and purchase of government bonds

These tools are used by the RBNZ to control inflation – in this case, to keep it from dropping too low.

The RBNZ is given operational independence to keep inflation between 1 and 3 percent on average over the medium term, but with the recent COVID pandemic, sharp projected contractions in economic activity will likely reduce inflation and employment targets below RBNZ’s objectives.

Therefore, the RBNZ aims to lower the borrowing costs for households and businesses and increase spending across the economy. Retail banks are in the business of lending, and this lending is financed by depositor funds or borrowed funds. The ability to service this lending is based on a bank’s liquidity which is calculated by taking the total lending as a proportion of total deposits.

With expansionary monetary policy decreasing “hoarding behaviour”, we can expect lower retail interest rates on both mortgages and deposits for businesses and households.

The complication with decreased interest rates on deposits is that we could see (and in fact already are seeing) investments diverted away from bank deposits to other financial investments with higher rates of return.

The relationship between expansionary monetary policy and the diversion of investments can be seen internationally. The US currently has its cash rate at 0%, while its stock market has seen steady increases. The NASDAQ closed on a high Tuesday and the S&P 500 index saw a 0.43% gain. The increases in those indices obviously have additional explanations, but deposit interest rates are also decreasing, implying investors are looking to the financial market for higher returns.

Real economic conditions in the US are simply not reflected in the US stock market. A wave of optimism is sweeping through Wall Street, which stands in contrast to the stark economic realities of the US. Unemployment, which hovered around 4% in February shot up to 13% in May.

The real-world macroeconomic implication of expansionary monetary policy, and the subsequent diversion of investments, would be to diminish the capacity of retail banks to lend and further, lending would be on the back of bank borrowings.

Adrian Orr’s intention of increasing investment spending and incentivising businesses to spend more on their operations is in fact reasonable. The risk, however, is that the outcome of his approach will be an over-extension of the banking sector, which could further exacerbate the economic crisis. If in fact the RBNZ achieved its goal to encourage spending for both households and businesses, banks would be unable to increase their cash position in the case of any further shocks to spending.

If banks become unable to lend, any good achieved by Orr’s expansionary monetary policy would be wiped away and the economy would be left in an even worse condition than currently projected.

In our newest episode of Taxpayer Talk, Jordan sits down (in-person!) with Helensville MP Chris Penk who has written a book investigating the claim that the Government had "gone early and hard" in its fight against
COVID-19. Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

Flattening the Country is available at https://chrispenk.national.org.nz/flattening_the_country.

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

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has launched a tool for Christchurch ratepayers to submit against Christchurch City Council’s proposed rate hike options.

The official consultation form for the Council’s updated budget is frankly a scam. Ratepayers are asked to choose between three different rate hikes – 3.5 percent, 4.65 percent, and 5.5 percent. This is a false choice, engineered to manipulate submitters into endorsing the 3.5 percent rate hike, when in reality many or most ratepayers would prefer a freeze or even a cut.

With the submission period closing on Monday, we’re encouraging Christchurch ratepayers to submit against the proposed rate options. Our submission form, available at www.ChchRates.nz, provides different rate options, and submissions are sent straight to the Council’s consultation inbox.

Christchurch City Council cannot seriously cry poverty while setting aside $118 million for a sports stadium, and paying 531 of its staff salaries higher than $100,000.

In April, Lianne Dalziel said she was “laser-focused” on delivering a rates freeze to reflect the hardships caused by COVID-19. But she and a majority of her Councillors have been swayed by self-interested Council staff warning of redundancies. That’s disgraceful – the responsibility of a Council is to protect ratepayers, not to provide livelihoods for its own staff.

With unemployment forecast to spike in coming months, the case against increasing council taxes is stronger than ever.

Will Winston put the kibosh on the Ihumātao deal?

After months of delays, it's been reported again that the Government is on the verge of purchasing the land at Ihumātao using $30 million of taxpayer money.

This would be a disgraceful capitulation to illegal occupiers. 

However, we understand that New Zealand First Leader Winston Peter is furious about the deal and had a tense exchange with the Prime Minister on Tuesday night. He has the power to block the deal at the 11th hour and gain huge publicity.

Jordan texted Winston yesterday to remind him of our petition against the deal, which has 11,000 signatures. We're watching very closely.

Petition launched for resignation of David Clark

Health Minister Dr David Clark was missing in action for virtually all of the COVID-19 pandemic after repeatedly breaching his own guidelines by travelling unnecessarily, mountain biking when that was forbidden, and moving house and his office at the exact time he was requiring people to stay home and work from home.

And now he's overseen a series of quarantine failures: most spectacularly, the two COVID-19 positive women who were allowed to travel the length of the North Island without being tested.

In fact, 51 out of 55 quarantined individuals released under compassionate exemptions were not tested. That is disgraceful and Dr Clark has accepted no responsibility.

He's now been shunted away from the media, with Megan Woods brought in as a "Dr Fix-It". Why keep David Clark on a $300,000 salary?

We've launched a petition calling on the Prime Minister to immediately sack the Minister for his repeated failures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

--> Click here to sign the petition <--

Electoral Commission investigating 'Aroha' posters

We're glad to hear that the posters of Jacinda Ardern plastered across the country have been taken down while the Electoral Commission investigates whether they count as election advertisements.

The posters are clearly advertisements: by the artist's own admission, they are drawn in a "propaganda style" and are inspired by the famous "Hope" posters of Barack Obama.

This means they need a promoter statement and should fall within election spending limits.

If the Commission finds that the posters are legit, we'll be surprised, but it means we can crowdfund our own poster campaign. Our posters could look like this:

Ratepayer heroes! Horowhenua Council CUTS rates in response to COVID-19

This is what leadership looks like. Horowhenua District Council hasn't just frozen rates – it's cut them by 1.83% in response to COVID-10 hardships.

The Mayor and his officials wanted higher rates, but six out of eleven Horowhenua Councillors seized their democratic responsibility and put the interests of ratepayers first.

Well done to Councillors Wayne Bishop, Victoria Kaye-Simmons, Todd Isaac, Robert Ketu, Pirihira Tukapua and Sam Jennings.

Yes, the Council will have to cut employee costs and sacrifice spending plans, but it’s a necessary sacrifice that reflects the cut-backs being made in households across the country.

Ultimately, this move will make Levin and surrounding areas better off. More money in ratepayers’ pockets means more demand for local goods and services. And ratepayers from other parts of the country will be looking on in envy – perhaps even considering a move!

Is your local council hiking rates? Contact them NOW and tell them what Horowhenua District Council has done.

Petition launched: Keep it The Tron!

As if New Zealand doesn't have bigger issues to debate, Newshub, Stuff, and RNZ are all reporting on calls to change the name of Hamilton to "Kirikiriroa".

If the Council considers a name change, it will mean a divisive consultation process, a potential referendum, ratepayer-funded revamps of branding and signage, and staff and councillors' time wasted.

The change would then be considered by the New Zealand Geographic Board, meaning taxpayers across the country cough up.

--> Click here to sign our petition against the name change <--

We say Hamilton City Council should ignore the vocal minority and stick to their core business of delivering value for ratepayers.

There's also the suggestion the Council could go for a "compromise" option of a dual name. Based on previous government and council rebrands, we can imagine the new council logo looking like this:

As if that will make anyone happy!

A surprise from Labour's list ranking...

Last week Labour revealed their updated Party list for the 2020 election.

We were astonished to see Phil Twyford moved from #5 up to #4 after his calamitous management of KiwiBuild, and more recently, his total failure to deliver his Auckland tram project.

(In fact, Twyford has now confirmed he's given up on Auckland Light Rail this side of the election. That project was the main reason for increased fuel taxes, so why is he planning to hike fuel tax again on 1 July?!)

For fun, I also researched Labour's lowest-ranked candidates. At the very bottom, #84, is a teacher unionist named Georgie Densey. Her Twitter page has one post, where she shares this praise of Metiria Turei:

Interesting.

How would this look on a billboard?

National MP Nick Smith has revealed that Parliament's architecturally designed playground – which is basically just a slide and some stepping stones – went $172,000 over budget.

All up, the design, construction, landscaping, and engineering fees totalled $572,000.

We plan to make taxpayers remember this kind of waste when they cast their votes on 19 September.

All the best,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

Statue controversy is pathetic

We are currently facing the economic fallout of a literal pandemic. But our country's media and politicians have decided the biggest issue affecting New Zealanders is whether or not our statues are racist.

On Thursday, Hamilton City Council removed a statue of the city's namesake, John Hamilton, after a local kaumatua threatened to tear it down himself.

What a pathetic capitulation. Why are councillors focused on a statue? Don’t they realise that by so swiftly agreeing to pull it down, they’re inviting wasteful new debates over other statues, and even Hamilton’s name?

Councillors need to refocus their time and attention away from petty controversies and onto issues that matter: namely, their annual budget. Tear down wasteful spending, not statues.

Statues of Edward Gibbon Wakefield, Captain Cook, and Richard Seddon are also under siege, as are street names and museum exhibitions deemed 'colonial'. The Māori Party wants to make it an election issue.

God help us.

Here's a real problem

New data from the OECD confirms hard economic times ahead for New Zealand: we are looking at a forecast decline in productivity of 8.9%, or 10% if there’s a second wave of COVID-19. That’s worse than the average forecast decline for the OECD countries.

Because of New Zealand's lackluster contact tracing capabilities, the Government pursued an extremely strict lockdown in response to COVID-19. This hammered our output.

The lockdown also necessitated massive amounts of spending. Already, Government debt has risen from below 20% of GDP to above 25% – and it’s expected to peak much higher, at $109,000 household. And once the wage subsidy ends in September, we can expect an unemployment spike too.

In short: why are we talking about statues?

COVID-19 ads looking more like propaganda

You might think that the taxpayer-funded ad campaign to 'Unite against COVID-19' is now over. Instead, it's been replaced with a new one: 'Unite for the recovery'.

This double-page ad is being promoted in the Herald and the Dominion Post:

The message is being promoted by the Government in other platforms, along with the 'Be kind' slogan that is closely associated with Jacinda Ardern.

These advertisements are not primarily informative or educational, unlike earlier Government COVID-19 advertisements. We have now moved into the realm of thinly veiled political propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.

‘Unite for the recovery’ is expected to be the central theme of the Labour Party’s 2020 election campaign. With Government debt going through the roof, we say borrowed funds should be used on vital services, not propaganda. 

Before previous elections, Auditors General have slapped down incumbent Governments for using taxpayer money for political messages. We've laid a formal complaint with the Auditor General – we'll let you know what he comes back with.

Napier City Council's morning tea is only the tip of the iceberg

RNZ reports that Napier City Council's CEO has thrown himself a $4,251 farewell morning tea.

Incredibly, the Mayor's only complaint about the spending was that she wasn't invited!

The RNZ report seems to skim the real waste in this story: CEO Wayne Jack has been given a $1 million golden handshake to leave. Ratepayers are forced to reward poor performance.

Mr Jack assumed 660 council staff would want to attend his farewell. On that note: does Napier City Council really need 660 staff on payroll??

Cutting council payrolls is key to rates relief

We've been advising councils to respond to COVID-19 by freezing rates. While some councils have taken our advice, many more are complaining that a rates freeze would involve major cuts to spending.

That's true. Why not review payroll spending?

A new report from local government analyst Larry Mitchell reveals that council employees earn, on average, 37.9% more than those in the private sector.

The average council spends 23.8% of its budget on payroll, but there is significant variation: Kapiti Coast District Council spends 34.7% on payroll, whereas Rangitikei spends just 10.3%. This suggests councils could cut down on staff or salaries if they were serious about relief for ratepayers.

You bought a free internet modem for Mike Hosking

This might be my favourite waste story of the year. Buried among the Government's countless "COVID-19 response" spending projects was $87 million worth of IT equipment for kids studying from home. The idea was to get the kit to kids in poor households without access to the internet.

The result: hundreds of unwanted internet modems are piling up in school offices, or being sent to families that don't need them. Even Mike Hosking's son got one!

Is the discriminatory elective surgery policy really a response to COVID-19?

The Taxpayers’ Union has filed a complaint with the Race Relations Commissioner over Capital and Coast DHB's policy of prioritising Māori and Pacific patients on elective surgery waiting lists.

Taxpayer-funded health resources should be allocated solely on clinical need in all instances, not racial preference. We hoped this was just a rogue DHB making policy on the hoof. We were wrong.

Eight other DHBs have introduced or are looking to introduce this clearly discriminatory policy. Three more refused to rule it out.

Supposedly, this policy is a response to COVID-19. There was a backlog of surgeries created when hospitals effectively shut down bracing for a tsunami of virus patients that never arrived.

Those days are past. There are no patients still in hospital with COVID-19. When the elective surgery backlog is cleared, and in many instances that has already happened, this policy should be immediately dropped if it really is just related to COVID-19.

The Union doubts that DHBs will do that. There is an agenda here and Official Information Act requests will be lodged to discover the truth.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has laid a formal complaint with the Auditor General regarding today’s full-page advertisements placed in a number of newspapers, including the NZ Herald and the Dominion Post, by the Government (pictured below).

These advertisements are not primarily informative or educational, unlike earlier Government COVID-19 advertisements. Today’s ads have moved into the realm of thinly veiled political propaganda at the taxpayers’ expense.

'Unite for the recovery’ is widely expected to be the central theme of the Labour Party’s 2020 election campaign. Only 102 days from an election, the public service should be vigilant to political masters using taxpayer-funded resources to support political messages.

Full page newspaper adverts of a political nature, even in this depressed media environment, are expensive. With Government debt going through the roof, borrowed funds should be used on vital services, not propaganda.

We're giving taxpayers the opportunity to get to know their MPs beyond photo-ops and party-line speeches. In this episode, Islay Aitchison interviews Melissa Lee MP. Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

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

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has lodged a formal complaint regarding the recent Capital and Coast District Health Board’s decision to move Māori and Pacific patients to the front of their elective surgery queues. We welcome Race Relations Commissioner Dr Meng Foon’s recent comments on radio that on the basis of our complaint he would “look into” the policy. However, he needs to go much further.

Taxpayer-funded health resources should be allocated solely on clinical need in all instances, not racial preference. Even if we are wrong, elective surgery waiting lists are not like primary health care, where race is sometimes used as a cheap proxy for need. For elective surgery, precise clinical data is available to determine the need of each and every individual. That is how the lists are constructed. The arguments that a particular race has higher or lower (on average) need is invalid.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is disappointed that Dr Foon has chosen to not speak up on this issue. He had time to acknowledge Rotuman Language Week on his Facebook page but apparently not enough time to address this clearly unfair policy which is based on ethnicity. The Capital and Coast District Health Board’s policy is a critical race relations issue and Dr Foon should bring the full force of his office against it immediately.

We are also extremely concerned by comments by Sean Plunket on his radio show that he was aware of ‘anecdotal evidence’ of other District Health Boards considering the same policy. This policy needs to be stopped before it starts.

By many measures, socialist ideas are more popular than ever, with academics and increasingly hip activists unashamedly promoting the collective ownership of wealth and centralised government-led decision making. Louis has a discussion with Dr Kristian Niemietz from the Institute of Economic Affairs, who has written a book named 'Socialism: The Failed Idea that Never Dies'.

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

DHB prioritises patients according to race

We were amazed to find out this week that Wellington's DHB now has a policy which moves Māori and Pacific patients to the front of their elective surgery queues.

We all pay tax into the health system with the expectation that we will receive help when we need it. This DHB's decision to use skin colour to determine who goes to the front of the queue isn't just racist, it goes against the egalitarian vision of a publicly-funded health system. What would Michael Joseph Savage say?

We say the Health and Disability Commissioner needs to step in to protect the integrity of the health system – taxpayer-funded health resources should be allocated on clinical need, not race politics. We've approached him for comment, and are preparing a complaint to the Race Relations Commissioner. We'll let you know how we get on.

Election Day's convenient timing

This week our analysts have been going back through the enormous volume of Budget announcements. One thing is clear: the Government's electoral strategy is to do all it can to keep the patient alive until after the election – then it'll send you the bill. Grant Robertson is spending like mad to keep New Zealanders happy... until after the election. To illustrate:

We would hope that, when politicians respond to a crisis with a spend-up costing tens of billions, they do it purely with the public interest at heart. But the timeline above does seem awfully convenient.

Auckland Council shamed with CBD billboards

Our sister group, the Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance, has been doggedly campaigning to expose the "Rich List" of Auckland Council staff paid more than $250,000.

Thanks to a grassroots fundraising push, they are raising billboards across central Auckland. Pictured is an epic example from Eden Terrace.

Click here to browse the full Town Hall Rich List.

If you live in Auckland, make sure you sign up here to get updates on the campaign tackling Phil Goff's attempt to hike Council taxes again this year.

Betrayal in Christchurch? Council looks set to U-turn on rates freeze commitment

After initially opposing and then supporting a rates freeze, Christchurch City Mayor Leanne Dalziel is once again on track to hike rates.

The three options put in front of councillors this week – rate increases of 3.5%, 4.65%, and 5.5% – are offensive to households who've had their livelihoods damaged by COVID-19.
 
It is especially galling that councillors were swayed by self-interested staff warning of redundancies. Countless ratepayers have lost their livelihoods in the wake of COVID-19. Why should council employees be a protected class?
 
A rates freeze would have required some tough but necessary cuts to salaries and non-essential spending. But Dalziel is now pushing a budget that includes a massive $118 million discretionary spend on a sports centre! It’s like she’s decided the reality of this crisis is too hard to deal with, and has returned to a dreamworld in which COVID-19 never happened.

We'll be ensuring Christchurch ratepayers submit in favour of a zero rate increase during the consultation period, regardless of the "options" presented by the Council.

We continue to track where each local council stands on our Rates Freeze Dashboard.

Most recently, we've had to change the status of Waitomo District Council: the Mayor had been pushing for a rates freeze, but this week all of his councillors voted against the idea. Shame on them. Our statement is here.

Public health units waste our money – now using COVID-19 to claim they're underfunded.

This week public health specialists were touring media studios demanding more taxpayer funding.

This campaign could be taken more seriously if they stopped wasting money on pointless public relations campaigns under the guise of public health.

Here at the Taxpayers' Union we thought we should fact check their claims of poverty.

Public health units get around $440 million annually from the taxpayer. Fair enough. But what are they using it for? In recent years they've used these funds to:

• Regulate “healthy options” in vending machines

• Promote tai chi and “Nordic walking”

• Promote astrology charts

• Improve workplace wellbeing with “biophilic office design” (i.e. pot plants)

• Tell us to move to a cool room when the weather is hot

• Pay Olympic athletes to tell us to drink water

• Tell us to “only use your bed for sleep and sex”

Imagine if all this time and money had been used for pandemic planning! Public health units could have used their resources to set up contact-tracing capabilities, instead of telling New Zealanders how to live Government-approved ultra-PC lifestyles.

Two incredible tales of waste from Dunedin City Council

It's been an odd couple of weeks for Dunedin ratepayers.

First, the City Council spent $40,000 on a "street makeover" which consisted mainly of colourful dots painted directly onto the road. This was apparently a response to COVID-19. (We can't figure out how, either.)

Now, the Council has revealed its new tourism campaign:

The slogan is Dunedin – A Pretty Good Plan D. The price tag for ratepayers is $145,000.

I'll admit, I think it's funny. But Dunedin ratepayers are apparently fuming at how much of their money has been spent on a campaign that insults under-sells their beloved town.

And in all seriousness, central government is already devoting funds to a major domestic tourism promotion campaign. What's the value in having every local council spend money to fight over a limited number of domestic tourists?

Public art, or election advertising?

Here's the sight that greeted Taxpayers' Union staff as we arrived at the office this week:

First we thought it was Wellington City Council trolling us (the ad is literally just outside thr entrance of our building), but it turns out these posters of Jacinda Ardern are rolling out across the country.

The massive posters are reminiscent of Barack Obama's "HOPE" ads and include the Māori word for "love".

Some research eventually revealed the ads are run by billboard company Phantom Billstickers. The art team is Weston Frizzell, who say:

We think Jacinda has done a brilliant job leading Aotearoa though the Covid19 pandemic. We were proud to show our support with an iconic painted portrait.

We've created this giant street poster. For $190 (+P&P) you can buy one hand signed by both of us, and we will paste up another FOR FREE as part of a nationwide street poster campaign to share this message of AROHA.

For the sake of transparency, election advertisements are legally required to carry a 'promoter statement' stating who is responsible. These posters don't.

We'll see what the Electoral Commission thinks!

Have a great long weekend,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

A round-up of the country’s regional and unitary councils reveals that ratepayers in Wellington, Otago, and Southland are being ripped off by authorities who are forging ahead with rate hikes planned prior to COVID-19.

New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says, “An economic crisis is the worst time to increase tax – and that includes the taxes set by our regional authorities. Unlike income taxes, the level of rates does not reflect a household’s ability to pay, meaning they’re especially unfair on Kiwis who have lost income and livelihoods.”

“Three regional councils in particular need a kick up the arse – Greater Wellington, Otago, and Southland are on track to hike rates by 5%, 9.1%, and 5.9% respectively – in line with plans set prior to the COVID-19 outbreak. Now is not the time for a business-as-usual approach to rates.”

“Other regional councils have revised rate hikes downward in the face of COVID-19, but the real benchmark has been set by those freezing rates entirely. Congratulations to the regional councils of Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Taranaki, Hawke’s Bay, Tasman, and West Coast, who have committed to a zero rate increase. By finding savings and deferring non-essential spending they have done right by struggling ratepayers.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is tracking the rates status of all local councils at www.taxpayers.org.nz/rates_dashboard, and will be releasing region-by-region roundups of local councils as information comes to hand.

The National Party has a new Leader

This afternoon, Bay of Plenty MP Todd Muller successfully challenged Simon Bridges for the National Party Leadership.

While we don't endorse political parties, we watch National very closely as a party of 'limited government'. Even if they fail to take back the Beehive in September, they have the power to force the Government's hand on policies that seriously impact taxpayers.

What would a Prime Minister Muller do?

With the media focused on the politics and personalities of this saga, there has been next to zero coverage given to what matters: the policies Todd Muller would push as Prime Minister.

Any promises made by Simon Bridges are now effectively void, meaning Muller has to answer questions like:

• Does National still pledge to adjust income tax bracket thresholds in line with the cost of living?

• Does National still pledge to repeal the Auckland fuel tax, and to not increase fuel taxes if elected?

• Does National still plan to make NZ Superannuation more affordable by increasing the entitlement age to 67 in 2040?

We're seeking a meeting with Mr Muller next week to get a steer on where he stands on these issues and more.

Coincidentally, we sat down with Todd Muller for a podcast interview just a few days before he announced his leadership bid. He described himself as "broadly socially conservative, and from an economic perspective reasonably liberal".

If you want a measure of the man, I recommend listening to Islay's interview with Muller here.

Revealed: COVID-19 GP funding is race-based

This week we revealed that COVID-19 support funding for general practitioners was allocated significantly on the basis of enrolled patients’ ethnicities.

A response we obtained under the Official Information Act showed that GPs received $4.50 in funding per Māori or Pacific patient with any other ethnicities worth only $1.50 – only a third of the amount.

Elderly and individuals from low socio-economic areas were valued at the increased Māori/Pacific amount. 

So much for the Government’s COVID-19 slogan that ‘we’re all in this together’. Skin colour shouldn’t be the proxy for how much money the Government allocates for healthcare.

COVID-19 doesn’t spread to Māori and Pacific patients more than other patients. In fact, only 8% of cases in NZ involve someone of Māori ethnicity and 5% for patients of Pacific ethnicity. This is around half their respective shares of the population so in fact they are less affected than other ethnicities, yet they get 200% more funding. This is putting wokeness ahead of public health.

Sometimes Māori and Pacific health is targeted because those communities are generally in low socioeconomic circumstances. But for GPs the Government has all of that socioeconomic data, and could have targeted the money on that basis.

Had the Taxpayers’ Union not sought out clarification over how funding was distributed, the information would never have been available to the public.

Rates freeze campaign: “Now is not the time to put up Council taxes”

An economic crisis is the worst time to increase taxes – and that includes council taxes.

On Monday night Jordan spoke to Q&A making the case for rates freezes: unlike income taxes, the level of rates don’t reflect the ability to pay. This means struggling businesses and households who have lost their livelihoods are still hammered.

Has your local council agreed to a rates freeze?

We’re tracking the status of all councils on our rates freeze dashboard, with recent significant victories including Taranaki Regional Council and Nelson City Council.

The message is starting to sink in. So far, 14 councils have agreed to our call for a freeze rates. Another 37 have reduced their planned rate hikes.

A minority of councils are still proceeding with their pre-COVID rate hike plans, but I'm confident we can make them flip.

Here's how the regional and unitary councils are tracking:

Find out how where your local council (and its neighbours) stands on our rates freeze dashboard. Please let us know if you have more up-to-date information on your local council.

What about Auckland Council?

Our sister group, the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance, will soon be rolling out its own campaign for a zero rates increase in Auckland. This will include leaflet drops, yard signs, and a dedicated website through which ratepayers can make submissions as part of the Council's 'emergency' consultation.

Next week the Alliance is also unveiling billboards promoting the Auckland Town Hall Rich List. If you haven't already, take 30 seconds to look at www.richlisters.nz.

We’ve got Phil Goff from a 3.5% rate hike down to 2.5%, but we think he can do better.

The Council’s “2.5% or 3.5%” consultation options are designed so that the Mayor can claim Aucklanders support a rate hike when submissions inevitably favour the 2.5% option. We want to achieve a majority of submissions favouring a zero rate hike (or temporary reduction), regardless of the options currently being put forward by Auckland Council.

Government ignores advice – taxpayers now buying 285 pigs everyday!

Seven weeks ago, Ministers learned that, with butchers closed, a surplus of pigs threatened to create animal welfare problems.

Officials suggested allowing retail butchers to open under COVID-19 rules, but the Government dismissed that advice. As a result, taxpayers are now buying 2,000 pigs a week.

The Government’s determination to shut down butchers against official advice hurt those businesses, damaged the pork industry, and made conditions worse for pigs. Even with the taxpayer footing the bill for 2,000 pigs a week, this only covers up to 40% of the weekly surplus. The other 60% will have to be destroyed. What a waste.

Our mascot, Porky the Waste-hater, asked me to include his thoughts in this newsletter:

Everyone knows how the life of a pig on the farm will end. Pigs are smart and sociable creatures and deserve to be treated with respect. When they do make the ultimate sacrifice, it should be for something noble like a bacon sandwich. Instead, 5,000 pigs a week are being killed for nothing. Where's the kindness in that?

Have a great weekend,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that COVID-19 support funding for general practice clinics was allocated significantly on the basis of enrolled patients’ ethnicities. Information obtained under the Official Information Act 1982 showed that organisations received $4.50 in funding per Māori or Pacific patient with any other ethnicities worth only $1.50 – only a third of the amount.

Elderly and individuals from low socio-economic areas were valued at the increased Māori/Pacific amount. 

So much for the Government’s slogan ‘we’re all in this together’.  Skin colour shouldn’t be the proxy for how much money the Government allocates for healthcare.

Covid-19 doesn’t spread to Māori and Pacific patients more than other patients. In fact, only 8% of cases in NZ involve someone of Maori ethnicity and 5% for patients of Pacific ethnicity. This is around half their share of the population so in fact they are less affected than other ethnicities, yet they get 200% more funding. This is putting wokeness ahead of public health.

Sometimes Māori and Pacific health is targeted because those communities are generally in low socioeconomic circumstances. But for GPs the Government has all of that socioeconomic data, and could have targeted the money on that basis.

There was also an alarming lack of transparency around this funding. In fact David Clark wheeled out the ‘we’re all in this together’ line in announcing the GP funding package. Had the Taxpayers’ Union not sought out clarification over how funding was distributed, this information would not have been available to the public. Increased demands on healthcare due to COVID-19 mean it is more important than ever that resource allocations are subject to public scrutiny.

Information response from the Office of the Director-General of Health:

This morning it was reported that Todd Muller is making a challenge for the National Party Leadership. Prior to these reports, Islay Aitchison sat down with him to hear more about his political philosophy, his goals and his background.

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

Watch Government debt tick up in real time

Following the Budget’s eye-wateringly high debt forecast, the team have been thinking about how to best illustrate what it looks like to borrow $200.8 billion by 2024 (or $109,700 added to the mortgage of every New Zealand household).

A couple of the staff put together a website at www.DebtClock.nz which makes it clear just how quickly the Government is racking up debt.

!! Watch it and weep ‼️

As you watch the debt tick up in real time, remember that you and your children will be forced to pay for it – plus interest.

After COVID-19, paying down debt will become one of our country’s' most important challenges. Here at the Taxpayers' Union we’ll be challenging the politicians to come up with smarter ways to cut government waste so the debt clock stops ticking without the need for painful new taxes.

Light rail "on hold" – so why hike fuel tax?

In a statement quietly released the evening before Budget Day, Transport Minister Phil Twyford confirmed that he's put his troubled Auckland tram proposal "on hold".

Funding this project was a key excuse for annual fuel tax hikes. Now that light rail is on hold, we say July's 4c/L tax hike should be shelved too. This would provide vital economic relief for low-income families and the struggling regional tourism sector.

Since our public advocacy, the National Party has jumped on board with Simon Bridges also pointing to the light rail cancelation as justification for shelving the tax hike.

The question of fuel tax aside, Twyford's decision to defer light rail trams down Dominion Road is the right one. He's walking away from a growing financial headache, and that deserves praise. In fact, he should consider doing the same with the failed KiwiBuild initiative, or perhaps even the City Rail Link. He may find that the COVID-19 crisis gives him cover to make prudent decisions that would otherwise be politically embarrassing.

Tourism talkfests waste time and money

Among the slew of Budget announcements was the formation of yet another working group: a ‘New Zealand Futures Tourism Taskforce’ that will ‘lead the thinking on the future of tourism’. Working group members will presumably be paid by the taxpayer.

Kelvin Davis should already be taking advice from the tourism sector – it’s one of his key duties. Why does he need to set up a working group to spend months producing and consulting on reports?

There’s a risk that the group will be captured by special interests. The Minister has a responsibility to the general taxpayer, and mustn’t allow a select group of tourism operators and bureaucrats to dominate his thinking, especially when it comes to taxpayer-funded handouts.

Then there’s another new committee: the ‘Tourism Recovery Ministers Group’, featuring Davis, Grant Robertson, Nanaia Mahuta, Eugenie Sage, and Fletcher Tabuteau. This one is just baffling. Why does Kelvin Davis need three other Ministers and an Under-Secretary to help him to his job? Don’t his colleagues have enough on their plates?

KiwiRail handout is about politics, not COVID-19

Budget 2020’s $1.2 billion spend on KiwiRail has nothing to do with COVID-19 relief as advertised.

KiwiRail is a state-owned enterprise, and as such is expected to run a profit. However, it’s never paid out a single cent in dividends to the Government.

KiwiRail already got a billion dollars in Budget 2019. At the time, we said that was the equivalent of setting money on fire – that’s basically what Treasury analysis has said for decades. This latest package will cost another $656 per Kiwi household.

There are countless other potential projects with better cost-benefit ratios – and all the jobs ‘created’ by paying for new InterIslander ships will be in South Korean ship yards. The KiwiRail handout is really about satisfying the Greens’ train fetish and assisting NZ First’s quest to move Auckland’s port to Northland. Why not be transparent about it?

You paid someone to write this article (EXPLICIT) 🔞

I'm not making this up: someone was paid with taxpayer money to write a diary of their day in the office wearing a...

*clears throat*. Sorry, I can't finish that sentence.

If you dare, you can view the article here. But seriously, you might not want to. It is certainly not safe for work.

The NZ AIDS Foundation and its 'Ending HIV' website is taxpayer-funded, receiving $4.23 million a year from the Ministry of Health.

Last year a Ministry spokesman said: "The Ministry is committed to continuing its support for NZAF and its Ending HIV campaign."

To be fair to the Foundation, they are entrusted with some very important work around HIV testing. But we're not convinced the Foundation's 'journalism' is an essential use of borrowed money. Call us prudes!

Have a great week,

Louis Houlbrooke Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

PS. Our Taxpayer Talk podcast is going strong. Listen to our Budget Day analysis here. We also sat down with National MP Simon O'Connor as part of our "MPs in Depth" series.

To receive our Taxpayer Updates delivered to your inbox, add your details here.

We're giving taxpayers the opportunity to get to know their MPs beyond photo-ops and party-line speeches. In this episode, Islay Aitchison interviews Simon O'Connor MP.

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

The Taxpayers' Union's Consulting Economist Joe Ascroft, and former Treasury (now Taxpayers' Union) Analyst Neil Miller, sits down with Jordan Williams to discuss Budget 2020, the economic and political risks, and what it says about the Government's election strategy.

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

The Minister of Finance Grant Robertson describes Budget 2020 as a “once in a generation” budget to combat “a 1-in-100-year threat” of the global COVID-19 pandemic. It certainly contains high level of additional spending, headlined by the $50 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund (of which only about $20 billion is still actually available today).

To put $50 billion in context – the amount of new spending in a normal year’s budget is usually about one to three billion.

This spending will be funded by significant increases in debt as tax revenue will remain steady. There are no new taxes or tax increases announced which will be something of a relief to taxpayers.

However, it is also a “blank cheque” budget. Under the large headline figures, there is often a lack of detail about the spending which makes the quality of many proposals hard to assess. During questions, the Minister indicated that some of the $20 billion will go to Health (including laboratories and contact tracing) but the decisions were yet to be made. We have the bill, but do not know what we are going to be served.

In Defence, over half the new spending – the purchase of Super Hercules planes – is contingent because Cabinet has not considered a business case, far less approved it. That is a $900 million ($491/household) “maybe” even though Defence Minister Ron Mark says it remains his number one priority in Defence. Yes, the Budget was put together quickly under tremendous pressure but COVID-19 can not be blamed for over two years of delays on the planes. Treasury is publishing a summary of initiatives not in the Estimates on the week ending 22 May 2020. Most of this is information that would usually be in the Budget itself.

In any case, how buying more planes resolves a pandemic is unclear.

The Government has locked in high spending, but many of the hard decisions have been deferred until after the election. It is only after the election that New Zealanders will have to face the realities of paying back debt, and new policies from a new Government. Budget 2020 has one eye firmly on the election, hoping the economy can continue a slow recovery, hoping there is no second wave of infections, and hoping the current Government can be returned with a mandate.

If it is, expect a change in policy direction. Questioned about the lack of significant tax reform in the Budget, the Finance Minister confirmed there was none, and none would happen this term. That carefully leaves open the possibility of significant tax reform (including new taxes and tax increases) in the next term if Labour retains the Treasury benches.

In short, buy now, pay later.

There are other worrying trends.

There is evidence of interest group capture resulting in high levels of spending which are hard to justify. This includes funding boosts for certain industries (racing, fishing, arts, sports and more coming soon for media), certain voting blocks (including the $911m Maori COVID-19 package and the Pasifika funding parcel), and certain failing industries (KiwiRail gets a projected boost and NZ Post gets Government support despite being “no longer financially viable”).

The Government is also centralising decision making into new bureaucracies. "Workforce Development Councils" will "strategically plan" for the recovery of industries and jobs, and "Regional Skills Leadership Groups" will "improve information gathering". This is not a small investment – $276 million ($150/household) for a lot of officials, boards, reference groups, and consultation meetings. The Government is also planning to run a bulk food distribution operation called the "New Zealand Food Network" despite a number of companies and organisation already working in this space.

A "Infrastructure Industry Reference Group" is considering 1924 applications for $136 billion of projects. Clearly not all of these will be of high quality or quick to start.  A new road in starting in 2023 is little use to the unemployed in 2020 and 2021.

The increased Government control of the economy mirrors increased Government control of freedoms. Budget 2020 confirms that this is a hands-on Government, even if the details of what it might have its hands on remain sketchy.

The Taxpayers’ Union will continue to provide expert additional analysis as our team has time to consider the details further. One early concern is that the Government’s projections on unemployment remaining under 10% and economic growth returning next year seem very optimistic.

It appropriate to finish by acknowledging the hard work of Treasury officials and Ministerial staff preparing this document. This Budget was not what they planned six months ago or even six weeks ago. The key decisions were signed off on 6 April, very late in the normal Budget cycle. Minister Robertson even mentioned that some of the decisions in today’s papers were made on Monday. However, it is an important Budget and needs to be scrutinised closely to ensure taxpayers are receiving value for their money.

Also: Kiwiblog: Budget Lockup 2020 – A report from the inside

Neil Miller is a former Treasury Analyst, a former Director of Research in Office of the Leader of the Opposition, and is an Analyst at the Taxpayers' Union.

Skyrocketing debt

Unsurprisingly, the Government’s Budget Responsibility Rules (which capped Government spending and debt in coming years) are dead. Net debt is forecast to climb from $57.7 billion ($31,500 per household or 19% of GDP) to $200.8 billion ($109,700 per household or 53.6% of GDP) by 2024. Deficits are expected to average $28 billion ($15,300 per household) per year across 2020 to 2022.

It’s easy to get lost in the numbers – but these are truly eye-watering figures. More than one in every four dollars spent by the taxpayers will be borrowed over the next three years.

Luckily for the Government (and taxpayers) borrowing costs are expected to remain low – in no small part due to the Reserve Bank’s quantitative easing (freshly-printed cash used to purchase Government debt) programme, which yesterday was doubled from $30 billion to $60 billion. If the Reserve Bank hadn’t embarked on this programme, financial markets might have struggled to digest forecast debt in coming years.

To put that in context, $60 billion amounts to more than half what the Government plans to spend in the next year. To say the least, the Reserve Bank is doing a lot of heavy lifting to enable the Government's spending programme.

The big risk? If there is any inflationary pressure in the coming years, the Reserve Bank will have to pull back on printing money and push up interest rates. In that world, Government debt would become a problem very quickly. 

Unemployment climbs

Treasury predicts unemployment to climb to 8.3% in 2020 and – with the aid of the Government’s $50 billion recovery fund – fall to 4.2% by 2022. However, if the fund fails in its goal to stimulate the economy (perhaps because the spending is poorly targeted, politically manipulated, or poorly managed) then unemployment will remain higher for longer. The main forecast (excluding the recovery fund) assumes unemployment will remain at 5.7% in 2022.  

The $50 billion fund

The Budget centre-piece is a $50 billion ($27,332 per household) ‘Covid-19 Recovery Fund’ to be spent over five years.

Today the Government has announced $15.9 billion ($8688 per household) of new initiatives to be packaged under the ‘Recovery Fund’ including:

• an extension of the wage subsidy scheme for businesses who have suffered at least a 50% fall in revenue ($3.2 billion or $1750 per household); and,

• a jobs package split across a variety of sectors including $1.6 billion ($874 per household) for trades and apprenticeships and $1 billion ($546 per household) for ‘environmental’ jobs.

$10.7 billion ($5,847 per household) of this fund has already been allocated through to April. 

The Rest?

The sector allocations Budget (at least in fiscal terms) pale in comparison to the sheer size of the recovery fund, but still deserve mentions:

• $1.2 billion ($655 per household) more has been wasted on KiwiRail – despite a decade of Treasury advice that rail is not worth the cost.

• $1.77 billion ($967 per household) has been allocated for defence – of which about half is for new aircraft.

• A $3 billion ($1640 per household) infrastructure investment fund.

• A $55.6 million increase in foreign aid.

• $280 million ($153 per household) for NZ Post (old-fashioned snail mail, not couriers).

Joe Ascroft is the Consulting Economist for the Taxpayers' Union

As I write this, Grant Robertson is unveiling Budget 2020 in Parliament.

Two members of our team have just emerged from the pre-Budget briefing. Below, our Consulting Economist Joe Ascroft summarises the contents of the Budget and what it will mean for you, the taxpayer.

We've also had Neil Miller – a former Treasury Analyst and Director of Research for the Leader of the Opposition – in the room. He's written for David's Kiwiblog and well as a separate piece on the political ramifications of today's announcements (see below).

Overall impression: The Blank Cheque Budget – big set up for election announcements to come

The economic landscape in New Zealand has fundamentally changed in recent months and if anyone had forgotten that fact, Budget 2020 is a wake-up call. Debt is expected to skyrocket, economic growth is projected to collapse, and unemployment is forecast to climb higher than during the GFC.

The total size of the Government’s fiscal response is simply enormous. The Budget centre-piece is a $50 billion ($27,332 per household) ‘Covid-19 Recovery Fund’ to be spent over five years, which includes a (more focused) extension of the wage subsidy schemes among other policies.

The Budget was clearly rushed and it showed. Much of the announcements are simply big numbers with no actual allocation. Think Shane Jones's Provincial Growth Fund on steroids. All of the "Wellbeing" focus from last year has been unceremoniously canned. Unlike in recent years, none of the Associate Finance Ministers were anywhere to be seen and the Secretary of the Treasury did not speak to the room or make herself available to take questions.

About half of the recovery fund has still been left available to be spent across the forecast period as required. More spending announcements should be expected in the coming months to be funded from this allocated balance.

And yet despite the severe recession we now find ourselves in, the Government has still wasted plenty of taxpayers’ money. KiwiRail, our foreign aid budget, and NZ Post all receive big cheques.

This Budget (and the election campaign to come) is going to need a lot of scrutiny if we are to avoid a 1970s-style 'big government' economic paralysis. We'll be burning the midnight oil over the next few days as we wade through the detail and pick out what the politicians don't want you to know...

Read our economic and political analyses of Budget 2020:

Budget 2020: The Economic View - Joe Ascroft

Budget 2020: The Politics - Neil Miller

On this episode of Taxpayer Talk, Jordan Williams interviews Tim Hazeldine and Eric Crampton. They discuss Auckland's CBD Rail Loop, incentives for infrastructure spending and Thursday's Budget.

Prof Hazledine’s opinion pieces referred to are here:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/2020/05/11/1162413/tank-the-tunnel
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12327344

The NZ Initiative paper referred to is here:
https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/media/media-release-new-zealand-cant-afford-any-boondoggles-in-the-post-covid-19-recovery-new-report-says/

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

This will be a big week for taxpayers.

Thursday is Budget Day, when Grant Robertson will decide how to spend around $100 billion of your money.

As usual, we're sending staff to the Budget Day lock-up briefing. This event gives economists, sector groups, and unions a chance to read through the spending documents before the public release, so they can release independent analysis at 2pm to balance out the Finance Minister's spin.

But this year we were almost locked out. Speaker Trevor Mallard tried to use COVID-19 as an excuse to restrict access to the briefing and only invite selected journalists. It was only after we kicked up a fuss that he extended the invitation to 25 independent analysts, including our consulting economist Joe Ascroft.

This means we'll be bringing you (and the media) a taxpayer perspective on Budget 2020 shortly after 2pm on Thursday.

What should taxpayers look for in Budget 2020?

Ideally, the Government would provide economic relief to struggling households with tax cuts.

Slashing fuel taxes, for example, would encourage regional tourism and reduce costs for less well-off households. Another option would be a short term reduction to GST – similar to what Britain did to VAT just after the GFC. Cutting taxes means householders pick the winners (in what they spend the extra money on), not politicians...

However, the Finance Minister hasn't signaled any interest in tax cuts – and it's hard to see him dialling back taxes his Government increased.

So, assuming tax cuts are off the table, here's how we'll be judging the Budget Day announcements:

Principle one: Don’t bed in new spending.

New spending may be justified in the short and medium term but should come with sunset provisions to ensure the liability on taxpayers does not extend past the recovery period, after which we will need to pay down debt. Locking in long-term deficits will mean much more pain later. 

Example: The $25 lift in benefit payments should be reversed once GDP returns to that of Q4 2019.

Principle two: Quality of spending still matters.

Spending should not be justified on the basis of 'stimulus' or 'relief' alone. We must demonstrate that new spending is effective and fair.

Example: Wasting money on make-work infrastructure schemes with negative cost-benefit ratios will make New Zealand poorer. 

Principle three: Help businesses help themselves.

Many businesses will thrive if the Government simply gets out of the way. The Government should examine areas where regulation and spending projects can be rolled back on a trial basis.

Examples: Encourage development by suspending provisions of the Resource Management Act. Encourage foreign investment by reviewing Overseas Investment Office rules. Reduce uncertainty and protect productivity by deferring low-priority legislative programmes, such as 'Fair Pay' agreements and annual minimum wage hikes.

To receive our Taxpayer Updates delivered to your inbox, add your details here.

Should Parliament step in to enforce a nationwide rates freeze, what's happening in Botany and should our relationship with China change? Islay Aitchison interviews Jami-Lee Ross.

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

We're giving taxpayers the opportunity to get to know their MPs beyond photo-ops and party-line speeches. In this episode, Islay Aitchison interviews Paul Goldsmith MP.

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

State Services Commissioner throws his weight behind our pay cut campaign! 🎉

We've had another major win in our campaign for the public sector to share the financial burden of COVID-19.

Last month, we wrote to the State Services Commissioner and all major state sector agencies (including councils), asking if they would commit to a pay freeze and CEO pay cuts.

Remember, despite the fanfare (including from the Taxpayers' Union!) over the Prime Minister's original pay cut announcement, the small print revealed it only applied to a select group of "core public service" CEOs.

That meant that while Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield would be taking a 20% pay cut under the PM's policy, the six DHB CEOs paid more than Dr Bloomfield were protected!

On Wednesday night we cracked open the (virtual) bubbly when the State Services Commissioner responded to our letter, saying he's now decided to recommend a pay freeze and CEO pay cuts for the whole state service. That includes DHBs, universities, crown agents (like ACC and Callaghan Innovation), and independent commissioners.

In the Commissioner's words:

I encourage chief executives to consider taking a similar reduction to their colleagues in the Public Service. As you know, the public sector is made up of a wide variety of organisation types. But the public view us all as the government. New Zealanders will be looking to us all to demonstrate leadership at this time.

Crucially, he is also recommending "no pay increases for senior leaders and higher-paid staff and no or minimal increases below that level."

This pay freeze will save far more money than the Prime Minister's original promise. And it couldn't have been done without the support of people like you who signed our petition and donated to the campaign efforts.

Top bureaucrats scrambling to respond 🏃🏽

Now our campaign has reached the "snowball" stage, as different agencies scramble into action.

Public expectations are so strong now that even agencies exempt from the Commissioner's advice are telling us they'll cut pay!

So we are pleased to reveal that includes New Zealand's highest-paid public sector CEO: Matt Whineray from the Guardians of NZ Super.

Last year Mr Whineray topped our Public Sector CEO Rich List with a salary of $1,065,000. His office has confirmed to us that he will take a six-month 20 percent pay cut.

Meanwhile, MetService has also informed us its CEO will take a pay cut, with pay hikes cancelled for all other staff. This one is significant because MetService is a state-owned enterprise. Now we can put pressure on other SOEs like New Zealand Post, KiwiRail, and Landcorp to follow suit.

Finally, while the State Services Commissioner does not have authority over local councils, the signal for town clerks could not be clearer. If they fail to cut their cloth, they will mark themselves as the most greedy class of bureaucrats. We're currently sorting through where each of the 78 councils stand: we'll be naming and shaming those who fail to share the economic burden of COVID-19.

Council fat cats set to be exposed 😳

Tomorrow our sister group the Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance is publishing an 'Auckland Town Hall Rich List' that exposes the 86 Auckland Council staff paid salaries above $250,000 (yes you read those numbers correctly).

Here's a sneak peek of the double-page ad they're publishing in Auckland newspapers:

If you live in Auckland (or pay rates there) I highly recommend signing up to the updates from Jo Holmes and her Ratepayers' Alliance team. To do that, click here and you'll be sent the full Rich List as soon as it comes out.

Our team in Wellington has already started work on a nationwide Town Hall Rich List for other local councils, so watch this space.

A terrible policy: interest-free business loans 🤯

The Government’s newly-announced business loan scheme leaves taxpayers exposed to enormous financial risk. 

With banks carefully looking to manage risk and putting limits on lending, Grant Robertson has spat the dummy and decided to effectively open a bank of his own by offering interest-free business loans out of Inland Revenue. 

The details are unbelievably lenient:

• Businesses will not have to justify their plans or the health of their balance sheet before they borrow up to $100,000 interest-free from taxpayers.  

• There is no need to use existing lines of credit – meaning businesses that don't need the help, can still get it. 

• The loans are interest-free, then revert to just 3% in a year’s time. Borrowers don’t even have to begin repayments for two years.

To qualify, all you need is 50 or fewer employees, have (or expect) a 30% decline in revenue in any month since January (the same as the wage subsidy), and make a declaration that you think the business will be viable after the coronavirus passes (a bonus for optimists!). IRD will simply assess whether your business is viable based on 2019 income.

You would almost have to question the business acumen of any business which did not take full advantage of the scheme regardless of need. The scheme gives two years to turn a profit on free money from the taxpayer.

The unintended consequences and risks for taxpayers are chilling. If you’re a company director with existing debt or finance, say on a company vehicle, you’re probably obliged to now move that debt onto the taxpayer. Why should taxpayers be forced to take on the commercial risks of almost every small business across the country? 

If most eligible businesses take up the loan, our back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests the scheme moves about $6 billion of risk onto the Government's books. $6 billion (or six thousand million) is about $3,200 per Kiwi household.

Labour should have learned their lesson with interest-free student loans. Uptake was far higher than they had anticipated because Labour had only calculated the numbers of students "in need". In real life, most students looked at a deal they would never get from a bank or even their parents and said "I would be an idiot not to take this money even if I just put it in the bank". That is precisely what will happen here.

Because this is a policy targeted at small businesses, we're unlikely to see the National Party heavily criticise it. We exist to speak from a taxpayer perspective when politicians won't.

And it was an accident of Parliament?! 🤦

And from the 'you couldn't make this up' file, we now learn that the enabling legislation (passed under urgency on Thursday night) was mistakenly passed after an error meant that the wrong piece of legislation was introduced to Parliament. 

Apparently the loan scheme legislation was just a draft. It hadn't been properly analysed by officials, and (so we are told) even been properly approved by Cabinet.

Think about that for a moment. A piece was legislation passed within a few hours, which accidentally brought into law a multi-billion dollar loan scheme equivalent to about one fifth the total annual spend of the Government.

Simon Bridges has been criticised for travelling to Wellington to do his job. We think the more valid criticism would be how on Earth the opposition didn't notice this monumental error!

ACT's David Seymour at least picked up on the mistake in his speech before the final passage of the Bill. But he didn't realise its significance. And even while criticising the Government's competence for tabling the wrong Bill Mr Seymour implicitly supported the measures, calling the loan package "positive".

Is no one in Parliament there for the taxpayer?

Louis's tweet summed it up:

Where’s the $9.5 million Heather Simpson report? 🤷‍♂️

The 2019 Global Health Security Index (GHSI) concluded that New Zealand scored just 54 out of 100 points for pandemic readiness, which ranked us 30th among the 60 high-income countries reviewed. There is another, local report which might also cast doubt on our preparedness, but it is long overdue, and questions are beginning to be asked.

On your behalf, we've had a researcher laboriously watching all of the meetings of Simon Bridge's Epidemic Response Select Committee. On the 22nd of April, expert witness Sir Professor David Skegg raised the issue of what had happened to the broad review of the health sector which was being led by Heather Simpson, formerly Helen Clark’s long-serving Chief of Staff. The review was conducted before the COVID-19 outbreak. Its cost? A cool $9.5 million.

Professor Skegg noted that the final report was due in March, but it is still nowhere to be seen. Diplomatically, Professor Skegg said he was particularly interested in what the report might have said about the state of our pandemic preparedness before the outbreak. Others have not been so charitable with growing concerns that the Simpson report was going to be critical of our readiness at the time, but is now being sanitised to avoid embarrassing the Government.

We sure would like to see the Tracked Changes on that report when it is released… which will probably be at 5pm on a Friday.

Where’s David? - the fun nationwide search for David Clark launched❓❓❓

Finally this week, a lighter note:

Observers of politics were shocked when the Hon Dr David Clark was reportedly spotted in Wellington. Dr Clark, who during the COVID-19 crisis has provided Acting Minister of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield with long distance intangible moral support from his opulent Dunedin bubble, apparently broke his self-imposed strict self-isolation policy to visit the nation’s capital.

For weeks now, Dr Clark has assiduously isolated himself completely from health policy, media, politics, constituents, the Epidemic Response select committee, mountain biking, being a Minister, daily press briefing sessions, and nighttime spear fishing from a homemade microlight aircraft (although the last one was a work in progress).

Here at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union we felt that such a momentous occurrence had to be celebrated. In normal times we would have sent Porky the Waste-hater to publicly accost Dr Clark and deliver a petition that he returns his Ministerial salary for the last month. Alas, Porky, like the rest of us, is in lockdown and does not think he could catch Dr Clark on the bike track in any case.

So, the Taxpayers’ Union most senior analyst spun our patented Decision Wheel. It basically is a cheap cardboard wheel covered in obvious suggestions. Using the Decision Wheel takes 30 seconds, costs nothing, and is still more sensible that many Government spending decisions. The Wheel suggested “run a competition”. Our first thought of asking taxpayers’ “if the Minister of Health can effectively disappear during the biggest health crisis of our lifetime, what are we paying the Minister of Health for?” This was disqualified as a trick question because the answer was far too easy.

We then struck on the idea of “Where’s David?” – a game loosely based on “Where’s Wally”, a game which everyone knows but no one over the age of 8 ever plays unless forced to by someone under the age of 8. It is also discriminatory against colour-blind people, according to our junior colour-blind researcher. The consensus is that he must have lost repeatedly to a six-year-old to be so bitter.

So, the rules are simple. We are asking people all over New Zealand to be on the lookout for Hon Dr David Clark (from the safety of their bubbles of course). Send us a verifiable photo of a sighting and be in to win the Grand Prize of a Mountain Bike… ride after lockdown is lifted. To make things easier for contestants, the organisers have published a list of places that Dr Clark will definitely not be sighted:

• A COVID-19 press briefing
• A hospital
• The café at Police National Headquarters
• Road trip with Hone
  
• His Ministerial office
• Muddy tracks suitable only for bicycles with off-road capacity
• In a car adorned with his name, photograph, and cellphone number.

UPDATE: #WheresDavid (house-moving edition)

Have a great weekend,

To receive our Taxpayer Updates delivered to your inbox, add your details here.

Taxpayer Talk is back. This week Jordan and Joe interview Act MP David Seymour on the worrying signs of the politicisation of the Reserve Bank, and Grant Robertson's suggestion of monetising the Government's debt. 

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

We're giving taxpayers the opportunity to get to know their MPs beyond photo-ops and party-line speeches. In this episode, Islay Aitchison interviews Ginny Andersen MP.

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

We're giving taxpayers the opportunity to get to know their MPs beyond photo-ops and party-line speeches. In this episode, Islay Aitchison interviews Chris Bishop MP.

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

Observers of politics were shocked this week when the Hon Dr David Clark was reportedly spotted in Wellington. Dr Clark, who during the COVID-19 crisis has provided Acting Minister of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield with long distance intangible moral support from his opulent Dunedin bubble, apparently broke his self-imposed strict self-isolation policy to visit the nation’s capital.

For weeks now, Dr Clark has assiduously isolated himself completely from health policy, media, politics, constituents, the Epidemic Response select committee, mountain biking, being a Minister, daily press briefing sessions, and nighttime spear fishing from a homemade microlight aircraft (although the last one was a work in progress).

Here at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union we felt that such a momentous occurrence had to be celebrated. In normal times we would have sent Porky the Waste Hater to publicly accost Dr Clark and deliver a petition that he returns his Ministerial salary for the last month. Alas, Porky, like the rest of us, is in lockdown and does not think he could catch Dr Clark on the bike track in any case.

So, the Taxpayers’ Union most senior analyst spun our patented Decision Wheel. It basically is a cheap cardboard wheel covered in obvious suggestions. Using the Decision Wheel takes 30 seconds, costs nothing, and is still more sensible that many Government spending decisions. The Wheel suggested “run a competition”. Our first thought of asking taxpayers’ “if the Minister of Health can effectively disappear during the biggest health crisis of our lifetime, what are we paying the Minister of Health for?” This was disqualified as a trick question because the answer was far too easy.

We then struck on the idea of “Where’s David?” – a game loosely based on “Where’s Wally”, a game which everyone knows but no one over the age of 8 ever plays unless forced to by someone under the age of 8. It is also discriminatory against colour-blind people, according to our junior colour-blind researcher. The consensus is that he must have lost repeatedly to a six-year old to be so bitter.

So, the rules are simple. We are asking people all over New Zealand to be on the lookout for Hon Dr David Clark (from the safety of their bubbles of course). Send us a verifiable photo of a sighting and be in to win the Grand Prize of a Mountain Bike… ride after lockdown is lifted. To make things easier for contestants, the organisers have published a list of places that Dr Clark will definitely not be sighted:

- A COVID-19 press briefing

- A hospital

- The café at Police National Headquarters

- Road trip with Hone

- His Ministerial office

- Muddy tracks suitable only for bicycles with off-road capacity

- In a car adorned with his name, photograph, and cellphone number.  

After inquiries with Treasury, the Taxpayers' Union has confirmed that New Zealanders can voluntarily donate to a Crown receipts account to assist with COVID-19 relief, reduce the burden of debt for taxpayers, and avoid the need for new taxes.

The bank number is 03-0049-0000327-25, and a copy of the deposit clip can be viewed here. Treasury requests that donors include the name of the payee and purpose of payment e.g. “Covid Donation” in the reference fields. Donations unrelated to COVID-19 or any specific purpose can also be made but “donation” should be included in the reference field.

COVID-19 is set to saddle future taxpayers with a massive bill for the current health response and economic relief programme. We're pleased to learn there is a mechanism for New Zealanders to pitch in extra on behalf of those less able to pay.

Some commentators have used COVID-19 as an excuse to call for punishing new taxes. Those people can now put their money where their mouth is and voluntarily give to the Government.

The Prime Minister should publicise this option at her next press conference. We are confident that a number of patriotic New Zealanders will step up and contribute.

New Zealanders who can't stomach giving any extra money to the Government may alternatively consider a donation to their local Taxpayers' Union.

The full email chain between the Union and Treasury can be viewed here.

What is quantitative easing, and why are markets in New Zealand and abroad seen a recent bounce after dramatic falls due to COVID-19? For an in depth look at how markets are responding - including their implications on housing and inflation here in New Zealand, Jordan and Joe are joined by Bevan Wallace, Executive Director of Morgan Wallace. Bevan’s recent explainer on QE and inflation is available here.

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

Support the show (http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/donate)

The Prime Minister’s announcement of a 20 percent pay cut for MPs and public sector CEOs is a significant victory for taxpayers.

Today’s announcement is a very welcome signal from the Prime Minister. Families across the country have their livelihoods threatened by the economic shutdown, so it’s only fair that politicians and public sector leaders share the financial burden.

The pay cuts need to extend deeper into the public service - many of the individuals reporting to public sector CEOs will be earning more than $250,000 themselves. But the sacrifices announced today are a great start, and the Prime Minister should be congratulated for her leadership.

We’d like to thank everyone who signed our petition for public sector pay cuts, as well as those who have shared our Public Sector CEO Rich List, which highlighted just how inflated the salaries of public sector bosses are.

Of course all eyes are now on local government. We’re calling on Mayors, Councillors, Town Clerks, and all of those on more than $250,000 and working for a council, to stand with our Prime Minister and make the same sacrifice, as we all unite for COVID-19.

Today we have launched a new campaign to temporarily reduce the remuneration of politicians, senior bureaucrats, and council bosses to match those voluntary and involuntary efforts in the private sector where pay is being slashed.

We’re asking the public sector to fairly share the burden of the economic crunch by cancelling all pay hikes until the economy has recovered. We’re also asking elected officials, public sector CEOs*, and their leadership teams** to take a 12-month twenty percent pay cut.

A temporary salary reduction for those paid the most in the public sector would be a prudent and compassionate response to the pressures faced by households and businesses across New Zealand. Business leaders predict unemployment to rise to around ten percent in the coming months, and private sector bosses are taking financial haircuts to limit the impact on lower earners.

The average public sector salary is around a third higher than that of the private sector. They also have the luxury of far higher job security. A twenty percent pay cut is a small sacrifice in these extraordinary times when so many New Zealanders are losing their jobs.

A petition for taxpayers to support the campaign can be signed at www.paycut.nz

>> Click here to add your name in support <<

The Taxpayers' Union is also drafting a Parliamentary amendment bill:

1. instructing the Remuneration Authority not to increase any remuneration until real GDP is at or above the Q4-2019 level; and
2. confirming in the law that those whose remuneration is determined by the Remuneration Authority can voluntarily forgo all or some of their pay.

* includes CEOs of SOEs and Crown Companies.
** defined as second-level managers who report to CEOs.

Spending of taxpayer money has gone through the roof as the Government helps businesses through the COVID-19 crisis. How concerned should New Zealanders be? And how does our response compare to other countries? Louis interviews local Economist Joe Ascroft and Daniel Bunn of the Tax Foundation (based in Washington DC) – who is leading their project Tracking Economic Relief Plans Around the World during the Coronavirus Outbreak.

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

As confirmed by the Government today, the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is one of the many employers that have accepted the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy. This decision was made on the basis of our ethical obligations to staff during the government-mandated economic shutdown.

The decision to accept this subsidy was not as simple for us as for most organisations. Prior to COVID-19, we have stated on the record that we would never accept taxpayer funding. That commitment was, of course, made in a time few New Zealanders could possibly have anticipated COVID-19 and the ensuing economic situation.

After brief deliberation, the Taxpayers' Union board determined the welfare of our employees to be a more pressing immediate concern than ideological purity.

Moreover, we support the Government's strategy helping employers through the current crisis and we have not criticised any employer for taking this subsidy. It is important to distinguish between targeted corporate welfare, which we oppose, and across-the-board compensation for the effects of a government-mandated economic shutdown.

We stand with all employers affected by the lockdown and urge the Government to urgently advance an 'exit plan' that will create the conditions for all businesses to return to self-sufficiency.

UPDATE: With the immediate economic impact over, and donation income recovered back to pre-pandemic levels, in late 2020 the Taxpayers' Union took the decision to pay back the wage subsidy. You can read more about that decision here.

Despite the national health and financial emergency, most councils are still planning to hike rates - some up to nine or ten percent. Louis interviews Hutt City Councillor Chris Milne & Christchurch City Councillor Sam MacDonald on their response to our campaign calling for a nationwide rates freeze and ways councils can save money.

You can support our campaign calling for a naitonwide rates freeze at www.ratesfreeze.nz. The dashboard referred to in the podcast is available at www.taxpayers.org.nz/rates_dashboard

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

rateCouncils across the country are scheduled to increase rates by as much as 10% in the coming months, despite the hardships faced by households in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdown.

> Click here to sign the petition calling for a nationwide rates freeze <

Find out where your local (and regional) council stands on rates freezes in the table below.

Green means a council has signaled a rates freeze.
Orange means a council has signaled a reduction in planned rate hikes.
Red means a council has not signaled any reduction in planned rate hikes.

This dashboard is subject to ongoing updates. Please contact [email protected] if you have more up to date information.

> Click here to sign the petition calling for a nationwide rates freeze <

In this episode, Jordan talks to Dr David Law (Research Fellow) and Dr Eric Crampton (Chief Economist) at the New Zealand Initiative thinktank. Dr Law has just published a paper, Policy Point: Short-time work to maintain employment and Dr Crampton a Research Note: Effective Treatment: Public policy prescription for a pandemic. Both join us to discuss their papers, as well as why current calls from leftwing groups for a UBI are misguided.

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

In response to the speed in which the economic and political environment is changing due to COVID-19, we have brought forward the launch of our podcast.  The first interview was last Thursday and Friday with Damian Grant and Michael Ridell who take opposing views on the extent to which the Government should intervene to keep people in their jobs during the crisis.

You can subscribe to Taxpayer Talk via Spotify here (press "follow" after clicking the link). Apple Podcast approval is still in process.

We welcome your feedback / constructive criticism as we master the art of casting the pod from self-isolation!

The Taxpayers’ Union has launched a campaign aiming to force New Zealand’s mayors and regional council chairs to commit to a 12-month rates freeze in light of current economic challenges.

While the Government prioritises economic relief for struggling families and employers, most local councils are still planning significant rate hikes in the coming months. Some have plans to hike rates up to nine or ten percent from 1 July.

In the letter to mayors and chairs, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “The Government is currently prioritising economic relief for businesses and households facing economic calamity. But rate hikes at this time of economic turmoil will serve to exacerbate immediate financial stresses and undermine the Government’s relief strategy. Any economist will tell you that a recession is the most damaging time to hike taxes.”

The letter advises councils to cater for the reduction in expected revenue with cuts to lowest-value spending, rather than borrowing. “Households and businesses are cutting costs and it is only fair that your council does the same — we must all cut our cloth to fit the new economic reality.”

A public petition has also been launched at www.RatesFreeze.nz.

The Ministry of Health has not been asking staff returning from overseas where they traveled, the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union has learned.

An information response from the Director-General's office confirms that "The Ministry has not actively recorded or captured personal travel of staff and Ministry staff have not been required to inform the Ministry of their plans when they take annual leave."

As a result, the Ministry was unable to inform the Taxpayers' Union whether any of its staff had traveled to or via China in the period leading up to 4 March.

We requested this information after receiving a tip-off that a staff member at the Ministry had recently returned from China and attended a social event with colleagues.

Requiring staff to report on their international movements costs nothing. It's a basic precaution that countless businesses up and down New Zealand are taking.

We fund the Ministry of Health to provide leadership for the entire health system. If this is the example being set by our top health bureaucrats, how do they expect other employers to be prudent?

The team have spent yesterday afternoon working through the Government’s COVID-19 response package. A couple of the staff are in self-isolation, so we’ve well and truly rehearsed using the virtual technology in preparing this note and our media commentary.

In summary, the package is not as comprehensive as many economists were expecting. On the eight measures we have been lobbying for, the Government has picked up some of the ideas but left many out. Grant Robertson has signalled more is to come on Budget Day (14 May) or even before then.

Overall, yesterday's package is not as focused on protecting jobs as we were expecting. For example, the wage subsidies to employers are effectively limited to organisations with 20 or fewer staff.

The Government also appears to have used COVID-19 to make some permanent policy changes. For example, while temporary boosts to income for beneficiaries and those most vulnerable are justified, the Government has increased benefits by $25 per week on a permanent basis (that is in addition to the normal annual adjustment for wage inflation). 

The Winter Energy Payment (paid to all on any non-student benefit or NZ Super) is also being doubled to $40.91/week for singles and $63.64/week for couples. But in this case, just for this year.

Summary of Government's response package:

• $500 million boost for health (the cost is equal to $278/household)

• $5.1 billion in wage subsidies for affected businesses in all sectors and regions, available from today ($2,833/household)

• $126 million in COVID-19 leave and self-isolation support ($70/household)

• $2.8 billion income support package for our most vulnerable, including a permanent $25 per week benefit increase and a doubling of the Winter Energy Payment for 2020 ($1,556/household in the first year)

• $100 million redeployment package ($56/household)

• $2.8 billion in business tax changes to free up cashflow including a provisional tax threshold lift, the reinstatement of building depreciation, and writing off interest on the late payment of tax ($1,556/household)

• $600 million initial aviation support package ($333/household).

Our take:

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is welcoming the temporary measures to ease pressure on employers contained in yesterday's economic relief package.

Yesterday's relief package is a vindication of the long-term fiscal prudence by a generation of finance ministers. Measures like temporary wage subsidies are extremely costly, but can be afforded thanks to successive governments' commitment to low public debt.

We're pleased to see the waiving of interest for late tax payments, and the increase to Winter Energy Payments which will help keep vulnerable older New Zealanders at home. We recommended these changes in our briefing paper released Monday. The lift in the threshold for provisional tax will also be a welcome relief to small businesses.

We’re open to increasing benefits for the duration of the pandemic, but COVID-19 is not an excuse for locking it in. For context, the cost of the benefit hike is around $2.3 billion — almost five times as much as the boost to the health system. Every extra dollar spent here means one fewer for the productive sector and frontline health services.

There are also policy measures such as the changes to depreciation treatments which, although we support them, seem totally unrelated to the immediate threats to business cashflow and New Zealand jobs. It suggests this was very much policy designed to be seen to be doing something, rather than policy targeted at the specific challenges we face now.

Elephant in the room: 1 April minimum wage hike

The big hole in this package is supporting businesses faced with higher costs due to the minimum wage going up on 1 April. The people who get slammed most will be the working poor, earning the minimum wage or close to it, who work for a large employer that doesn't qualify for the wage subsidy package or will only receive limited assistance. 

The obvious measure is to pause the minimum wage hike until economic conditions allow.

More information:

For convenience, we have copied links to the Government’s announcements and factsheets below.

Government's media releases:

• • Economic package to fight COVID-19

  • Hon Dr David Clark: Backing our Health systems to battle COVID-19

  • Hon Grant Robertson: $12.1 billion support for New Zealanders and business

Minister's speech to Parliament

• Hon Grant Robertson: Statement to Parliament on the Economic Response to COVID-19

Policy factsheets:

• • Health Package Factsheet

  • Business Cash Flow and Tax Measures Factsheet

  • COVID Leave Support Factsheet

  • Income Support Factsheet

  • Wage Subsidy Scheme Factsheet

Responding to the developing threat of COVID-19 to the New Zealand economy, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has released a paper outlining its recommendations in advance of the Government’s package being announced tomorrow.
 
As fiscal conservatives, it does not come naturally to call for a dramatic expansion of the size of state spending. However, a core role of government, and why we pay taxes, is to protect the citizenry at times of national systematic shock such as war and pandemic.

COVID-19 is the biggest economic event of my lifetime. It is essential that the Government takes all steps to protect lives and livelihoods now, but also our ability to recover quickly once the health crisis is over. It is with that in mind that our economic team has drafted these recommendations for emergency measures.
 
We accordingly urge the Government to adopt the measures outlined below, which are explained in our paper:

• Provide all New Zealand employees with one month of sick leave in addition to existing rights for the rest of 2020, paid for by the taxpayer;
• Use buyouts rather than bailouts. Taxpayer funds paid must be in return for the Crown taking a significant/majority or total shareholding;
• Scrap the 2020 increase to the minimum wage — but if the Government insists on going ahead, have it meet the costs to employers for the next 18 months;
• Fund unlimited childcare for health workers, aged care workers, and Police staff for the next 18 months;
• Partner with Progressives, Foodstuffs and Uber to make grocery delivery free;
• Give lump-sum payments to taxpayers by retrospectively cutting the bottom tax rate from 10.5% to 5% for the 2019/2020 tax year;
• Expand 'Winter Energy Payments' to begin immediately and continue through winter 2020; and
• Suspend interest and penalties for late tax payments from employers.

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union can reveal that Creative New Zealand and Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa are providing nearly $900,000 in taxpayer money for artists and curators to attend the Venice Art Biennale in 2021.

Showing off to Italian art collectors might be glamorous and good fun, but taxpayers shouldn't be forced to cover the cost of the lucky few who get to do it.

Opening night alone comes with a $100,000 fee. Outrageously, that’s the least of taxpayers’ worries, because another $770,000 is set to be frittered away on flights, freight and hotel rooms.

Not a single expense was spared for the truly needy in our society: artists and gallery curators.
 
With tough economic times coming, this ‘nice to have’ spending needs to be stopped.

The Taxpayers' Union can reveal that The Quit Group – the charity originally commissioned to run Quitline – continue to hold $2.8 million in taxpayer funds, despite having lost their government contract in 2015.

The Quit Group promised to hand the funds over to anti-smoking initiatives. They have failed to keep their promise, and the Ministry of Health has failed to hold them to account.

In fact, since 2015 the Quit Group have been using the funds to collect investment income and pay board membership fees to themselves – $72,000 per year, or $18,000 per board member.

To make things worse, the Chair of the Quit Group is Chris Cunningham, who has recently been investigated by Charities Services for running up $128,000 in travel expenses as Chair of the Hepatitis Foundation.

The detail:

In 2016 RNZ reported: The Ministry of Health called in lawyers for advice and has since reached an agreement with the Trust on using the money to support the government's goal to make New Zealand smoke-free by 2025. Ministry spokesperson Grant Pollard said that any Ministry funding remaining with the Quit Group Trust must be used for the purpose of supporting the 2025 Smokefree goal. He said the specifics of how the funds would be used have yet to be decided and is still being worked through. "The Ministry still has the option of auditing the Trust if an agreement can't be reached on how the funds will be utilised."

In 2017, the Ministry conducted this audit, but was hampered as the group claimed to have archived its records with no IT platform for retrieval. However, based on 'assumptions and estimates', the Ministry concluded that The Quit Group had received a funding surplus of $435,700 between 2007 to 2016.

Moreover, according to The Quit Group’s latest financial statements, it still has assets totalling $2,726,737, down from $3,164,394 in 2016. The Group has no staff, but continues to gain investment income from these assets and has paid out $702,296 in expenses since 2016. These expenses include $72,000 per year in fees for the four board members. The Group's four board members are Chris Cunningham, Janet Pearson, Mary McCulloch, and Annette Milligan.

An information response released to the Taxpayers' Union makes for disturbing reading. The Ministry concedes that it failed to stipulate any timeframe in which the group would have to use its funds. The Ministry does not plan to refer the group to the Charities Commission, and will instead "encourage the Trust to commit to spending the reserves. . .in a timely and appropriate matter."

This beggars belief. The Ministry has already let this group off the hook for four years. All this time, The Quit Group's board members have hoarded three million dollars, eating away at it by paying themselves board fees for doing stuff all. It's an insult to the ailing New Zealanders who desperately need anti-smoking support and other core health services.

The Minister of Health needs to step in to refer The Quit Group to Charities Services, so that the Government can repossess the funds on behalf of taxpayers.

Finally, the gravy train has to end for Chris Cunningham. He should by now be discredited from holding any of his taxpayer-funded positions. These include:

1. Hepatitis Foundation (board member)
2. The Quit Group (Chair)
3. Maori Knowledge and Development Panel (Chair)
4. Massey University’s Research Centre for Maori Health and Development (Chair)

Just how badly can one man rip off taxpayers?

The $6,254,064 cost of rebranding New Zealand’s fire services is a shocking indictment on the merger of rural and urban services, which was meant to save taxpayer money.

The spending figures were tabled to select committee this month and can be found on page seven of this document. The expense covers signage and uniforms – not the restructure process itself. The rebrand is ongoing, so figures will increase.

“We have consistently opposed government rebrands, which always suck resources away from core services. But the price of this rebrand has left us stunned – we’ve never seen anything like it. This money could have paid a year’s salary for 145 trainee firefighters.

And the culture of waste within FENZ isn’t limited to rebranding. Delving deeper into the Select Committee report reveals further incredible expenses.

1. In the previous two years, FENZ spent $31 million and $32 million on external contractors. (p45)
2. In the previous two years, FENZ spent $1.7 million and $2.1 million on public relations/communications personnel. (p36)
3. FENZ has spent $122,731 sponsoring TV Three’s “The Block”. (p35)

This absurd level of spending reinforces the findings of our latest research report Cash to Ashes, which found that FENZ expenditure is skyrocketing, as it can spend its insurance levies without Budgetary scrutiny. The funding model for FENZ is simply not fit for purpose. We’re calling on Minister Tracey Martin to scrap the fire levy entirely, and set a reined-in budget for FENZ through the standard Budget process.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Tuturumuri School in the Wairarapa is currently open and employing four staff – despite having zero students. The Union tells this story in video form below.

This revelation is the result of a tip-off from a concerned taxpayer. The school is costing taxpayers $1,300 a day, and the school confirms two full time staff (a teacher and an aide) are required to be on site each day. Two part-timers (a caretaker and cleaner) are also still on the payroll.

After the school’s roll dwindled from seven at the beginning of last year down to two, the board voted to close the school. However, the Minister of Education has stepped in at the last minute to insist on yet another round of consultation (despite the school having gone through a similar process in 2018).

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke, who visited the school last week, says: “The situation at Tuturumuri is bizarre. Two staff members are forced to show up each day at a ghost school, twiddling their thumbs while they wait for the Minister to make a decision. This is a case of provincial politics overriding common-sense. Clearly, the school has an important place in the region’s history, but now it’s time to turn off the taxpayer-funded life support.”

After contacting the Minister’s office, the Union received the following response:

“After consideration, I agreed to close it two years ago but was lobbied heavily to reconsider, including by National Party MPs, and I am doing that. There is a statutory process that must be followed when consideration is being given to closing a school. While this process is underway, the school remains legally open and the staff remain employed. I received a report on a potential closure from the Ministry of Education at the end of last week. It does not need to go to Cabinet.”

The Union has requested further information about costs and the Ministry’s consultation process. We await a response.

The 2017 amalgamation of urban and rural fire services has delivered huge cost increases for taxpayers, finds a new report from the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Cash to Ashes: The inefficiency of fire service reforms can be read here.

Key findings:

1. The merger and centralisation of urban and rural fire services was meant to produce $47.7 million in efficiency savings by 2021/22. In practice, there have been no efficiency savings, and Fire and Emergency NZ (FENZ) has cost taxpayers $338 million more in its first three years than was forecast to Cabinet in 2016.
2. $163 million of the $205 million increase in forecast expenditure between 2017/18 and 2018/19 was dedicated to ‘Support Services’ – i.e. back office bureaucracy.
3. FENZ has increased spending by $43 million on ‘communications and computers’ over three years.
4. FENZ is spending $27.4 million on external consultants over three years.
5. FENZ is ‘gold plating’ its infrastructure. New stations in Lake Okareka and Wanaka cost $1.9 million and $4 million respectively, far more than comparable volunteer stations in Australia. FENZ has even opened a double-bay station, complete with training space, laundry, and kitchenette, in Tinui, a town of 20 people.
6. FENZ spent $17 million responding to the Pigeon Valley Forest fire – more than 17 times more than the response to the remarkably similar Hira Forest fire in 1981.
7. FENZ does not have to justify wasteful spending to Cabinet, as it collects revenue through the fire insurance levy, bypassing the Budget bid process.

Cash to Ashes recommends that FENZ be required to go through the scrutiny of the Budget bid process to secure its funding. The report also proposes abolishing the fire insurance levy entirely, and collecting revenue for FENZ from general taxation.

Former National Rural Fire Officer Murray Dudfield, ONZM, consulted on the report. Reflecting on its findings, he says:

“The annual rural fire costs in 2015/16, to local government rate payers, was $29 million. In addition the 2017 PWC report concluded that the 2015/16 expenditure of $389 million was appropriate for the NZ Fire Service functions and output responsibilities. Following the merger of urban and rural fire services on 1^st July 2017, the latest FENZ forecast of expenditure is showing a hefty spend of $617 million in 2020/21. The FENZ Board, in just year four of this merger, are planning an additional $228 million more than the 2015/16 budget. The merger was intended to produce savings and deliver cost effective benefits to all New Zealanders. However these savings and benefits are now disappearing in a puff of smoke unless the Minister gets involved. On behalf of all New Zealanders the Minister of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin, must take urgent steps to ensure FENZ delivers the savings identified by Government in 2016.”

Mr Dudfield also joined Duncan Garner on The AM Show to discuss the report.

In a foreword to the report, Insurance Council Chief Executive Tim Grafton asks, “Why should those who insure be the ones that fund FENZ? Everyone benefits from FENZ services, not just those who take responsibility to insure themselves.”

Kiwi taxpayers in China have no one to turn to with New Zealand Embassy Officials having remained on holiday despite the Wuhan Virus turning New Zealanders’ lives in the province upside down.  The Embassy in Beijing remains closed for Chinese New Year.

This afternoon the Taxpayers’ Union received a tip-off that Kiwis in China cannot get a hold of any of the hundreds of New Zealand officials who work in the country.  “We called the Embassy and couldn’t believe that at 1pm Beijing time, despite the developing situation, the Embassy is closed,” says Jordan Williams, a spokesman for the Taxpayers’ Union.

“While Australia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs works with the Chinese Government to evacuate Australian citizens from Wuhan, New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs officials are quite literally still on holiday. It’s an incredible situation given events over recent days.”

“What is the point of a diplomatic post, if it’s not open when New Zealanders actually need it?”

“In Australia the Foreign Affairs Minister is front and centre in efforts to extricate Australians.  Here, not a word from MFAT or our Minister.”

“If you call our Embassy in Beijing, you are told it is closed for Chinese New Year, and to contact the MFAT’s emergency line based in Wellington.  We called the line asking who on the ground Kiwis stuck in Wuhan could contact.  MFAT advised us that New Zealanders should contact the World Health Organisation, or the New Zealand Ministry of Health.”

“According to MFAT, $50 million of taxpayers’ money was used for ‘elegant and sustainable new building to be the heart of its official presence in China’ on ‘a quiet leafy street in Beijing’. But at the very time New Zealanders most need help, the doors are locked.”

“And it’s not just people stuck in Chinese provinces.  We are hearing of widescale cancellations of orders from China for New Zealand goods and last minute cancelations of tour group bookings following the Chinese Government’s travel restrictions. These are the very officials Kiwi businesses rely on for advice.”

“If the sample of businesses we have spoken to is reflective of the potential economic impact, MBIE and MFAT should be hands on deck, not on holiday.”

“Minister Winston Peters, and the Ambassador Clare Fearnley, need to end their holiday and get back to work.  Chinese New Year or not.”

Sources:

Australian response: https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-australian-government-extricate-nationals-trapped-in-wuhan-health-news/b236a1dc-e019-46a0-a063-348bf236cb25

Cost of Embassy $50 million source https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12179737

Quote from MFAT website: “Our place in Beijing” https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/north-asia/china/new-zealand-embassy/our-place-in-beijing

Embassy contact details: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/north-asia/china/new-zealand-embassy/contactfull

ENDS

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has formally submitted its design proposal for a 3.5-metre artwork in the Beehive entrance, pictured below.


The Union will refuse the $15,000 commission fee should its submission be chosen.

Perfectly placed to greet MPs and Ministers arriving for work, Don’t Waste It serves as a warning to would-be money-wasters in the heart of government.
 
For those New Zealanders not lucky enough to earn a politician’s salary, a five dollar note represents a meal, or the bus fare for a job interview. That small sheet of polypropylene can be the difference between hunger and happiness, poverty and opportunity.
 
Taxpayers understand the value of money, because they work for it. But too often, politicians take money from us only to fritter it away on pet projects, political fads, and minor extravagances. The taxpaying public can never be too firm in its opposition to government waste. It is in this spirit that we submit our proposal.

For most of us, Christmas is about giving. For the Tax Man, it’s all about taking.

Islay wraps up the year with a special episode of Taxpayer TV, revealing the incredible reach of the “Tax on Christmas”.

You can view the video on Facebook here.

Taxpayers can now browse the specific pay rates, ranked, for public sector chief executives.

This year taxpayers will pay $62 million in salaries for the 140 public sector CEOs. The average is paid $443,000, and 53 earn more than the Prime Minister.

Many of these individuals make major decisions about services that impact millions of taxpayers' lives. Publicising their salaries serves to promote accountability and transparency at the highest level.

Other Rich-Listers lead obscure QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) that generate little value for taxpayers. We hope the Public Sector CEO Rich List provokes debate over the necessity of these positions.

Taxpayers can also download the table as a spreadsheet to sort by type – such as Tertiary Education, DHBs, and so on.

The publication of this Rich List comes after the State Services Commission agreed to release this year's Senior Pay Report using specific pay rates rather than salary 'bands', in light of correspondence from the Taxpayers' Union and the Ombudsman.

Figures relate to the 2018/19 and 2017/18 financial years and were provided by the State Services Commission's Senior Pay Report. The Report uses estimates in cases where the final remuneration level is not yet determined.

CEOs that did not hold their position for the full year have had their salary figures annualised by the Union.

The list excludes local government (ratepayer-funded) chief executives.

This op-ed is written by Louis Houlbrooke, Communications Officer at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

The wistful days of Jacinda Ardern’s “no new taxes” pledge are long gone.

Last week, Associate Environment Minister Eugenie Sage proposed lifting landfill levies from the current $10 per tonne to $60 per tonne by 2023.

Like higher fuel taxes and road user charges, Sage’s proposed rubbish tax will eat directly into family budgets, through more expensive rubbish bags, higher rates, fees at the landfill, and costs passed on by businesses.

Her tax is expected to swell government and council revenues by $220 million a year, or more than $120 per household. And that’s on average – the tax will hit harder for larger families who produce more waste and tend to be poorer. By itself, the cost could be tolerable, but it comes on top of other new taxes, higher rates, and generally increasing living costs.

Intensifying poverty is the obvious downside to any tax, but a rubbish tax has further consequences – results that fly right in the face of Sage’s environmental focus.

Despite the bad rap landfills get, their use is often a best-case scenario. Take the five million-plus mattresses on which Kiwis currently sleep: these will not last forever, and they cannot be recycled. It is simply irresponsible to punish New Zealanders for sending these mattress to a landfill when the next-most-likely alternative is dumping it at your local park, river, or roadside.

Even in the case of rubbish that can be recycled, we cannot rely on wishful thinking about flawed, real-world human behaviour. The bane of illegal dumping faced by councils up and down the country suggests that even now, the ‘tidy Kiwi’ stereotype doesn’t hold up the way we like to imagine.

Have you ever called your council to get rubbish on your street cleared? Good luck with that. It’s not hard to guess what will happen when littering is made even more attractive.

Finally, there’s the question of what happens to the revenue that is collected. While half will be sucked directly into the budgets of local councils, the remaining funds go to the Government’s ‘Waste Minimisation Fund’.

This slush fund pays out large quantities of our money to companies embarking on eco-friendly projects. Recipients include large businesses like The Warehouse, Z Energy, and Fletcher, sometimes taking millions at a time for projects like tyre recovery and recycling old TVs.

There is no clear-cut way to judge which of these projects are mere PR stunts, and if they actually need funding or could have simply proceeded without taxpayer help.

So far, the fund is limited to $10 or $12 million a year, and has escaped serious political scrutiny. If Sage gets her way and the size of the fund balloons, it will need close monitoring as businesses up and down the country judge how to get their hands on this dosh.

In other words, we can expect the Government to have powerful allies as it pushes its tax through Parliament. Those families bearing the cost will need to push back hard – and the Taxpayers’ Union will be joining them. Submissions on the proposal are now open to the public.

The Taxpayers’ Union is questioning why the Wellington City Council pays $4,000 a year to the left wing “Living Wage” campaign.

According to an official information response, the price includes $2,500 in annual accreditation fees, plus $1,500 in administration fees.

The only thing the City Council gets for this spending is a pat on the back from unions on the Left. It’s ratepayer money down the drain and back-door funding of a political group.

Wellington City Council isn’t like a private businesses that needs PR stunts to compete for attention – it already has a captive customer base of ratepayers. If the Council wants to inflate its employees’ wages, it can simply do it. There’s no need to pay for a gold sticker.

The overall plan to implement the Living Wage is expected to cost ratepayers $3.4 million over 10 years.

Paying a group of activists to lobby other councils is wrong. New Mayor Andy Foster should cut this spend.

Here is the full official information response from Wellington City Council:

Dear Mr Houlbrooke,

Thank you for your email dated 27 August 2019 in which you requested information relating to the Accreditations held by the Council and the annual costs associated with those Accreditations.

Further to my decision email dated 24 September 2019, I can now provide you with the information we have collated. Please note: only two of the Council Controlled Organisations hold accreditations. These are provided below.

The Council holds the following Accreditations:

Wellington Zoo holds the following Accreditations:

Zealandia holds the following Accreditations:

The two year media reviews of the Labour led coalition agree it is struggling to get enough runs on the board.   Why is this so?

After nine years of opposition it can be expected there would be a running in period.   However that doesn’t adequately explain why they are delivering less than they had hoped.

While it is natural to expect Labour would have a modest understanding of how business works, it was a surprise to me also, that far too few Ministers actually understand how Government works.  So many don’t understand the mechanisms of government which means they failed to make best use of their time in opposition.   Not only that, its apparent they don’t understand the most important law of all – the law of unintended consequences.

In opposition I had several meetings with Phil Twyford and found him to be personable and passionate about his policy areas of transport and housing.   As a Minister however he has come across as arrogant, dismissing Treasury officials early on for their questioning of his Kiwibuild targets.   “Wet behind the ears” he said.   That may or may not have been true, but it is now apparent Treasury wasn’t pessimistic enough.

The Auckland tram (or light rail) project is a true “train wreck” in public policy making.   Good journalism from Stuff and others including the Herald’s Matthew Hooton, reveal a picture of chaotic decision making.   Early on Transport Minister Twyford transferred responsibility for the City-airport link from Auckland Transport to NZTA.   Then an “unsolicited bid” for a quite different proposition emerged from the NZ Super Fund together with a Canadian infrastructure fund (CDPQ Infra), jointly known as NZ Infra, which NZTA was asked to evaluate.

Apparently NZTA decided this proposal lacked merit and continued with its tram project along Dominion Road.  Various business entities invested in the NZTA concept in anticipation of bidding for work.

The situation now is the Ministry of Transport and The Treasury are going to evaluate both concepts and Cabinet will decide their preference early next year.  They will need to also get NZ First on board, because the project is not part of the coalition agreement.

To further complicate matters Hooten claims that the recently appointed NZTA chair Sir Brian Roche, was informally involved with the NZ Infra proposal along with Sir Michael Cullen at its beginning.   He is said to be very enthusiastic about it.

While Brian Roche (a personal friend) is well qualified to navigate his way through this quagmire, the integrity of government procurement processes have taken a serious reputational hit.

Minister Twyford has criticised previous NZTA actions regarding NZ Infra.   However it appears NZTA officials repeatedly asked the Minister to clarify the project’s objectives as to whether the focus was in getting to and from the airport in the fastest possible manner or having a tram/train to the airport, which would allow for housing densification.

Twyford thinks we can have both and has referenced London’s tube service from Heathrow to London.  I have used the regular tube from Heathrow to the city, which was a nightmare after a long flight and takes about 50 minutes.  There is a fast 15 minutes service from Heathrow to Paddington which leaves every 15 minutes from Heathrow and has no stops until it reaches Paddington.

I doubt a service every 15 minutes from Auckland going non stop to say Britomart, would be justified by the numbers of customers, so he really need to make up his mind about what’s required.  And while its very easy to publicly slag off officials who cannot publicly answer back, I think it is an unwise practice.  Officials can find ways of biting Ministerial critics.

The billion extra trees, which may or may not be additional to what the private sector would have planted, has also created picture of confused policy making.   The main justification appears to be to create carbon soaks to help NZ achieve the net carbon emission goal by 2050.

As I understand it pine forests will only buy us time over the first 30 years because once harvested they will have to be replanted.   Many in the rural sector don’t like the idea of the landscape being dominated by pine trees and say it will destroy local communities.

Both NZ First and Labour don’t like land being sold to foreigners, but we now have this strange situation where the Green Minister Land Information has allowed Japanese company Pan Pac Forest Products to buy around 20,000 hectares of land for forestry blocks.  This decision followed from a 2018 law change which allowed the Minister to by-pass the Overseas Investment Office, the agency responsible for regulating foreign direct investment into New Zealand.  Other land has being sold to foreigners who want to take advantage of this Government’s policies in respect of climate change and forestry.

As National’s Paul Goldsmith said: Foreign investors can’t buy farm land to farm, or to convert to horticulture or vineyards, but they can buy productive farm land on a massive scale to put into forestry blocks”.  He said “this is creating massive distortions in land use decisions in rural New Zealand”.

In defence Winston Peters said forestry is good for marginal land.   But it’s is not clear all the sales to foreigners are for land that is marginal for pastoral farming or horticulture.   Meantime Shane Jones has indicated he is sensitive to rural concerns about the impact of forestry on their communities.

This saga indicates a Government that is not thinking through conflicting goals in a rigorous manner.   If a National Government had made these forestry decisions there would have been a ballistic response from the parties now in the coalition.

Barrie Saunders is the Chairman of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.  This opinion piece original appeared at https://barriesaunders.wordpress.com/

The following op-ed is written by Taxpayers' Union Executive Director Jordan Williams and is also available on the NZ Herald website (Premium) here.

Conventional wisdom says oppositions don't win elections – those in power lose them.

So much for conventional wisdom. If ever someone in power had set themselves up for a voter revolt, it was Phil Goff. After promising to eliminate wasteful spending and keep rates under control, his new local fuel tax, targeted rates, and waste charges worked to extend Len Brown's legacy of costly council bloat.

The undercurrent of ratepayer resentment had become a torrent of vitriol, judging by jeers at town hall debates. Going into the campaign, Phil Goff's net favourable/unfavourable rating according to internal National Party polling was negative 30 per cent – even lower than the hapless (now former) Wellington Mayor Justin Lester.

And yet Phil Goff's victory on Saturday was a trouncing. He brought in more than twice the votes of his closest challenger. Clearly, even with a deeply unpopular status quo, voters expect a palatable alternative to rally behind.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see John Tamihere failed this basic test. Why would Aucklanders on the centre-right rally around a former Labour Minister, risking betrayal and disappointment? And why would more moderate voters elect a man who casually drops Nazi slogans into election debates?

Voters who this year should have led a ratepayer revolt opted to keep a clear conscience, voting for protest candidates like Craig Lord, or skipping the vote entirely.

Even so-called centre-right ticket "C& R Communities and Residents" could barely get more than a few candidates over the line outside of its Ōrākei stronghold. Its campaign was confused, even going so far as urging candidates not to give any specific commitments on rates and spending, despite this being the key issues it was running on. What should have been its campaign strength, and Goff's weakness, was given away.

Results outside of Auckland for the centre-right weren't much better. Christchurch re-elected the Labour-aligned Mayor Lianne Dalziel, Wellington's National Party-aligned "Wellington Party" failed to fire, and Dunedin elected the Green Party's Aaron Hawkins. In Hamilton a solid centre-right mayoral candidate was sidelined by a contest between two middling ones. The one place a Labour mayor has been booted out, in Wellington, it's in favour of a career councillor who in 2017 stood for New Zealand First.

So where are our palatable centre-right alternatives? Or to make the point more obvious: where the hell is the National Party?

Every central government election since 2002 has proven that the National Party brand is, at the very least, recognisable and palatable for centre-right voters. Faint praise indeed, but this is stellar compared to the performance of hodgepodge local tickets.

The constitutional role of political parties is to identify candidates on behalf of their supporters, to act as a quality control, a signal, and symbol. Without the National Party, every centre-right candidate has to start from nil to build recognition, and a campaign infrastructure.

No wonder the high profile candidates that were urged to stand for the Auckland Mayoralty by senior National Party figures turned it down – the party could not be relied upon to do anything to help them. This is what happened in 2016 to Vic Crone, who was well-meaning but naively talked into standing for Mayor by National Party figures who had no intention of helping her.

Even as someone who has an interest in local government, I struggled to work through the laundry list of candidates to figure out who to vote for. The Taxpayers' Union was bombarded with enquiries from members across the country asking us to issue "voting guides".

Labour and the Greens have long since cottoned on that local government matters, throwing their branding and resources at candidates they deem electable and ideologically sound. It works: On Saturday in Auckland, four Labour-branded councillors were elected, plus 27 local board members.

Those of us on the centre-right might not like the effectiveness of this strategy, but we ought to respect it. If you believe in your cause, why wouldn't you take advantage of the most valuable commodity in marketing – name recognition?

National's refusal to fly its colours in local elections is timidity bordering on negligence. Long suffering ratepayers and businesses in neglected territories from the Far North to Invercargill are more than capable of rallying behind change: they just need to see that choice on the ballot paper.

If National truly believes its principles of limited and accountable government are important, then entering local elections is a moral necessity.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on former Porirua Mayor Mike Tana to repay money clocked up on his ratepayer-funded fuel card for personal travel.

The Ernst and Young report released yesterday reveals that, within less than three months, former Porirua Mayor Mike Tana used his ratepayer-funded fuel mileage for 1,820km of personal travel, including five round trips to Palmerston North to transport his son.

Based on the Remuneration Authority’s 73-cent-per-kilometre compensation rate, Mayor Tana would have charged $1,328 in personal mileage to the ratepayer.

This level of private benefit from a ratepayer-funded fuel card is not reasonable. Running small personal errands in the work car is one thing, but if you’re embarking on a three-and-a-half hour drive for family reasons, you’d be pretty bold to charge that to your employer. In this case, the employer is the poor old Porirua ratepayer, and Mayor Tana chose to whack ratepayers not once, but on five separate occasions in just a couple of months.

There’s a simple way for Mayor Tana to clear his reputation: pay the money back. It’s not a huge sum, but it’s the decent thing to do.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters to veto Cabinet’s proposal to give special preference to iwi and ‘indigenous firms’ during procurement processes.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “Buried in MBIE’s briefing to Phil Twyford [para. 27] as incoming Minister for Economic Development is perhaps Cabinet’s maddest idea yet: ‘indigenous procurement’ policies that ‘seek to actively increase government contracting to indigenous firms’.”

“When the Government decides who to hire, its sole consideration should be value for taxpayers. It should not use procurement as a way to do favours for particular groups.”

“Iwi authorities like Ngāi Tahu and Tainui are not little guys in need of a handout. Māori authorities already enjoy a special discounted corporate tax rate. This policy will inflate prices for taxpayers, and punish Kiwi businesses trying to compete fairly for government contracts.”

“Winston Peters always campaigns on ‘one law for all’, but does he mean it? This is a great opportunity for Mr Peters to act as a moderating influence and nip this dodgy idea in the bud.”

Editors' Notes:

The relevant paragraph of the BIM states:

1. When deciding on procurement, Cabinet agreed that you and the Minister for Māori Development should jointly report back on indigenous procurement policies. Indigenous procurement policies seek to actively increase government contracting to indigenous firms. One option under consideration is to broaden the supplier diversity focus to include other disadvantaged groups (e.g. Pacific firms). We are preparing advice to support you in an initial meeting with the Minister for Māori Development on procurement diversity options.

We can reveal that the Government has halted its funding of Clinton Foundation subsidiary the “Clinton Health Access Initiative” following nearly three years of campaigning on the issue by the Taxpayers’ Union.

New Zealand taxpayers, to date, have shovelled more than $10 million to the Clinton Health Access Initiative. Had the Government continued to make payments in accordance with the grant agreement, taxpayers would have been on the hook for millions more.

Soon after Hillary Clinton lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump, many western nations that were funding this diplomatic rort pulled out. Australia stopped its funding in late 2016, but New Zealand was one of the few to continue the claim that the funding was for genuine aid.

Taxpayers will celebrate the decision to finally stop using NZ Aid money to fund this scandal-plagued charity. So too will the nearly 7,000 Kiwis who signed our petition on the issue.

Official Information Act response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade below. 

Today at Parliament, the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union hosted the 2019 Jonesie Awards, an Oscars-style ceremony celebrating the best of the worst of government waste.

The Jonesie Awards are our annual celebration and lamentation of the weird and wackiest ways taxpayer money has been wasted in the last 12 months.

The Jonesie Awards are presented with a tongue-in-cheek entertainment Hollywood style ceremony complete with black ties, evening gown, and the Union's lovable mascot 'Porky the Waste-hater' appropriately dressed in a tuxedo.

While we have fun at the Jonesies, there is, of course, a serious underlying message: all of the spending is taxpayer money, time, and sweat. This ceremony is a warning to our malevolent money wasters in Parliament and town halls: rein it in, unless you want a golden porker of your own to mark your disturbing disrespect for taxpayers.

Local Government Nominees

• Orakei Local Board: Creative grants – gardening for mansion owners and Tinder for the elderly. Property owners in New Zealand’s wealthiest suburbs of Remuera, Orakei, and Mission Bay are being given ratepayer-funded grants of up to $2,000 to cover the cost of pruning trees on their property. This Local Board has also funded online dating workshops for the elderly.
   
• Palmerston North City Council: Corporate welfare for Toyota New Zealand. Ratepayers in Palmerston North forked out $391,000 to appease the world’s largest car manufacturer after it threatened to move its offices to another city. The decision was made in a closed council session and was only publicised after a Taxpayers’ Union information request.
   
• Wellington City Council: $21,000 for studying bike lights. The lycra lobby is alive and well in Wellington. Wellington City Council spent $21,750 on not one, but two studies into different brands of bicycle lights. Sixty-one types of bike light were reviewed for battery run-time, light output, ease of charging, lighting modes, and water resistance.
   
• Auckland Transport: $1.3 million for a doomed ride-sharing app. Auckland Transport produced an-Uber style app to taxi the wealthy citizens of Devonport to the ferry terminal. For each trip, the user pays $2.50, while ratepayers pay a $41 subsidy. The app was hoped to reduce congestion, but a survey shows it is mainly used by former cyclists, walkers, and bus users.
   
• Joint nomination: Local councils fighting climate change with air miles. Local councils across the country collectively spent $2.4 million on international flights in 2017/18. Auckland Transport flew business class to a “low emissions vehicle workshop” in Madrid, and Nelson Mayor Rachel Reese visited a “Climatorium” in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, Whangarei ratepayers paid for 11 art museum staff to look at architecture in Vienna. All three councils have declared climate emergencies.

WINNER: Palmerston North City Council's corporate welfare for Toyota New Zealand.

Central Government Nominees

• Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Local Government Minister forgets about ratepayers. When we heard that ratepayer groups could not get a response from the Local Government Minister, let alone a meeting, we dug deeper. An information request revealed that, despite a paycheque of $296,000 to look after the nation’s ratepayers, Nanaia Mahuta has not met with a single ratepayer association. Meanwhile, she is happy to meet with the council bureaucrats paid with ratepayer money.
   
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority: $65,000 for bunker oil energy. A “low emissions vehicle” grant was given to Interislander so it could install electric vehicle chargers on its ferries. The chargers are of course powered the same way as the rest of the boat: with emissions-spewing heavy bunker oil. Other grants totalling $4.5 million were given to companies like The Warehouse, New World, and Vector.
   
• Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern: Fuel price inquiry hypocrisy. The Prime Minister says that New Zealanders are being “ripped off” at the petrol pump, and we agree. But the Commerce Commission investigation she ordered is not allowed to consider the effect of excise tax. So, while the companies take a sliver in profit, Jacinda Ardern gets to keep the 50 per cent of tax that inflates every petrol bill.
   
• Hon Tracey Martin: for thinking deaf people can’t read. Our Associate Education Minister decided it would be wise to spend $800 of your money on a video of a sign language interpreter. This would make sense for a speech, but it this case, it was to translate one of her written press statements. $800 is our smallest nominated spend, but Jonesie adjudicators were stunned that a Minister evidently thinks deaf people are illiterate too.
   
• Finance Minister Grant Robertson: $133,000 Wellbeing Budget document. The Government’s annual Budget should set the fiscal tone for all taxpayer spending. The official printed document is usually sparse, but the Wellbeing Budget incorporated glossy graphic designs and photography, blowing out costs by more than 50 percent compared to 2017. The model posing on the Budget’s front cover now lives in Australia, seeking better economic opportunities.
  

WINNER: Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's fuel price inquiry hypocrisy.

Lifetime Achievement Award

Invercargill Mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt took home the most heinous ham: the Lifetime Achievement Award for excellence in government wast

His feats are new and old.
 
Sir Tim was arrested 33 times as a protestor in the 1960s and ‘70s, before running for Mayor of Waitemata City in 1983, where he unexpectedly won. After famously losing his mayoral chains (literally) twice, he was voted out in 1989. He then failed to get elected as MP for West Auckland, as Auckland Mayor (twice), and as MP for Wellington Central, before in 1993 finally finding the one group of voters who would accept him: the forgiving folk of Invercargill.
 
He famously said, “I don’t care where, as long as I’m Mayor”.
 
But Sir Tim wanted more. The very next year he unsuccessfully ran for Parliament again, was voted out as Mayor, ran for Parliament once more for the Legalise Cannabis party, and finally was welcomed back to the Invercargill mayoralty in 1998, where he has remained ever since.
 
Sir Tim is now a household name, and has supplemented his ratepayer-funded mayoral salary with a range of celebrity gigs, and even receives public money through his positions as ambassador for the Southern Institute of Technology and director for Invercargill Airport.
 
Sir Tim’s career has recent highlights: in 2015, his Council flew four staff members to China to buy Christmas lights, only to bring them home and discover the lights failed to meet New Zealand standards and were scrapped. A replacement set of lights cost ratepayers $250,000.
 
Sir Tim also has the honour of owning the country’s most expensive mayoral vehicle, a Chrysler 300C.
 
His Mayoral expenses this term alone include $3,100 maintaining his Chrysler, $19,500 on books (mostly books about himself to give to other people), $2,600 on donations to private charity, $8,000 on conference fees, $1,800 at local liquor stores, and $3,200 on custom made rubber wristbands that say, “I met the Mayor”.
 
This year, Mayor Tim was finally knighted. And adding to his prestige, today he enters the pantheon of government waste, alongside last year’s inaugural lifetime achievement winner, the Honourable Shane Jones.

Figures obtained as part of the 2019 Ratepayers’ Report league tables reveal that local councils across New Zealand employ 30,497 staff – 5,376 of whom earn salaries north of $100,000.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke says: "The sheer scale of council bureaucracy is stunning. Ratepayers are forking out salaries for a population the size of Timaru, or double the size of the New Zealand Defence Force. And one in six of these staff members earns a salary higher than $100,000. In the Auckland Super City it is one in four."

Some councils are less efficient in their staffing than others. Ratepayers' Report looks at staffing costs per household, to compare how bloated each council's bureaucracy is on an apples-to-apples basis. We also present staff-to-household ratios.

“Westland District Council ranks the least efficient in New Zealand in terms of both its staff costs and numbers. Meanwhile Rangitikei and Central Hawke's Bay District Councils appear to be getting the most from their staff.”

“Westland, at least, has the excuse of a large geographic area, and a small population means it lacks economies of scale. Ratepayers in Wairoa, Waitomo, Waitaki, and Christchurch should ask what their councils’ excuses are.”

“Often councils will justify rates increases on the basis of infrastructure spending, when in reality the spending is sucked up by rising payroll costs. Auckland ratepayers in particular have cause for concern, with an incredible 2,473 council employees paid more than $100,000. These costs are an obvious place to cut waste, especially as ratepayers suffer under higher rates and other charges.”

Total personnel costs per household (including CCOs):

Highest personnel cost per household:

1. Westland District Council: $3,643
2. Wairoa District Council: $3,319
3. Waitomo District Council: $3,160
4. Waitaki District Council: $3,143
5. Christchurch City Council: $3,134

Lowest personnel cost per household:

1. Rangitikei District Council: $622
2. Upper Hutt City Council: $693
3. Whangarei District Council: $718
4. Tararua District Council: $723
5. South Wairarapa District Council: $724

Average personnel cost per household: $1,364

Lowest and highest household-to-staff ratios (including CCOs):

Least efficient (households per staff member):

1. Westland District Council: 19
2. Waitomo District Council: 20
3. Buller District Council: 26
4. Hurunui District Council: 26
5. Wairoa District Council: 34

Most efficient (households per staff member):

1. Central Hawke's Bay District Council: 112
2. Masterton District Council: 104
3. Whangarei District Council: 102
4. Rangitikei District Council: 102
5. Hutt City Council: 100

Average (households per staff member): 67

Numbers of staff earning over $100,000 (including CCOs):

1. Auckland Council: 2,473
2. Christchurch City Council: 534 (excludes CCO staff, council failed to supply)
3. Wellington City Council: 261
4. Tauranga City Council: 138
5. Hamilton City Council: 124
6. Palmerston North City Council: 83
7. Hastings District Council: 79
8. Dunedin City Council: 79
9. Waikato District Council: 69
10. Queenstown-Lakes District Council: 62

Nationwide: 5,376
Nationwide (all salary levels): 30,497

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union, in partnership with the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance, has 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 for 2017/18 against similar-sized councils and types.

Setting out more than two thousand data points, the Ratepayers' Report provides transparency, and per-household figures ensure fair comparisons between councils. The league tables rank Councils on metrics including average residential rates, staffing costs, and Council liabilities among others.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams says, “Some councils do very well in the league tables, some far less so. All figures were sent to councils twice to double check before release.”

“Rates are still on the rise. On average, councils have increased their rates by $90, with the highest rates increase coming from Manawatu District Council which increased rates by $364, or 14%.”

“The data suggests Auckland ratepayers in particular have cause for concern, with the highest average rates in the country, and council liabilities of $21,941 per household. Auckland Council’s liabilities are second only to earthquake-affected Christchurch, and over three times the national average.”

“Every dollar spent by a Council was earned by a hard-working ratepayer. Ratepayers' Report allows ratepayers to understand if they could be getting a better deal.”

Notable Findings:

• Christchurch City Council continues to have the highest liabilities per household compared to any other council ($25,402). Auckland Council follows in second place, with liabilities per household of $21,941. "That alone is an incredible figure," says Mr Williams. "Think about every letterbox in Auckland having a $21,941 credit card bill in it thanks to Len Brown and Phil Goff."
• The average liabilities per household of all councils is $6,197.
• Auckland Council ranks highest for average residential rates at $3,387. There are 2,473 staff paid salaries greater than $100,000 at Auckland Council and its CCOs.
• The lowest average residential rates in New Zealand are levied by the Southland District Council ($1,737).
• The least efficient council in terms of staffing is Westland District Council, with a staff member for every 19 households. The most efficient is Tararua District Council, with a staff member for every 117 households.
• Only five Councils meet the full criteria for prudent Audit and Risk Committees. Two Councils, Palmerston North City Council and Waimakariri District Council, fail to meet any of the recommended oversight policies. Western Bay of Plenty fails to even have a separate Audit and Risk Committee, which is considered basic financial prudence.

Press releases:

Highest and lowest average rates

Highest and lowest liabilities

Auckland highlights

Wellington highlights

Canterbury highlights

Editors' notes:

Data for the report was compiled by the Taxpayers' Union and was supplied to all councils for 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, based on each council’s definition of a residential rating unit. Only Westland, Buller, and Waikato district councils were unwilling to provide the Taxpayers' Union with the necessary rates information.

For non-rates figures (i.e. liabilities, personnel costs) we have this year assessed council data using Stats NZ’s 2018 household estimates, with some councils opting to replace this estimate with an exact figure. We have done this because councils have different definitions of what constitutes a residential ratepayer or ‘rating unit’.

Queenstown-Lakes, Taupo, and Thames-Coromandel District Councils objected to the use of Stats NZ’s household figures, as these tend to exclude properties left empty, i.e. baches. As a result, per-household figures for these districts may be somewhat inflated.

Q & A

What is the purpose of Ratepayers’ Report?

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

Where was the data sourced?

The Taxpayers' Union compiled the data in Ratepayers' Report after reviewing each council's annual report for the year ending June 30, 2018.

Other figures were mostly obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, and cover the 2017/18 financial year.

The data has been sent to each individual authority for their review and error checking prior to public launch.

Population and household data is from Stats NZ.

Where did the group finance figures come from?

They are taken from each Council's annual report. They are council figures, plus all those of subsidiary council-controlled organisations.

Which councils are assessed in Ratepayers' Report?

Of New Zealand's 67 territorial authorities, 66 are examined in Ratepayers' Report. That includes all city, district, and unitary councils, with the exclusion of the Chatham Islands Council (due to concerns surrounding that Council's workload pressure and unique position).

What about regional councils?

While we anticipate including regional councils in future editions of the Report, the data we have on their average residential rates bills is at this stage incomplete. Our research suggests that regional councils charge anywhere from $42 to $553 per residential ratepayer on top of the bill charged by territorial authorities. Gaps in the data and different definitions for residential ratepayers dictate that these figures should be considered as supporting evidence, rather than determinative.

Ratepayers’ Report does, however, include Regional Council information in its analysis of Audit and Risk Committees.

Is this the first Ratepayers' Report?

No. Ratepayers' Report was first published in 2014 jointly by the Taxpayers' Union and Fairfax Media. The Taxpayers’ Union have since published updated versions in both 2017 and 2018. This is the fourth edition.

How are the councils grouped?

Unitary authorities – the 5 territorial authorities which also carry out the functions of a regional authority are grouped.
Metropolitan – the 5 large councils with a population of over 120,000.
City – 6 smaller metropolitan councils with populations between 40,000 and 120,000.
Provincial – the largest group, 27 non-metropolitan councils with population over 20,000.
Rural – the remaining 23 councils.
Regional – the 11 Councils that make up the regions of New Zealand.

How was the average residential rate calculated?

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

While we think this approach is useful and fair, the average residential rates figure should be a guide only. It does not, for example, factor in councils' reliance on commercial rates.

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

Were councils consulted in the process?

Yes. Every council was sent a draft version of their respective page to review.

Can the results of the 2019 report be compared to the 2018 edition?

This year, for non-rates figures (i.e. liabilities, staff) we have assessed council data using Stats NZ’s 2018 household estimates, with some councils opting to replace this estimate with an exact figure. We have done this because councils have different definitions of what constitutes a residential ratepayer or ‘rating unit’.

The updated methodology means that (aside from the average rates metric which remains unchanged) the per-household figures should not be compared to the per-ratepayer figures in last year’s report. Nevertheless, we can provide the comparable time-series data for individual councils on request.

After putting some feelers out, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Wellington regional ratepayers have paid almost $6,000 for “Frank the Crayfish”, a man in an elaborate crayfish suit who scolds ratepayers for their environmental habits.
 
Frank stars in Greater Wellington Regional Council’s ‘quirky’ environmental ads, currently warning against burning treated wood. The crayfish suit itself set ratepayers back $3,465, plus $2,500 for the actor.
 
For comparison, the work attire for Taxpayers’ Union mascot Porky the Waste-hatercost just USD100 on Alibaba.
 
Including video production and advertising, the full campaign has cost ratepayers $26,302 so far. Once another two more ad campaigns are completed, the Union estimates Frank will have set ratepayers back by around $67,000.
 
In its official information response to the Union, the Council says that a grown man in an “elaborate” crayfish costume adds “some humour” to serious environmental issues.
 
A crayfish was chosen as mascotbecause crayfish are “sensitive to water quality changes”. It is unclear how this relates to wood burning. The name Frank was chosen in service of the tagline, “Let’s have a frank conversation.” Campaign ads warn against making Frank “cray cray”.
 
The Council also confirmed that it is not sharing campaign costs with any other regional councils, missing an obvious opportunity to save ratepayer money.

This is yet another example of a council trying to emulate corporate gimmickry. Unlike corporate advertisers who need to stand out from competitors, the Council is a monopoly service provider. It could have settled for a cheap, no-frills and less confusing marketing campaign.

For the ratepayers who worked hard for that money, this spending is rock bottom stuff.

The Council's responses to our official information requests are available below.

Response_letter_to_Jordan_Williams_NZ_Taxpayers_Union_OIA_2019-257.pdf

Response_letter_to_Luke_Redwood_(New_Zealand_Taxpayer’s_Union)_OIA_2019-264.pdf

The following op-ed is written by Taxpayers' Union Economist Joe Ascroft.

On Wednesday, the Government finally announced its KiwiBuild reset. The target of 100,000 homes over ten years has been scrapped and replaced in part by a $400 million “Progressive Homeownership Scheme”, which would distribute additional deposit subsidies for first-home buyers and – subject to some conditions – allow first-home buyers to access government-backed mortgages with just five percent deposits.

The scheme is essentially an expansion of the National Government’s “Welcome Home Loan” policy, which backed mortgages for low-income households albeit with higher deposits and lower subsidies.

The scheme has good intentions. The Government is rightly concerned that many families are locked out of the housing market. However, the details of the scheme are deeply worrying.

First, the plan does nothing to address housing supply. Unless the Government introduces regulatory reform to make housing construction easier and cheaper, introducing additional subsidies and government-backed credit will simply be capitalised into house prices. Unless the underlying factor driving housing unaffordability is solved (not enough houses) the real winners will be existing home owners who will receive a capital gain.

Secondly, the scheme is hugely risky for taxpayers. The policy is specifically targeted at families who are struggling to save for a deposit due to – in Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson’s words – “high rents and low wages”. In other words, these are financially precarious households, who struggle to save and invest.

Granting those families low-deposit mortgages will not increase their incomes or change their savings behaviour. With very little savings or equity, their ability to meet mortgage repayments in the event of a recession or a substantial increase in interest rates is likely to be very poor – just as we saw in the United States in the mid-to-late 2000s, when NINJA (no income, no job or assets) home-owners defaulted on their mortgages at spectacular rates when interest rates climbed.

Worryingly for taxpayers, the Government has agreed to back these mortgages. In short, in the event of defaults any difference between the outstanding value of the mortgage and any capital recovered from a mortgagee sale would be met by taxpayers. In an environment of steadily climbing house prices, any risk to the Crown balance sheet might seem remote, but that can change quickly.

When mortgage defaults climbed in the United States, house prices began to fall and banks were unable to recover their losses. Government-backed lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which targeted low-income borrowers in an eerily similar fashion to plans announced on Wednesday, fell over leaving taxpayers to pick up the pieces. The cost of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout was $191 billion USD.

Simply, if the answer is subsidised, low-deposit government-backed mortgages for families with low incomes and very few assets, you have asked the wrong question.

The solution to easing the burden of high rental costs on low-income families is to radically reform building regulations and make densification significantly easier. That will involve making politically difficult decisions about the Resource Management Act and other planning laws. Crucially though, it will work and it won’t impose significant financial risks on taxpayers.

The Government has used taxpayer money to hire its left-wing mates as the Friendship Police, reveals the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. 

In May 2019, Netsafe granted $15,000 in taxpayer funding to left-wing campaign group ActionStation, according to information obtained under the Official Information Act.

The payment breaches Netsafe’s commitment not to fund political organisations with Ministry of Justice money.

This is the same group that helps out Labour and the Greens during election campaigns. The cushy contract makes a lie of ActionStation’s claimed independence from government funding.

Taxpayers are unknowingly supporting ActionStation to tell New Zealanders how to have “better, safer and more productive conversations online around Māori, refugees, NZ history and Tiriti”. But the Government shouldn’t be boosting the bottom line of any political lobby group.

People on the left would rightfully be outraged if a National government contracted the Maxim Institute to teach sex-ed in schools, or the New Zealand Initiative to draft the Budget. In principle, this cosy payment to ActionStation is no different.

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on ActionStation to refund the payment, and front up about any other taxpayer funding it receives or has applied for.

Earlier today our economist Joe Ascroft submitted in person to the Environment Select Committee on the Zero Carbon Bill. 

The Bill sets out expectations for reducing New Zealand's emissions profile as part of a global effort to limit climate change. 

Joe spoke to our written submission, which is available here. 

Our key contentions to the Committee were that:

1. The economic effects of taxing and limiting emissions are often underplayed by climate activists. NZIER forecasts that real GDP could be between $10.2 and $49 billion smaller by 2050 if we adopt a split-gas approach compared to current emissions targets. Compared to taking no action at all, GDP could be up to 22 percent smaller by 2050.

2. The Ministry for the Environment argues that the economic modelling fails to take into account the impact of climate change on the New Zealand economy, but that critique misses that New Zealand's impact on climate change is likely to be very small. 

3. The poorest households are likely to be disproportionately hurt by any intervention. NZIER modelling indicates the poorest 40 percent are likely to experience six times the harm of the richest 20 percent. 

4. Aggressively targeting our agricultural sector could simply cause production to shift overseas - with no subsequent net impact on global emissions.

Between 2015/16 and 2017/18, DHBs spent $280 million treating patients due to adverse drug reactions, reveals the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union in its final health productivity briefing paper.

It’s seriously concerning that taxpayers spent $280 million in three years dealing with botched prescriptions and incorrect use of medication. That’s the equivalent of 10 flag referendums, or $150 per household. DHBs need more discipline in setting and meeting targets to ensure drugs are correctly prescribed and patients understand how and when their prescriptions.

This problem needs to be addressed not just for the sake of patients, but for taxpayers who are forecast to be absolutely hammered by rising demands on healthcare services.

Some DHBs are much worse than others. Canterbury DHB alone spent $60 million treating those with adverse drug reactions across the three year period. Waikato DHB spent nearly $40 million.

There needs to be further investigation at Counties-Manakau DHB over treatment related to adverse drug reactions. Their reported rate of treatment and total spend related to adverse drug reactions is much lower than you would expect for a DHB treating such a large population. If their reported data is correct, they are performing extremely well, but they may also not be correctly recording treatment data.

The information was obtained under the Official Information Act and has been released as part of a serious of briefing papers, linked here.

In a submission to the Ministry of Transport, the Taxpayers’ Union reveals that the cost-benefit analysis prepared by Ministry of Transport and used to advise Ministers on the Government’s Clean Car Standard and ‘Feebate’ policies has serious flaws which undermine justifications for the policies.

More than 90 percent of the Ministry’s estimated benefit is attributable to consumer fuel savings, but even in their most conservative assumptions they incorrectly pegged before-tax fuel prices at 40 to 50 cents per litre more expensive than in reality. This was due to their reliance on 2011/2012 price projections from MBIE which have failed to bear out. In short, they got the price of fuel totally wrong – using previous forecasts, instead of current reality. As a result, the proposed savings calculations do not reflect reality.

But that’s not the only mistake.  Even if you ignore the fuel price assumption errors, the Ministry simply assumes consumers are irrational and that the Government needs to intervene to rectify this issue – with no evidence or literature cited to reflect this position.

When preparing the Union’s submission on the clean car policies, we readily found plenty of evidence that consumers do in fact understand the benefits of fuel efficient cars – but none of this evidence is addressed by Ministry officials in their analysis. That’s potentially fatal for the Ministry’s analysis – if almost all the benefits from buying EVs flow through to consumers from fuel savings and consumers understand the value of these savings, there’s no good reason for the Government to intervene.

Finally, officials need to reconsider how they perform cost-benefit analysis. The infamous BERL alcohol paper has become a joke within economic circles in part because they counted all of the costs from alcohol, without taking into account benefits to consumers, like enjoyment. The analysis from Transport similarly counts all of the costs from driving a car which is less efficient than an EV or a Prius, but ignores the benefits to consumers which lead them to make that choice. Consider, for example, a ban on ice cream sales. It would be bizarre to count reduced consumer spending on ice cream as a ‘benefit’ without acknowledging the lost benefits to consumers from ice cream consumption.

The Government’s Clean Car Discount and Standard policies should not proceed until Ministry of Transport officials fix the analysis Ministers relied upon to set the policies.

Full submission:

Email correspondence with the Ministry of Transport: 

In a new briefing paper, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that in the period 2013/14 through 2017/18, DHBs spent $20.37 million on redundancy payments.

Some redundancy payments are inevitable, but spending an average of $26,800 on 758 payments is a poor use of money. DHBs should be prioritising patient care and services, not golden handshakes to staff who are being let go.

Huge variance in the size of payments between DHBs should ring alarm bells. Waikato DHB, which has since had its board sacked, had the highest average redundancy payment of $47,800. In contrast, while South Canterbury DHB made more than 100 payments in five years, the average payment was only just over $10,000.

There’s no right way to manage redundancy payments – sometimes letting staff go is the efficient option – but DHBs should be careful to keep their average payments low so funding is going to patient care.

This information, obtained under the Official Information Act, has been released as the second of three briefing papers on healthcare productivity. The first briefing paper can be viewed here, along with the introductory report, Productivity in the Health Sector: Issues and Pressures.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is questioning the value of a $98,876 brand makeover at Porirua City Council. 

The official new avatar for the Council, which you would expect to be emblematic of the rebrand’s quality, is a limp and childlike smiley face. The design was apparently chosen because it ‘connects with the city’s youthful population’. When Porirua ratepayers gaze long enough into the face, the Council’s five percent annual rate hikes gaze back.

Councils do not need to engage in corporate branding exercises. Unlike businesses, councils are monopoly service providers and do not need to market themselves to their ratepayers, who are already a captive audience.

Porirua isn’t the only council to have indulged in an expensive rebrand, but this is no excuse. In our experience, branding exercises are driven by political egos and only serve to distract from inadequate services or rising pressure on ratepayers.

$25,000 was spent on photography alone for this rebrand, according to a response obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is asking DHBs to charge patients who miss specialist appointments, in light of new figures that show missed specialist appointments cost taxpayers $29 million in FY 2016/17.

District Health Boards need to become more efficient if we expect to keep healthcare costs manageable in response to an aging population. Tackling the $29 million annual spend on missed specialist appointments would be one way to meet that goal.

Some DHBs are worse than others: Counties Manakau, Waikato, Lakes District and Auckland each have missed specialist appointment rates above 10 percent. In contrast, South Canterbury DHB has an admirable 2.5 percent missed appointment rate.

DHBs need to work harder to reduce rates of missed specialist appointments. When patients miss an appointment, they contribute to a clogged health system and impose higher costs on taxpayers – in part contributing to the accelerating health costs demonstrated in our recent report Productivity In The Health Sector: Issues And Pressures.

Figures for DHBs across the country were obtained under the Official Information Act and have been released by the Union in a new briefing paper, the first in a series of three papers on healthcare productivity. The Union can provide raw figures for interested media.

The briefing paper makes three suggestions for DHBs:

1. DHBs should charge patients who miss their specialist appointments.
2. Those DHBs that do not measure (or report on the cost of) missed specialist appointments should do so.
3. DHBs should be more active in reminding people of appointments to reduce the number that are missed.

This op-ed, written by Taxpayers' Union Economist Joe Ascroft, was originally published on Health Central.

By 2060, Treasury’s Long Term Fiscal Model forecasts that government debt will reach 205.8 percent of GDP – approximately ten times our current debt burden as a proportion of the economy. Just financing that debt will cost 11 percent of GDP – one in every nine dollars in the economy will be used to just meet the interest cost of government debt.

Clearly that is an unsustainable future. When debt gets that high simply meeting the cost of basic public services like education, law and order, transport, and defence becomes extremely difficult – let alone welfare payments and superannuation.

So what’s driving our future of debt?

The two most important factors are superannuation and healthcare spending. While superannuation (expected to increase from 4.8 to 7.9 percent of GDP) routinely receives coverage in the media, healthcare (expected to jump more aggressively from 6.2 to 9.7 percent of GDP) is actually expected to be more of a burden on taxpayers.

Our aging population is one explanation for both factors. As the population distribution skews older, it’s natural that a greater share of resources will be used to fund superannuation and healthcare.

But population aging is not the only factor driving the accelerating cost of healthcare. When the Office of the Auditor General examined Treasury’s Long Term Fiscal Statement they noted that “non-demographic factors raise healthcare costs 35% faster than normal real output growth and 25% faster than normal consumer price growth. These two factors are behind most of the increase in healthcare costs during the 40-year projection period.”

In short, the OAG claims that a majority of the expected increase healthcare costs is attributable to healthcare cost pressures and higher demand for healthcare coverage associated with income growth, rather than an aging population.

So how can we mitigate those cost pressures if they are not related to demography?

Improving healthcare productivity would be a good start.

Productivity is a measure of how much output we get for the inputs we invest. Typically, we expect productivity to grow in response to new technology and capital investment. Productivity growth is the driving factor behind wage growth and prosperity.

Unfortunately, productivity growth in the health sector has been woeful for the last ten to fifteen years. In the period 2004 to 2015, cumulative health productivity growth was close to zero. In the period 1996 to 2017, labour productivity growth in the healthcare sector was half of the rest of the economy.

Put simply, any increase in output in the healthcare sector in the last two decades is largely attributable to more inputs, rather than any improvement in efficiency. It is wholly unsurprising that Treasury expects debt to climb to impoverishing levels, if one of the largest areas of public expenditure is failing to become more efficient in line with the rest of the economy.

Beating the debt apocalypse by taking on healthcare productivity is possible but might require the Government and DHBs to make difficult choices. Abandoning our public-focused healthcare model in favour of American privatisation would be a big mistake – instead we should focus on implementing a series of small reforms to cut costs while improving output.

The Taxpayers’ Union proposes some of these reforms in a series of papers released in the coming weeks: attempting to limit hospitalisations associated with adverse drug reactions (i.e. becoming ill because you have incorrectly taken prescription medicines), cutting down on missed specialist appointments, and minimising large redundancy payments.

DHBs might also want to consider tying remuneration of board members and executives to the financial health of the organisation, in light of the Government having to call in commissioners to Southern and Waikato DHBs. The Government could also consider increasing the proportion of each board appointed by the Minister, rather than elected by the public in notoriously misunderstood, low-turnout elections. Finally, amalgamating some DHBs might help to cut down on administration costs.

Each of these policies will need to be considered on their merits and none of them are a silver bullet, but if the Government implements no reform, taxpayers will be on the line for eye-watering levels of debt. 

The report can be found by linking directly to the PDF here.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the CEO of Invercargill City Council to take responsibility for untraceable cash spending that occurred on a trip to China.

In late 2017, four Invercargill City Councillors visited the sister city of Suqan, China. The CEO withdrew $3,000NZD worth of Chinese yuan for expenses. At the end of the trip, $1,780.45 was returned.

This is not surprising. What is surprising is that when the Taxpayers’ Union asked for receipts, the Council said that none were collected. It is a core responsibility for any CEO to ensure that expenses are recorded. The fact the CEO was ready to untraceably spend up to $3000 is alarming.

When asked for further details about the trip, Invercargill City Council stated that “Chinese currency was purchased for incidentals” and that “no receipts were received.” When asked further, the Council stated the currency went towards taxis and trains.

Quite frankly, the Council’s explanations can never be satisfactory because ratepayers are forced to take them on their word. It’s standard for ratepayer money to be used on incidentals, including booze and entertainment, but without any receipts it’s left to our imagination just how much fun Councillors had on the ratepayer dime.

Most concerningly, the Council says this is standard practice for its sister city visits. Other Councils collect receipts for all travel expenses. We’re calling on the CEO to take responsibility for this basic failure of accountability, and to introduce better practices. In the meantime, ratepayers are left wondering whether this behaviour reflects a deeper culture of arrogance within the Council.

Attendees of the trip included Crs G Lewis, R Amundsen, L Soper and A Crackett. With them was CEO Richard King and a staff member. Venture Southland and Chamber of Commerce officials also attended but paid their own way.

With health spending as a percentage of the economy expected to increase more than 50 percent between now and 2060, the Government needs to put greater focus on efficiency, says the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Our latest report Productivity in the Health Sector: Issues and Pressures investigates the recent failure to achieve efficiencies in the health sector and offers some possible opportunities for reform. According to Treasury forecasts, debt is expected to hit 205.8% of GDP if we don’t make changes to superannuation or health spending – unsustainable if we want the Government to continue funding public services as current levels.

However, while superannuation receives a lot of attention from politicians, health spending is actually expected to grow at a faster pace – nearly ten cents in every dollar in the economy will be devoted to health spending by 2060. If we can reduce that spending by achieving efficiencies across the sector, public debt will be much more manageable for taxpayers.

Our report argues that the best approach for reform is in line with OECD recommendations: the Government should not up-end the entire sector, or introduce American-style private markets, but instead seek to introduce incremental reforms that deliver better returns for every dollar the taxpayer spends. In each of the next three weeks, we will be releasing an issues paper focusing on wasteful spending at DHBs – eliminating those instances of waste would ensure funding could go to more surgeries and better care for those that need it.

Key figures:

1. Health spending is expected to grow from 6.2% of GDP in 2016 to 9.7% of GDP by 2060, contributing to debt hitting 205.8% of GDP by 2060.
2. Between 2004 and 2015, there was zero cumulative growth in healthcare productivity.
3. Between 1996 and 2017, labour health productivity growth (0.9% per annum) ran at half the rate of the rest of the economy (1.8% per annum).

Further to this report, the Taxpayers’ Union will release three briefing papers containing original research on areas of waste in the health system.

Tuesday 6^th: Missed Specialist Appointments
Tuesday 13^th: DHB Redundancy Costs
Tuesday 20^th: Adverse Drug Reactions

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union can reveal that the Government spent $133,530 on producing its ‘Wellbeing Budget’ document, a cost blowout largely driven by spending on graphic design and photography.

The $133,530 price tag compares to $86,268 for the 2017 Budget – an increase of 54.8%.

The Government spent $31,682 on external designers and photographs. These costs were zero for the 2017 Budget, which the Taxpayers’ Union asked about for a comparison.

Even general printing and proofreading costs increased for the Wellbeing Budget compared to 2017.

The Wellbeing Budget was a great gig for the beret-wearing hipsters who designed it, but not so great for taxpayers, who were forced to pay for the PR blitz.

It’s a minor spend in the scheme of things, but it is concerning because this document, prepared by the Finance Minister, sets the fiscal tone for the rest of the Government. If Grant Robertson starts splashing out on glossy design, other departments might think it’s okay to do the same.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has identified an absurd case of mission creep at Wellington City Council: the decision to spend $21,750 on two Consumer NZ investigations into different brands of bike lights.

Information released to the Union reveals that Wellington City Council initially paid Consumer NZ $10,600 for a comparison of bike lights in 2017 and paid the organisation a further $11,150 for an updated version of the report this year, totalling $21,750.

Consumer NZ purchased 61 bike lights and tested their battery run-time, light output, ease of charging, lighting modes, water resistance and fitting.

This sort of spending says the lights are on, but no-one is home. Consumer NZ’s product comparisons are a service to its subscribers, so why should Wellington ratepayers be the ones forking out?

$20,000 might only be a drop in the Council’s budget, but this is a worrying case because it hints at a culture of mission creep. The Council’s decision to get involved in niche consumer matters, that would usually be dealt with privately, only results in more neglect of core services like roads and rubbish.

The Wellington City Council would be wiser to conduct a comparison of the value of its own spending projects, particularly while it’s hiking rates and dealing with unexpected costs from the Town Hall and Library.

Raw information:

Proposal
Email chain

Update: New Plymouth District Council has corrected information it gave the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union regarding ratepayer-funded flight expenses in 2017/18.

A Council spokesperson states:

Former Govett-Brewster Art Gallery/Len Lye Centre director’s Simon Rees’ overseas travel was not ratepayer funded.  Supplied information should not have included three overseas trips by Mr Rees, which were funded by the Molly Morpeth Canady Fund. This funds all the director’s travel and associated expenses.

Therefore, the updated total of the Council’s 2017/18 flight spending is $279,355, $23,121 of which was international travel. The Council keeps its place as the country’s fourth-highest spender on air travel for 2017/18.

---

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that New Plymouth District Council was the fourth highest-spending council in the country when it game to air travel in the 2017/18 financial year. The Council spent $285,391 on flights, $256,235 of which was domestic, $29,157 international.

Click here to view the Council's information release.

For comparison, that is more than twice Palmerston North City Council’s spend, and even slightly higher than Christchurch City Council.

International destinations included LA, Vancouver, Sydney, and Brisbane.

New Plymouth District Council’s travel habits are eye-wateringly expensive, both in real terms and relative to other Councils.

The Council will argue that it faces higher costs due to its remote location, but that’s also true for Councils like Whangarei who managed to keep costs down. The question ratepayers will be asking is why is so much travel necessary in the first place? Every day spent travelling outside the district is less time focused on local needs.

Flight expenditure is important because it reflects the culture within the Council. How can ratepayers be assured they’re getting value for money on roads and rubbish when staff fail to display frugal attitudes on less important spending like travel?

This information has been collected as part of the Taxpayers’ Union’s annual Ratepayers’ Report, which will be released in full later this year.

The Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt has racked up $147,243 in mayoral expenses since late 2016 (the beginning of this term in local office).

Tim Shadbolt has shown considerable fiscal irresponsibility in his latest term of office, spending inordinate amounts of money on frivolous or personal things.

Seven different times, his card was used for ‘accommodation for Mayor Shadbolt and Family’. Ratepayers might be surprised to learn that the Mayor is using their money to take his family on junkets.

Other expenses included spending $19,534 on books and magazines, $8,051 on conference fees, $3,256 on wristbands, $2,662 in donations to private charity, and $1,854 at liquor stores.

Mayor Shadbolt also spent nearly $3,113 on maintenance for his famous ratepayer-bought Chrysler 300C, revealed earlier in the year to be the most expensive mayoral vehicle in the country. It’s no wonder that the Council is reviewing the cost of its fleet if existing vehicles are kicking up so much in maintenance costs.

We sent the same request to other councils but Mayor Shadbolt’s indulgence dwarfs that of others.

Ratepayers might be concerned that the Mayor uses so much public money on gifts and personal adventures. Perhaps in the future he could personally pay for his family getaways and bottle shop runs?

The full spreadsheet of expenses, obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, is available here.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has started a petition calling on councils across the country to reject the Childcare Allowance just introduced by the Remuneration Authority, which allows councillors and local board members to claim up to $6,000 per year from ratepayers for childcare.

“Ratepayers should not be forced to pay for local politicians’ nannies and housekeepers,” says Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers' Union.

"In very few jobs does the employer stump up for childcare. Why should politicians receive ratepayer funded benefits very few ratepayers are afforded?"

"Where does it stop? What about councillors with elderly dependents, or councillors without a partner to split household bills? Many politicians have costly personal circumstances, but we expect them to manage these costs privately.”

"I was brought by a single Mum on the District Council before I was even school aged.  The idea that ratepayers would be responsible for hiring a nanny is entitled nonsense."

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is questioning Porirua City Council’s decision to spend $9,218 on flights to Canada for an ‘indigenous art exchange’.

The spending details have been released as part of a Taxpayers’ Union investigation into 2017/18 travel expenses at councils across the country.

It’s ridiculous for Porirua City Council to spend money this way when its average residential rates are 28% above the national average. Many ratepayers will be appalled that their money isn’t being used to improve the council’s financial position or maintain basic services.

Instead, ratepayers forked out for artists and Council staff to enjoy a junket to Winnipeg, for an ‘indigenous art exchange’ involving ‘demonstrations of how digital media can be used to empower indigenous communities’. This all sounds fascinating, but it is entirely unclear how it delivered value for Porirua ratepayers. In fact, the only clear beneficiaries of the spending were the two artists who got a profile boost, and the two Pātaka museum staff who even received $70 per-day spending allowances for the 14 day trip.

We understand that the Council is currently being lobbied to declare a ‘climate emergency’. If it does this, it should show it’s serious by swearing off unnecessary, feel-good junkets and air travel.

The Canada flights were purchased on top of a significant $38,950 spend on domestic flights, meaning the Council spent a total of $48,168 on air travel in 2017/18.

Using figures obtained under the Local Government Information Act, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that Dunedin City Council was the country’s third-highest spending council in terms of air travel in the last financial year.

The Council spent $347,885 on air travel in 2017/18 – $214,067 of which was domestic, $133,818 of which was international.

“This is incredible hypocrisy,” says Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Louis Houlbrooke. “You have to wonder how Councillors who voted for the ‘climate emergency’ did so with a straight face. On one hand they’re telling ratepayers to expect major lifestyle changes and sacrifices, on the other hand they and their staff are burning jet fuel at a rate that would make NASA proud.”

“We would love to know how or why the Council racked up this eye-watering expenditure, but the Council has refused to release the destinations of its flights, despite multiple requests. Almost every other council in the country has been able to provide this information, so why is Dunedin City Council refusing to be transparent? Is it ashamed of the extravagance of its ratepayer-funded, emissions-spewing junkets?”

“What we can say is that we see Dave Cull in the fashionable cafés of Wellington every other week. Perhaps Mayor Cull has passed on the jet-setting culture of Local Government New Zealand to his local Council, at the expense of Dunedin ratepayers.”

The first and second-highest spending Councils were Auckland and Wellington, which spent $1,221,571 and $591,310 respectively.

The Taxpayers' Union will be contacting the Ombudsman regarding Dunedin City Council's failure to release information on flight destinations.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that, despite plans to declare a ‘climate emergency’, Wellington City Council spent a massive $623,296 on air travel in the previous financial year.

This makes Wellington City the country’s second highest-spending council behind Auckland City ($1,221,571). Notably, Wellington City’s air travel spending is more than double that of Christchurch City ($278,316), despite Wellington City’s considerably smaller population base.

A major contributor to the air travel blowout was economic development agency WREDA, which spent $201,464 – $168,672 of which was international.

For Justin Lester to declare a ‘climate emergency’ is incredible hypocrisy. He needs to look in the mirror: his Council and CCOs have been spewing emissions at a massive rate while enjoying ratepayer-funded junkets to the likes of Switzerland and Shanghai.

Ratepayers will be looking on with envy at the lucky bureaucrats who flew premium economy to Texas for the South by Southwest Festival, or London for a live music conference. It’s completely unclear how this relates to delivering value for ratepayers, or how it aligns with the Council’s virtue-signalling on climate. In fact, it’s out of touch on every level.

What’s so special about Wellington that its Council needs to spend almost twice as much as Christchurch on air travel? Councillors ought to be embarrassed and must demand changes in policy and culture inside the Council and its CCOs.

Wellington City Council Group air travel, 2017/18

• Domestic: $275,269 (1,438 flights)
• International: $348,027
• Total: $623,296

Sub-groups (click titles for raw documents):

Wellington City Council (Destinations)

• Domestic: $145,736 (973 flights)
• International: $99,488
• Total: $252,224

WREDA

• Domestic: $32,792 (136 flights)
• International: $168,672 (107 flights)
• Total: $201,464

Wellington Water

• Domestic: $50,979 (136 flights)
• International: $7,977
• Total: $58,956

Wellington Zoo

• Domestic: $10,511 (36 flights)
• International: $41,677 (23 flights)
• Total: $52,189

Experience Wellington

• Domestic: $16,963 (47 flights)
• International: $19,843
• Total: $36,806

Wellington Venues

• Domestic: $13,225 (87 flights)
• International: $9,901
• Total: $23,126

Wellington Cable Car

• Domestic: $3,782.14 (11 flights)
• International: Nil
• Total: $3,782.14

Zealandia

• Domestic: $1,281 (12 flights)
• International: $469
• Total: $1,750

Basin Reserve Trust

• Total: Nil

The number of international flights is not available for every agency.

Within the first weeks of becoming leader of the Labour Party, Jacinda Ardern made the call not to defend Metiria Turei’s self-confessed cheating of the welfare system. It was the right move. Workers rightly resent the idea that beneficiaries game the system while others work long shifts, pay secondary tax, and contribute to society with the aim of getting ahead or giving their children a better life.

So it was shameful when in Budget 2019 the Government announced a linking of benefits to average wages. Now, beneficiaries will get payment increases in line with the wage rises that others earned and sacrificed for.

Benefits have already been annually adjusted for inflation: that’s enough to keep up with increases in the cost of living. But last week’s change means beneficiaries will now share the cream of economic growth, automatically, every year – without having to get off the couch.

Treasury estimates the change will cost working taxpayers $320 million in the first four years (that’s $143 per worker), with costs climbing every year after that.

The Government could justify the cost to taxpayers by comparing benefits to superannuation, which has been indexed to wages since 1977, but experts acknowledge that’s increasingly unaffordable and will eventually need reform.

If the Government was consistent with indexation, it would turn its attention to tax brackets. If the top tax bracket was indexed for wages since it was set at $70,000 in 2011, it would now be set at $87,755. Likewise, instead of paying 30 cents on the dollar in tax from $48,000 a year, the second-highest rate would not kick in until $60,000.

In other words, average income earners would be in for significant tax relief.

If that seems too generous, bear in mind that it’s the same principle that now applies to both superannuation and the benefits system. Unfortunately for the taxpayers who fund these programmes, the Government cries poverty when it comes to taxes, refusing to even go so far as to adjust brackets for inflation.

This means that every year, a portion of our income is pushed by inflation into higher tax brackets, meaning we’re taxed harder even though we’re no richer. As a result, in just two or three years the average wage earner will be paying tax in the top 33 percent tax rate – meaning the Government snatches a third of any pay rise or overtime.

Grant Robertson could have used the room in his Wellbeing Budget to treat taxpayers fairly, like superannuants and beneficiaries. Instead, by ignoring the pain of inflation on taxpayers, and boosting benefits, he’s doubling-down on the unfairness of the wealth transfer system.

Labour is now giving its working base a clear message: we’ll keep increasing the penalty for your hard work, and endlessly boost the reward for unemployment. This does not bode well for wellbeing.

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.

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

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

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

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.