Responding to Mayor Brown’s Auckland Manifesto, Taxpayers’ Union Policy Adviser, James Ross, said:

“Wayne Brown is on the right track calling for devolution of powers from central government to local communities, but we need to go further. New Zealand is one of the most centralised nations in the OECD, and the result is that local interests are run over roughshod by Wellington bureaucrats.

“Handing revenue-raising powers to local bodies has the potential to facilitate tax competition between local areas, ensuring that ratepayers get the most bang for their buck. However, given that Auckland Council covers a third of all Kiwis, for this to happen there is a clear need to go further and devolve powers to smaller local councils.

“Control over local assets such as roads would eliminate perverse situations such as Auckland Council being forced to pay $171 million over three years just to get access to the National Land Transport Fund, let alone the vast sums wasted in litigation battles just to lay some tarmac.

“Furthermore, GST sharing with local bodies would give councils an incentive to manage their areas profitably. With estimates of $60-70 Billion required to maintain existing infrastructure in Auckland alone, this would go a long way towards lighting a fire under stagnant Councils.”

Three Waters 2.0: Our ad in the Herald exposing David Parker's central planning "reforms"

With the support of hundreds of supporters like you, we managed to secure a four-page lift-out in the NZ Herald this week to coincide with the final day on our 'Hands Off Our Homes: Stop Central Planning Committees' roadshow.

View a high-res image of the ad here

David Parker's reforms would strip democratic control over resource allocation and planning decisions from local councils and place them in the hands of unelected, co-governed central planning committees.

The Government has learnt its lesson from Three Waters and isn't spending millions of taxpayer dollars on TV adverts (or otherwise talking about what they are doing) this time. Our main objective with the nationwide roadshow tour was to raise awareness about these reforms and explain to New Zealanders what these radical changes will mean for them.

Over the coming weeks we will continue to expose Minister Parker's Soviet-style central planning committees for what they are and make it a major political thorn in the Government's side as we head towards October's election.

We can only force this matter onto the political agenda with people power. If you haven't already, please take a moment to add your name to the petition opposing these undemocratic reforms.

🔍 Future of Local Government 👩🏻‍💼👨🏻‍💼🔺

Not content with ripping away democratic control of water infrastructure and planning powers from local councils, a Government-appointed panel this week released their final report into the future of local government. 

As we predicted, the report advocates for even more centralisation and removal of local voice and democratic accountability from decision making. The report recommends reorganizing local government with "the resource management reform boundaries as a starting point for discussions". 😳

This would amount to a mass amalgamation of New Zealand's councils further reducing the ratepayers' ability to engage in the democratic process. 

New Zealand is one of the most highly centralized countries in the world. Just a tenth of government expenditure is delivered through our councils. And those councils are extremely large by international comparisons. Auckland's Super City is a prime example of bigger not being better – rather than save money it's led to more managers, more layers of bureaucracy, and much higher rates.

This Review presented a great opportunity to fix the issues in local councils and put power closer to the people, Instead it has focussed on identity politics and public sector gimmicks like citizens’ assemblies and "participatory budgeting". And the only structural reforms it proposes would likely see more centralizations and a further undermining of democratic accountability.

New Zealanders aren’t interested in nebulous concepts like embedding a wellbeing focus in local government – they want to see high quality services delivered at a local level for the lowest rates possible. That means small, democratically accountable, powerful local councils where local people have the opportunity every three years to kick out politicians who aren’t performing.

At the end of this month, in the middle of a cost of living crisis, taxpayers up and down New Zealand will be slapped with four new tax increases, so get ready as Grant Robertson is coming for your wallet.

On 1 July, the following taxes are increasing:

🛑 Petrol excise by 29 cents/litre (including GST)

🛑 Road user charges by 56%

🛑 Ute tax by up to $1,725

🛑 Alcohol tax by 6.6%

Worse still, all four tax increases will have a disproportionately large impact on rural and poorer households. 

Cost of living crisis? What cost of living crisis?

The fuel excise and diesel road user charge increases will punish those who often don't have any other choice but to drive either due to where they live or the nature of their work.

Similarly, the ute tax will slam hard-working farmers and tradies who simply don't have any other option but to drive a ute – for them, they are tools of the trade. This increase is particularly cruel for those who lost vehicles in the recent flooding and will now have to pay up to $6,900 in tax just to replace a damaged work vehicle. 

And where does this money go? To subsidize those in the cities (where public transport is an option) so they can buy themselves a new Tesla. 

Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have already signed our petition calling for the ute tax to be scrapped. You can sign the petition here.

After all those tax hikes, you may need a beer or two to relax but, after a 6.9% alcohol excise hike last year, it's going up a further 6.6% this year too! Cheers.

Tax Preferences Principles Bill – David Parker trying to screw the scrum

David Parker’s Tax Principles Bill faced scrutiny at Select Committee last week, and of course your humble Taxpayers’ Union was there to give them a piece of taxpayers’ minds.

Scores of interested parties turned up to rip holes in this bill, which if nothing else shows one thing: Despite David Parker’s protestations that his 7 ‘principles’ were universally agreed upon fact, clearly they are little more than the preferences of one man and his lackeys.

For instance, take the Government’s attempt to enshrine in law the idea that tax systems must be progressive. Our economist, Ray Deacon, made the point that “there is no reason why a flat tax applied across all income levels, with an appropriately structured system of transfer payments, cannot achieve the goals that a progressive tax system is aiming for.” As it happens, even the Inland Revenue Department agrees with us!

Many of these "principles" would screw the scrum by shutting down democratic debate on our tax system by claiming Labour's opinions are objective fact and handing the power to dictate tax policy to an unelected Commissioner. If these principles are universal, Minister Parker must live in a different universe to us. 

In our written submission, we suggested that the bill be withdrawn or, at the very least, should be reworked to be based on the Tax Foundation's Principles of Sound Tax Policy. 

Ray also suggested that it would be more appropriate to rename the proposal as the Tax Preferences Bill. At least then the Government would be honest in their intentions. You can watch our submission here.

Taxpayer Victory: Michael Wood Resigns

In our last update, we called for Michael Wood's resignation over his failure to appropriately manage his conflict of interest as Minister of Transport while owning shares in Auckland Airport. Our petition has since gathered thousands of signatures.

It subsequently emerged that Wood had undeclared financial interest in a number of other areas that conflicted with his Ministerial responsibilities. It was also revealed that Minister Wood was contacted 16 times by the Cabinet Office to sell his shares, not just the 12 times that had previously been stated. For multiple breaches of disclosure requirements as bad as this, Prime Minister Hipkins shouldn't have given Wood the opportunity to resign and should have sacked him instead!

This is a significant victory for taxpayers and one we care deeply about – accountability is one of the three key pillars of our mission. All taxpayers are entitled to expect that Ministers appropriately manage conflicts of interest and are, well, honest. Democracies can only function properly when the public has confidence that Ministers' personal financial interests aren't influencing decisions. 

When Ministers fail to uphold high standards of transparency and accountability, public trust in Government is eroded and it lowers the bar for what is considered acceptable conduct by future Ministers. Hipkins has yet to rule out Wood's return to the Cabinet table in a future Government. We say this should be the end of Mr Wood's political career. 

We welcome the announcement that work is underway to improve Cabinet's systems for managing conflicts of interest, we can only hope that this yields more accountability rather than just another box-ticking exercise. 

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

The Spinoff New poll points to National-Act government despite bump for Greens

NZ Herald Political poll: National, Act could form Government

Stuff National and ACT could form government, according to latest poll

RNZ New poll shows National, ACT keeping edge ahead of Labour

Politik Collins paves the way

The Working Group with David Farrar, Raf Manji and Damien Grant

Newstalk ZB Afternoon Edition: 14 June 2023 (02:08)

NZ Herald Te Pāti Māori coalition a drag on Labour - poll

Otago Daily Times Council won't pay for statue: mayor

Newstalk ZB THE RE-WRAP: Gang Gaslighting Continues (07:09)

NZ Herald Will a recession lose Labour the election? PM Chris Hipkins, Grant Robertson respond

Otago Daily Times Poll: mayor should stay, not chief exec

The Press Govt told capital gains tax is not a ‘universally accepted’ taxation principle

NZ Local Government Magazine Reactions to Local Government Review report

The Platform David Farrar on the DIA making unauthorised changes to the Three Waters bill

interest.co.nz A super-majority of voters want to fix tax bracket creep but only two political parties agree

Commenting on He piki tūranga, he piki kōtuku –The future for local government final report, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“New Zealand is one of the most highly centralized countries in the world. Just around a tenth of government expenditure is delivered through our councils. And those councils are extremely large by international comparisons. The Auckland Super City is a prime example of bigger not being better where a merger has simply led to more managers, more layers of bureaucracy, and higher rates.

“This Review presented a great opportunity to fix this and put power closer to the people, but instead it has focussed on identity politics and public sector gimmicks like citizens’ assemblies and participatory budgeting. And the only structural reforms it proposes would likely see more centralizations and a further undermining of democratic accountability.

“New Zealanders aren’t interested in nebulous concepts like embedding a wellbeing focus in local government – they want to see high quality services delivered at a local level for the lowest rates possible. That means small, democratically accountable, powerful local councils where local people have the opportunity every three years to kick out politicians who aren’t performing.”

This week on Taxpayer Talk, Taxpayers' Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, sits down with Wellington City Councillor, Ray Chung, to discuss Wellington’s shocking 12.3% rates rise and why this is being driven by inefficient, wasteful spending at the Council.

Councillor Chung was elected just last year as the representative for Wharangi / Onslow-Western Ward. He's one of the few fiscal conservatives on the Council and is able to provide some interesting insight into its inner workings and explains why it is so hard – and expensive – to get anything done. We also get to hear why Councillor Chung is a vocal opponent of Three Waters and co-governance along with discussing potential solutions for the Council's severe infrastructure deficit.

Later in the podcast, for our War on Waste segment, Taxpayers’ Union Deputy Campaigns Manager, Connor Molloy, analyses the growth of managers in the public service and investigates whether the growth in the public service is driven by the core frontline workforce or simply a ballooning of the backroom bureaucracy of managers and consultants.

To support Taxpayer Talk, click here

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, feel free to email [email protected] 

You can also listen to Taxpayer Talk on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, iHeart Radio and all good podcast apps. 

Wellington City Council must slash waste to prepare for climate change

On Monday, The Dominion Post reported that Wellington City Council’s Environment and Infrastructure Committee has been advised to spend an additional $15.4 million on retaining walls to prevent floods and land slippage caused by extreme weather.

Taxpayers’ Union Local Government spokesperson, Josh Van Veen, says:

“Wellingtonian households are about to be hit by a massive 12.8% rates increase. We agree that climate adaptation must be prioritised. However, the money for retaining walls should come from the reallocation of existing budgets.

“The Council is spending millions on climate change mitigation in areas already covered by the ETS such as the $20 million Environmental and Accessibility Performance Fund and the Climate and Sustainability Fund, which saw thousands of ratepayer dollars paid to a church.

“This spending should be slashed and reallocated toward future proofing the city’s infrastructure.

“With the new Tākina Convention Centre opening in June, there is also an opportunity to rationalise Council property assets to free up capital necessary for investment while also reducing ratepayers’ exposure to risk from climate or seismic events.”

The New Zealand Transport Authority have targeted a Featherston family with threats of enforcement action over a "Stop Three Waters" banner erected on private property.

Here is a photo of the banner in question:

An email to the family from South Wairarapa District Council says NZTA have "raised concerns about the wording of the sign, specifically the large red STOP that could cause potentially safety issues along the State Highway":

The email finishes:

NZTA might be morons, but Kiwis are not.

The idea that motorists will slam on the brakes when they pass a 'stop three waters' banner is frankly laughable. NZTA need to pull their head in, and stop acting as lapdogs for their political masters trying to suppress New Zealanders' ability to express their views on a radical policy proposal that will result in high water costs and less democracy.

Any action that is taken against any one of our 180,000 subscribed supporters via NZTA relating to one of the Stop Three Waters signs purchased from our website will be defended, by judicial review if we must, by the Taxpayers' Union.

What makes this action particularly offensive is the fact that NZTA has not just a history of trying to suppress speech on the centre right, but actively promotes pro-government messages including on NZTA signage. Throughout 2020 NZTA allowed its digital signage networks to be misused with politically loaded “Be Kind” messages. That's to say nothing of the multi-million dollar ad campaigns they blast into Kiwis' living rooms promoting the Government's 'Road to Zero' policy.

Hundreds of fantastic New Zealanders have erected Stop Three Waters banners in every corner of the country. Is NZTA going to threaten every one of them?

The courts have been very clear that political speech is that which ought to be the most precious from a human rights perspective. If NZTA really wants to have this fight, we say bring it on.

New Zealanders with great roadside locations can purchase a Stop Three Waters banner of their own at www.taxpayers.org.nz/shop.

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.

Could term limits for local councillors may be a way to bring fresh thinking into local government?

This morning's DominionPost covers our research to identify New Zealand’s longest-serving local-body politicians.

New Zealand's longest-serving councillor is on track to notch up half a century in public office – provided voters give him the tick once again this year.

Grey District Council deputy mayor Doug Truman, 76, was first elected to a local authority in 1968, and plans to run for another three-year term in October's local body elections.

His 48 years in office to date make him by far the country's longest-serving councillor, according to information compiled by the Taxpayers' Union.

We are quite surprised by the variations in these figures.  For example, Doug Truman, who sits on the Grey District Council, has served as an elected official for 48 years whereas in the neighbouring Westland District Council, the longest serving Councillor has served for only 7 years.

Whilst we all recognise the need for organisations to have long-standing personnel with institutional knowledge, we think these figures suggest that it is timely to look at implementing term limits at local councils.
 
There are obviously huge advantages, in name recognition for example, in being an incumbent at local body elections. This means it can be hard for fresh blood to get on a council, even if they are better qualified than an incumbent. We think the Local Government Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga should consider whether term limits would improve local government decision making.

If you’ve been on a council for 6 terms – 18 years –  and you haven’t yet achieved what you set out to, it seems unlikely that you will do it by staying on Council for another 18 years.

While no one would criticise Mr Truman for his 48 years of service, we can't help but note that when he was first elected to a council in 1968, man hadn't yet landed on the moon.

RAW DATA:

Coverage of the Taxpayers' Union response to LGNZ's efforts to impose new council taxes such as local fuel, sales and even income taxes.

Taxpayers' Union fuming over council plan (3 News, 2 February 2015)

A ratepayer-funded plan which suggests imposing more taxes to raise cash for councils has the Taxpayers' Union fuming.

Rates are the primary source of income for local authorities, but in a discussion paper released today, Local Government New Zealand suggests other funding sources.

The report lists imposing road tolls or bringing in taxes on income, certain types of expenditure, fuel, or certain transactions as options.

But Taxpayers' Union executive director Jordan Williams says the average rates bill has doubled over the last two decades, and the paper is only about how to tax more.

"Instead of focusing on the quality of councils' spending decisions, this campaign is using ratepayer money on propaganda promoting new taxes," he said.

"Nowhere in the discussion paper do we see a disciplined analysis of why local government spending is out of control." [...]

-

Council Digesting Report (Rotorua Review, 4 February 2015)

ROTORUA Lakes Council (RLC) won’t rule out a raft of possible new taxes that have been outlined as options in Local Government New Zealand’s (LGNZ) funding review discussion document.

LGNZ, a lobby group made up of 78 councils, including RLC, has issued the document which outlines options for addressing shortfalls in local government funding.

The options, which it says would sit alongside rates, include a local income tax, local expenditure tax, regional fuel taxes, transaction taxes and what it calls ‘‘selective taxes’’. RLC chief executive Geoff Williams said the document was intended to stimulate a discussion about possible funding opportunities and constraints in New Zealand, and declined to rule anything out.

[...]

Unsurprisingly, Yule’s claim that the discussion paper was not meant to pre- empt an overall increase in taxes was met with some scepticism by lobby group The Taxpayers’ Union.

Local Government New Zealand, is spending considerable ratepayer money on a campaign promoting local income taxes, regional fuel taxes and regional GST-style regimes to increase the tax burden of local councils. LGNZ today launched a review document on various options for new taxes. You can download the paper here.

This diagram illiterates well the growth of local government (source):

New Zealand’s average rates bill has doubled in the last 20 years, tracking at twice the rate of inflation.

Instead of focusing on the quality of councils' spending decisions, LGNZ appear to be using ratepayer money on studies and propaganda promoting new taxes. We have long been concerned that LGNZ too often represents the interests of councils, rather than those paying the councils' bills! Nowhere in the discussion paper for example, do we see a disciplined analysis of why local government spending is out of control.

We've also been alerted to emails where LGNZ spin doctors are sending  draft opinion pieces to local mayors so that they can 'leverage local media' and promote these new taxes. 

"Trust us we're politicians"

In the LGNZ press release, the lobby group's President, Laurence Yule, says that:

“The goal is not to increase the overall tax burden for New Zealand, but rather to determine whether a different mix of funding options for local government might deliver better outcomes for the country.”

Mr Yule is telling the public that the goal isn’t to increase the overall tax burden while at the same time releasing a report that isn't on ways to save money, but on ways to tax more.

Former North Shore City Councillor, North Shore City Council David Thornton writes:

LGNZ Review is about more money for more spending

Few ratepayers object to the principal that all citizens should contribute to the cost of running their communities, and that those contributions should be within the ratepayers’ ability to pay.

The Local Government New Zealand funding review revisits many of the issues raised in the Independent Rates Review of 2007 and repeats some of the same conclusions reached then.

The difference between the two reports is that the 2007 review was looking for alternatives to rates, while this new report is aimed at raising new funds in addition to rates.

In other words LGNZ, on behalf of all councils, wants to spend more, and needs more money to feed those expansive ambitions.

We agree. The Taxpayers' Union isn't against new taxes per say. Our view is that new taxes should replace old ones (i.e. an equal decrease to compensate). In the case of local government though, LGNZ's efforts are so the local government spending binge can continue...

Poll: Should councils be given new powers to impose local GST, fuel and income taxes?

Vote by clicking here.