Taxpayer Update: Election debates return 🗳️ | Who costed CommieMart? 📚 | ACT takes aim at the carbon tax 🏭

Hi,

Before we get into this week's Taxpayer Update, a big thank you for all the feedback on our 2026 Election Bribe-O-Meter.

We can see from the web traffic (and the social media posts) that it is already proving popular. 🙌

Two political parties have also been in touch to clarify various policy details and costings. We welcome this. The whole point of the Bribe-O-Meter is transparency.

Every week our boffins will be updating the Bribe-O-Meter to account for new policy announcements and new information the parties provide at Bribe-O-Meter.nz.

Speaking of election announcements... we have an announcement ourselves:

Bigger and better than ever: local electorate debates to be streamed LIVE via NZHerald.co.nz 📺

Chlöe’s dodgy (and socialised) CommieMart costings 🤢 🛒

Last week we took you through the Greens’ plan to confiscate force the sale of 120 supermarkets and two distribution centres to create state-owned “KiwiMart” - or CommieMart, as it is becoming known online.

One number in particular did not pass the sniff test.

The Greens said acquiring all of that would cost taxpayers just $1.3 billion, based on an estimate the Greens say came from the Parliamentary Library.

But as we pointed out, even if the two distribution centres were thrown in for free, that values each supermarket at just $10.8 million.

(By comparison, PAK’nSAVE Albany’s operating business alone was estimated at $50–60 million in 2021, excluding the land and building.)

But there is now a bigger issue than whether the number is dodgy.

Why was the Parliamentary Library – a taxpayer-funded research service explicitly prohibited from assisting in election efforts – costing a flagship Green Party election announcement in the first place?

The Library is funded by taxpayers to support MPs in their Parliamentary (i.e. legislative and constituency) work.

The rules are very clear: Parliamentary taxpayer-funded resources are not allowed to be used for electioneering. Yet the Greens are publicly relying on this taxpayer-funded work to try and sell their major election policy.

And despite the costing being used publicly, when we asked for the workings and assumptions behind the number we were told that because it's "Parliamentary" it's totally secret. 

Talk about having it both ways!

This week, Jordan publicly called on the Speaker to explain how this is being allowed. Given that the Greens are using the Parliamentary Library to claim justification for the $1.3 billion figure, we say it ought to be transparent and publish the actual work.

And there's an even wider issue here.

We have long called for an independent fiscal institution that can properly (and transparently) cost election policies for all parties. Ironically, it's actually been the Greens that have been most willing to adopt the idea in the past.

But the key words there are independent and properly.

We say if taxpayers are going to fund election-policy costings, the rules need to be clear, the methodology needs to be public, and every party ought to be required to play by the same rules. You can read more here.

REVEALED: NZ First’s immigration policy could save taxpayers $19.2 million in Auckland alone 🛂💸

NZ First unveiled a sweeping immigration reform package yesterday.

Among other things, the party wants a referendum on capping residence approvals at 20,000 a year, a longer path to citizenship, tighter rules around who can stay, and a 10-year stand-down before non-citizens can access most working-age benefits.

Full disclosure: I'm an immigrant. I moved here 18 months ago when I was offered the job here at the Taxpayers' Union.

And, being on a work visa, I would not expect the Kiwi taxpayer to support me if I wasn't, well, working.

Good immigration brings skills, investment, businesses and (hopefully!) people who add to the country.

So if immigration is meant to make New Zealand richer, it isn't unreasonable to expect people who choose to come here to support themselves for a decent period before turning to the welfare system.

Coincidentally, our Investigative Lead Rhys had an OIA response on exactly this question.

Rhys' figures show that thousands of non-permanent residents in Auckland alone are receiving working-age benefits, including Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support and Supported Living Payment.

Our analysis found that just in Auckland, a 10-year welfare stand-down would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

• Over four years, the Ministry of Social Development granted $1,270,574.06 in Special Needs Grants to visa-holder categories in Auckland Metro, excluding protected persons and refugee categories.

• A further 1,008 Emergency Benefit grants to visa-holder categories had a combined gross weekly rate at the point of grant of $344,584.61, equivalent to $17,918,399.72 per year if annualised.

• MSD says the total amount paid through Emergency Benefits is not centrally held and would require officials to manually review individual client files.

And that is only in Auckland.

NZ First say immigration policy should be designed to strengthen the country, not expand the welfare bill, and in that it appears they have a point.

Bond markets' warnings getting louder... 💣

There was a slightly wonky but important story in Newsroom this week about New Zealand bond yields climbing again.

The short version is that the cost of borrowing is going up, and that matters for taxpayers as well as mortgage holders.

When the Government borrows, it sells bonds. The yield is basically the interest rate investors demand to lend it money. When investors want a higher return, taxpayers eventually wear that through higher debt-servicing costs.

Back in December, one of the flavours in our Nicola’s Fudge campaign was Bond Market Bonanza.

We warned that all the talk of fiscal discipline was hard to square with a Government still borrowing tens of millions of dollars every day, while bond markets were already demanding a hefty premium to lend to New Zealand.

At the end of last year, New Zealand’s 10-year Government bond yield was around 4.5 to 4.6 percent.

This month it has been sitting closer to 4.8 percent, breaking the five percent barrier as I write this newsletter.

Now, global bond markets are being pushed higher by inflation fears, the Middle East conflict and huge government borrowing overseas.

And not all of that is Nicola Willis’ fault, of course.

But that is why running persistent deficits is dangerous. The more you need to borrow, the more exposed we all are when the price of borrowing rises.

Since our warning last year, both Fitch and Moody’s have put New Zealand’s credit rating outlook on negative watch.

The warning lights are now flashing.

The answer is not complicated: spend less, borrow less, and get the books back to surplus.

Bond markets do not care about fiscal spin. Eventually, they just send the bill.

ACT wants to stop exporting jobs with the carbon tax 🌱💸

ACT has announced a shake-up of the Emissions Trading Scheme, including cutting the effective carbon tax, returning ETS revenue to households, and giving more protection to New Zealand businesses competing against overseas producers that face lower carbon costs.

We think they are right to focus on the basic problem.

If a New Zealand factory becomes uncompetitive because of our carbon settings, and production simply shifts overseas to a country with weaker climate rules, global emissions have not fallen.

We have just exported the jobs, investment and emissions.

And taxpayers can end up paying twice.

Take Golden Bay Cement.

The Government has just handed over $60 million to keep the plant going after years of ETS costs helped make local production less competitive.

There is still a role for the ETS. Putting a price on emissions is a far better approach than ministers trying to micromanage every business and household.

But the settings matter.

As we said when ACT released the policy, making Kiwi businesses unviable through carbon charges and then subsidising them to stay open is a false economy.

New Zealand should reduce emissions without deliberately making local industry uncompetitive against offshore producers that can emit more for less.

Otherwise, no one is saving the planet. We are just moving the emissions abroad and sending the jobs with them.

Grover Norquist on making “No New Taxes” stick 🎙️💸

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Jordan speaks to Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform and the man behind the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

For 40 years, Grover Norquist has worked to turn “no new taxes” from a campaign line into a promise politicians are actually afraid to break.

That makes him pretty relevant here, with National and ACT both campaigning on clean No New Taxes commitments.

Jordan gets into how you stop politicians wriggling out of those promises once they are in office, including through levies, charges and fiscal drag.

Norquist's view is straightforward (and sounds rather familiar!):

“Levies and other charges are just different words for taxes.”

>> Watch Taxpayer Talk: Grover Norquist on No New Taxes and holding politicians to it here <<

Have a great weekend!

Tory Relf Head of Comms New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union