Join Us
Joining the Taxpayers' Union costs only $25 and entitles you to attend our annual conference, AGM and other events.
Following another week of policy announcements on the Northland by-election campaign trail, NZ First is now clocking up promises that, if implemented, would cost more than $200 per New Zealand household.
As of today, National has promised $63.5 million for Northland, while NZ First's promises total $378.9 million. The amounts are equivalent to a cost per New Zealand household of $35.67 for National’s promises and $212.87 for NZ First.
The largest new bribe since last week's update was Mr Peters’ pledge to use taxpayer money to bailout the Kaipara District Council’s debt arising from the Mangawhai Heads wastewater project. This alone increased Mr Peters’ Bribe-O-Meter total by $80 million.
On yesterday’s TVNZ Q&A debate, Mr Peters made reference to a policy to build a ‘fast’ train service to the North. An independent economic expert commissioned by the Taxpayers’ Union for the Bribe-O-Meter, estimates that a high-speed rail link to Northland would cost at least $6.5 billion, more than Northland’s total annual GDP.
But you can breathe a sigh of relief. Winston Peters’ Chief of Staff confirmed to us this morning that the NZ First leader was not meaning high-speed rail. Apparently Mr Peters’ comments relating to ‘fast’ rail to Northland was a reference to line upgrades, already factored into the Bribe-O-Meter, and an express passenger service.
We are proud that the Bribe-O-Meter is forcing politicians to be transparent about the cost of their promises, but with one week to go there is still a risk that politicians turn the by-election into a lolly scramble at taxpayers’ expense.
Over the flip is a breakdown of the promises and our methodology.
Read moreIt appears that Mr Peters wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a NorthPort rail link, but hasn't even spoken to the Port's management.
The Taxpayers' Union can reveal that Winston Peters has never visited, nor spoken to the management of the port company his key Northland by-election promise is framed around. Mr Peters announced soon after his Northland campaign launch that his party would champion an extension of the Northland railway line to the Port Whangarei and channel growth there, rather than allow expansion at the Port of Auckland.
Below is a letter we sent to Mr Peters last week seeking clarification of the cost to taxpayers of the policy and confirmation that he has never visited the port. The letter also outlines Mr Peters' apparent confusion between Northport (operating near Marsden Point) and the now defunct Port Whangarei (which for legal and technical reasons is unable to be reopened).
Last week, Northport's CEO told us that the Port does not want the rail link and that Mr Peters had never spoken to them about any rail proposal.
This is just the sort of expensive political promise our Northland Bribe-O-Meter is designed to expose. Mr Peters appears to consider New Zealand's hard earned tax dollar so expendable that to win a by-election he's willing to throw nearly $200 million at a Port, despite having never visited or spoken to those in charge.
Our letter is here:
No response has been received from Mr Peters or his staff.
Today we have released updated figures for our Northland by-election edition of the election costing Bribe-O-Meter. The figures show that National is catching up with NZ First in the amount of taxpayer funding pledged to the electorate.
We have updated our figures to take account of Simon Bridges' Akerama Curves Realignment Project announcement this afternoon. We have also revised the cost estimate of Mr Peters' rail policy pledge downward from $198 million to $172 million, reflecting advice received from KiwiRail.
As of today the National Party's election promises total $35.67 per New Zealand household. That compares to NZ First having pledged policy we estimate would cost $165.96 per New Zealand household if implemented.
The National Party may argue that the new bridges and motorways come from existing roading budgets and therefore are not 'new spending'. Nevertheless, where it appears projects have jumped the queue ahead of other projects, we have included them in the Bribe-O-Meter figures.
This by-election is quickly turning into a buy-election paid for by all New Zealand taxpayers. The Bribe-O-Meter's purpose is to provide transparency on pork barrelling taxpayers are being forced to pay for.
Over the flip is a breakdown of the promises and our methodology.
Read moreYesterday we published the final update of our election costing 'Bribe-O-Meter' in the lead-up to Saturday’s election.
The Bribe-O-Meter now reflects the costs of all policies announced. It shows that of the main parties:
Throughout the election campaign our independent expert has made adjustments to the Bribe-O-Meter's numbers as parties have announced, refined and clarified their policies. Nevertheless, throughout the Greens have consistently proposed the highest amount of new spending, while ACT have been the only to propose an overall reduction.
While Labour and the Greens have outlined their plans for the next three years, National have remained more reserved, perhaps signalling debt repayment or future tax relief.
With just over a week to go until the general election, and with much chatter of Winston Peters riding high in the polls. New Zealand First still won't front up with details of the cost of its election policies for inclusion in the 'Bribe-O-Meter'. This morning we issued a media release giving NZ First a final chance to provide our expert the material to cost NZ First’s policy.
"The Taxpayers’ Union has made numerous formal and informal approaches to Mr Peters and his party. Despite our best efforts Mr Peters continues to fob off providing transparency to the voting public."
Our independent expert, who used to lead the team at IRD that costed social policy for numerous governments (ironically including when Mr Peters was Treasurer!) has spoken to Party officials in Winston Peters’ office but still does not have enough information to give any insight as to what NZ First’s policies will cost.
Perhaps the reason NZ First has shied away from releasing their policy costings is because Mr Peters is worried it would deter voters? In 1996, the last time National was forced to go into government with Mr Peters, it cost taxpayers $5 billion, or $2,950 per household.
Right now we’re working hard behind the scenes to complete the final update of the Bribe-O-Meter. With the exception of NZ First, we want to thank the general helpfulness and enthusiasm other parties have displayed towards the project.
The voting public and taxpayers deserve better – but it looks like Mr Peters doesn’t want you to know how much his support will cost…
The Taxpayers’ Union is today releasing independent research from former NZIER Principal Economist, Dr Michael Dunn, which raises significant questions about the Green Party’s election costings.
Dr Dunn’s analysis of the Green Party’s “Fairer Reward for Fair Effort” policy document shows that the Party’s taxation forecasts are incorrect and instead of generating tax revenue, will actually result in a net loss in revenue.
The Greens say that their policy will mean increased revenue to the Government of $800 million per year, our independent expert says the actual cost to the Government is at least $110 million. That is a massive difference of more than $900 million in the one policy and suggests the Greens' costings are fundamentally flawed.
On top of the drop in tax revenue, Dr Dunn estimates that the policy would increase government expenditure on employee wages and contracts for services by around $1.1 billion over 3 years.
The Taxpayers’ Union repeats our offer to allow our independent expert to confidentially cost any political parties' policy before they are released so that the public can have confidence in how much a policy will cost or benefit taxpayers.
The report's author, Dr Michael Dunn, has told media:
The Greens' costing completely ignores the reduced taxes from companies due to the higher wages. They appear to assume that businesses can magically generate more money to fund higher wage bills. It doesn’t happen like this in the real world.
Expected slower employment growth will also adversely affect tax revenue.
Under this policy the Governments' primary fiscal balance would be reduced, by at least the direct costs already acknowledged by the Green Party, as the incremental tax revenue yield would be minimal, if any. In addition social transfer payments linked to wage rates would be increased.
This isn’t some Taxpayers’ Union hack calling into question the Greens' costings. Dr Dunn led the team at IRD that costed revenue policy and produced budget revenue forecasts for 12 years. He has advised both National and Labour led administrations. We've engaged him to review numerous party costings and provide the information for our Bribe-O-Meter.
UPDATE: Our expert, Dr.Dunn, wishes to thank a reader who pointed out that the proposed October 2014 increase in the minimum wage would be only 75 cents per hour, and that would have a reduced cost and impact. He has recalculated his figures accordingly, but the conclusions are unchanged. The updated report is available for download here.
We've added the Green, ACT, United Future and Conservative Parties to the ‘Bribe-O-Meter’ election costing page launched last month. Excluding ACT and New Zealand First, the total election ‘bribes’ - that is new spending not already in the budget covering the next parliamentary term, equals $12.7 billion, or $7,486 per household.
We're delighted that the Bribe-O-Meter is enabling Kiwis to judge for themselves the various bribes this election. With the addition of the minor parties voters can assess which political parties are offering taxpayers value for money.
Currently National's election promises add up to $329 per household. The equivalent figure for Labour is $2,776, the Greens $2,893, United Future $1,253, and the Conservatives $236. ACT is in the negative, committing to cut spending by $6,876 per household.
A lack of detail in New Zealand First’s policy documents has made it impossible for the Union's independent expert, Dr Michael Dunn, to calculate credible figures for the Party’s inclusion in the Bribe-O-Meter. Public and private requests to New Zealand First have, to date, not resulted in amelioration. New Zealand First apparently just doesn’t have the information. It appears that Mr Peters makes promises to all and sundry, but no one at his office is adding up the cost.
This page details the election promises related to economic development including:
Industry and trade development
The Labour Party have committed more spending than any of the other listed parties. Their commitments equal $2.5 billion for the next Parliamentary term. This is primarily made up of their $1.3 billion KiwiBuild package, along with $508 million in research and development tax credits and $141 million in accelerated depreciation. Their wood and forestry upgrade package is estimated to cost $22 million.
At $1.4 billion, the Greens’ economic development pledges are more than a billion dollars less than Labour. This is primarily made up of a $909 million commitment to increase research and development expenditure. It also includes the party’s flagship “Green investment bank” ($19 million) and $10 million towards a “social enterprise fund”.
ACT have vowed to save over $1.6 billion in industry and trade development by scrapping a number of items within the area of economic development, including the Large Budget Screen Production Fund and the International Growth Fund. The party would also abolish the Primary Growth Partnership scheme overseen by the Ministry for Primary Industries.
Infrastructure
Both the Greens and Labour have the same amount provisioned towards infrastructure, namely $276 million. This is our independent expert’s assessment of what the true cost of the parties’ NZ Power policy would be over a three year period.
The National Party has announced $50 million to extend mobile coverage across main highways and in tourist areas. In addition to this they have also earmarked $100 million in contestable funding for the rollout of broadband in rural locations. As the horizon for half of this funding is outside timeframe, we have included it as a cost of $50 million.
In addition to their other infrastructure pledges, National have also earmarked $200 million for a rural roads initiative, and $100 million of new funding for new cycleways.
The ACT Party have announced plans to stop the Government’s broadband rollout. This is expected to save almost $170 million.
Innovation, science and technology
ACT appears to be the only political party advocating a change to current innovation, science and technology funding, proposing a cut of $1.9 billion in science programmes including over $300 million in research and development grants, more than $60 million in high value manufacturing and services research and various other programmes.
Housing development
Labour by far appear to be the most ambitious in the area of housing, with their flagship KiwiBuild policy expected to cost almost $1.5 billion.
Regional support (incl. Canterbury EQ recovery)
Both Labour and the Greens have announced specific policies in the lead up to this year’s election that are targeting Cantabrians still recovering from the earthquakes. Labour have pledged $20 million to assist homeowners whose homes are now at risk of flooding, or whose homes at risk from falling rocks. In addition to this Labour has announced a $23 million package to pay out 100% of the value of bare land and commercial properties in Christhurch’s red zone.
The Greens have committed $35 million towards a green transport package for Christchurch. The Party has also announced funding of $20 million per year in order to fund subsidies for small towns and settlements seeking to upgrade their sewerage systems.
Subsidies (incl. transport)
ACT is pledging to reduce subsidies to the tune of $279 million. This would include abolishing the Energy Efficiency and Conservation MCOA.
The Greens want to subsidise travel for students, with the party recently unveiling their policy of free off-peak public transport for students. It is expected that this will cost $75 million over the three year period.
National Party | Labour Party | Green Party | Act Party | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost ($ millions) | Cost per household ($) | Cost ($ millions) | Cost per household ($) | Cost ($ millions) | Cost per household ($) | Cost ($ millions) | Cost per household ($) | |
C. Economic development | 639 | 376.52 | 2,672 | 1575.66 | 1,348 | 816.13 | -4,023 | -2,372.15 |
1. Industry and trade development | 74![]() New forest planting $22.5m over 5 years ($13.5m in next Parliamentary term)
$20m a year for business R&D = $60m. |
43.34 | 886![]() $508m Revenue reductions for R&D tax credit, $141m Accelerated depreciation, $22m Expenditure forestry & wood products upgrade.
NZ Inc investment of $100m pa from 2016/17 (offset by fund earnings) for equity investment in new technology firms - 2 yr total is $195m |
510.67 | 938![]() $909m Increased R&D expenditure, $10m Social enterprise fund, $19m Green investment bank.
|
553.13 | -1,641![]() Economic Development $281.47 pa + $844.21m, Environmental (Climate Change, ETS, GHG) $186.53 pa = $559.59m, Primary Industries PGP $237.12m.
|
-967.70 |
2. Infrastructure | 565 | 333.18 | 276 | 162.76 | 276 | 162.76 | -170![]() Communications, Fibre, broadband and connectivity $56.55m pa = $169.65m.
|
-100.04 |
Communications | 265![]() Ultra fast broadband expansion to 80% NZ $152 to $210 assumedly 4 yrs as for RB so costing $165m over 3 years.
Amy Adams announced Extension of Telecom Development Levy out to 2019 with $100m for contestable spending over 3 years to 2018/19. Only 2 years qualify here. In addition, $50m will be spent on extending mobile coverage along main highways and in tourist areas. |
58.969 | ||||||
Rail |
0 Changes to National Land Transport Fund claimed near revenue neutral shift $10bn plus from roading to public transport infrastructure.
|
|||||||
Roads |
0 Rural roads initiative $200m committed for projects starting within 3 yrs
|
0 Changes to National Land Transport Fund claimed near revenue neutral shift $10bn plus from roading to public transport infrastructure.
|
||||||
Other Infrastructure | 100![]() $100m Urban cycleways.
|
58.969 | 276![]() Net impact of NZ Power $90m in 3rd year only. Revised by MRD to eliminate claimed offsets: $276m.
|
162.76 | 276 ![]() NZ Power: Green Party claims the cost is $80m per year, but independent expert has have revised fiscal cost to $276m per year.
|
162.76 | ||
Auckland City Rail loop (pro rata in period) | ||||||||
3. Innovation, science and technology |
|
-1,933![]() Science & Innovation programs $644.44 pa = $1933.33m.
|
-1,140.06 | |||||
4. Housing development |
|
1,487![]() Kiwibuild impact on net debt in 3rd year (2017/18) $1.487bn.
|
876.87 | |||||
5. Regional support (incl Canterbury EQ recovery) |
|
43![]() $20m Action on flood prone houses and rock fall structures, $23m 100% pay-out for bare land and commercial premises in red zone.
|
25.357 | 95![]() Greener Christchurch (excluding transport) $35m.
Subsidies for small town sewerage systems $20m / year ($60m). |
56.02 | |||
6. Subsidies (including transport) | 75![]() Free off-peak travel for students $75m 3 years.
|
44.227 | -279![]() Energy - EECA MCOA, CEE and home Insulation $92.90m pa = $278.70m.
|
-164.35 |
Note: In these areas we are not aware of material spending/saving commitments by the United Future, or Conservative Parties. For reasons explained on this page New Zealand First has not been included.
Click here to return to the Bribe-O-Meter.
This morning we launched our 2014 election costing project to calculate the total cost of promises politicians make in the lead up to the 2014 General Election. The “Bribe-o-meter” allows Kiwis to judge for themselves the political bribes as parties vie for votes.
The Bribe-o-meter will hold the politicians and political parties to account for how much their pork barrel bribes will cost New Zealand households. For too long politicians have got away with plucking numbers out of thin air when announcing policy.
The Bribe-o-meter is about transparency. We will be updating the figures weekly, allowing potential voters to assess which political parties are offering taxpayers value for money.
We've engaged Dr Michael Dunn to undertake the economic research for the project. Dr Dunn will provide the Taxpayers' Union independent figures and analysis. Dr Dunn is a former Principal Economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and led the team of financial analysts at the Inland Revenue Department that forecast government tax revenues, and costed social policy through thirty Budget, Half Year and pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Updates. While at IRD, Mr Dunn served under numerous ministers and treasurers under National and Labour lead governments.
In the coming weeks we will be updating the Bribe-o-meter tables, asking Dr Dunn to provide an expert review of parties' cost estimates and adding the costs of further announced policies. We'll also be adding the estimated costs of policies proposed by the minor parties.”
Joining the Taxpayers' Union costs only $25 and entitles you to attend our annual conference, AGM and other events.
With your support we can make the Taxpayers' Union a strong voice exposing waste and standing up for Kiwi taxpayers.
Often the best information comes from those inside the public service or local government. We guarantee your anonymity and your privacy.