The Taxpayers’ Union is today welcoming the news that National is joining the ACT Party in its commitment to repeal the Government’s replacement to the Resource Management Act if it is passed before the election.

The announcement comes as a Taxpayers’ Union – Curia poll undertaken earlier this month showed strong opposition to the Government’s planning proposals. 48% of respondents believed that planning rules should be set by local councils compared with just 26% who preferred that these rules be set by the proposed regional planning committees. 26% of respondents were unsure.

The full results and demographic breakdowns are available here. 

Reacting to National’s announcement, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“This is great news for the future of local democracy. We need to ensure that we have a resource management system that is fit for purpose, drives productivity, and makes it easier for people to get things done rather than tying them up in even more red tape and bureaucracy.

“Our nationwide roadshow raised public awareness of just how bad these reforms would be. We demonstrated to politicians that there was strong public opposition to these reforms, which would lead to higher building costs, more red tape, no local control and more co-governance.

“What is particularly interesting is that supporters of all parties and across all demographics – with the exception of Wellingtonians – had more people wanting planning rules to be set by elected local councils than by the Government’s proposed regional planning committees.

“We call on the Government to listen to their own voters who recognize that these reforms are a bad idea. The Government needs to withdraw these bills and restart the RMA reform process after the election with a replacement that prioritizes local control, certainty, simplicity and private property rights.”

Responding to the publication of the Ministry for the Environment’s consultation document, New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The beauty of the Emissions Trading Scheme is that it ensures that we reduce net emissions and work towards our international climate commitments in the most efficient way possible and at the least cost to the taxpayer. But in order to do this effectively, the ETS must be neutral in the way that emissions are reduced or taken out of the atmosphere.

“The Government’s shift towards focussing on gross rather net emissions will ultimately not make any difference to tackling climate change and seems to prioritize virtue signalling over effective action. Instead it should focus on small tweaks such as removing the price floor to allow the market to clear and granting NZUs for sequestration from new carbon capture technologies.

“Concerns around the proliferation of forestry and land use more generally should be dealt with through separate environmental rules outside the ETS."

Commenting on ACT’s ‘Policing Red Tape and Regulation’ policy announcement, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“Red tape and regulation are some of the biggest hand brakes on New Zealand’s prosperity. They make it more difficult for people to run businesses, hamper growth and investment, and ultimately drive up the costs of goods and services for us all.

“Unlike tax and spend policies, new regulations get little scrutiny. This leads to rules that are often unworkable and have many unintended consequences where any benefits of regulation can be significantly outweighed by the costs.

“ACT’s proposal to apply the same discipline to analysing regulations that we already do to public spending is a sound one that would prevent ill-thought-through rules being implemented and would reduce the overall burden of red tape on New Zealand.”

Reacting to today’s policy announcements from National and the alternative budget from ACT, the Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Labour Party to copy the best parts of these proposals and show some fiscal restraint.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director, Jordan Williams, says:

“We congratulate the opposition parties for putting forward taxpayer-friendly policies and urge Labour to treat these changes as a shopping list of good ideas for fiscal discipline. Just because the opposition announced these policies doesn’t mean they own them.

“Proposals such as linking the pay of public sector chief executives to performance, targeting policies such as the winter energy payment to those most in need and providing ‘taxpayer receipts’ are likely to be politically popular among the electorate and at the same time would deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.

“At a time when the number of managers in the public service is growing at twice the rate of front-line staff, it is more important than ever that we work on improving our public sector productivity rather than throwing more money at the bureaucratic black hole. No party has a monopoly on good ideas so, when one comes up, other parties should adopt them as their own."

Responding to the Ministry for the Environment’s announcement of a review into New Zealand's Emissions Trading Scheme, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, says:

“While a review of New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme is long overdue, the Government’s prioritisation of reducing gross carbon emissions over net emissions is illogical and ill-informed. Such an approach will not help tackle climate change, will disincentivise investment in carbon sequestration technologies, and will come at an exorbitant and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer.

“The Emissions Trading Scheme is the most effective way to reduce net carbon emissions. It ensures that net emissions reduce over time while doing so in the most efficient way possible and at least cost to taxpayers. But it must be allowed to do its job.

“If the Government is serious about meeting our international climate commitments, it should work towards expanding the Emissions Trading Scheme to cover all sectors of New Zealand’s economy – including agriculture – with appropriate mitigations.

"If the Minister is worried about afforestation in New Zealand, he should open the ETS market up to the world and allow emitters to purchase credits from approved overseas sequestration programmes."

Today’s announcement that the Government is adjusting superannuation and main benefits for inflation highlights the need for a principled approach to income taxes.

“While those receiving taxpayer support get an adjustment, hard-working New Zealanders are going backwards each and every day,” says Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves.

“Indexing tax brackets for inflation is a principled policy that would ensure that people only pay more tax if they are actually earning more in real terms.

“Those lucky enough to receive a pay rise in line with inflation still end up worse off as they pay a higher proportion of their income in tax or are rocketed into higher tax brackets.

"After taxes, wages are not keeping up with inflation but the Government continues to ignore the obvious solution of income tax bracket indexation.

“Indexation would mean that, at whatever level income taxes are set, they remain at the same rate in real terms and are not increased by stealth.

"The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on the Government to index tax brackets to make our tax system more honest and shield New Zealanders from the ever-increasing cost of living."

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has welcomed the Prime Minister's announcement of $1 billion of savings from dropping unpopular policies, including that ‘cash for clunkers’ scheme, but has said that this does not go far enough.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

"This $568 million 'cash for clunkers' scheme was simply classic middle class welfare dressed up as climate action. The policy would have benefited those wealthier New Zealanders in the market for electric vehicles but wouldn’t have reduced net emissions by a single gram because transport emissions are already covered by the 'cap and trade' Emissions Trading Scheme.

“The Government has wasted billions of dollars on ineffective climate policy putting pressure on inflation and the cost of living. It is time for the remaining pointless climate policies to join this one on the scrap heap so that the Emissions Trading Scheme can do its job.

“Scrapping $1 billion of wasteful spending is, of course, welcome, but if the government is really serious about getting the focus back onto bread and butter issues, scrapping Auckland Light Rail, Three Waters and trimming the bloated public service would be good places to start. 

“Our research team can identify far more instances of wasteful spending. We will be writing to the Prime Minister offering to meet and help him trim it back. Ensuring Kiwi taxpayers get better value for money from Wellington should the priority for all politicians.”

Over the weekend, David Farrar sent an email to our supporter lists about what the Government is currently sneaking through Parliament to replace the Resource Management Act.  Here at the Taxpayers’ Union, we are no fans of the RMA.  But what is proposes is far, far worse.  As a result of enquiries today, we are copying the email for all to see.

Right now the team are working on planning for the campaign to defeat the Central Planning explained below.  The catch 22 is that it is difficult to plan when we don’t know what financial resources are available, and we don’t know that because so few Kiwis are even aware of these Bills.  Watch this space through – a campaign will be launching very soon.

I apologise that this is so long – but it is important. While Three Waters was about community/council assets, this post is about a new series of bills going through Parliament right now that will dictate what you can can do with your house, your farm, and your business. And unlike Three Waters, it is getting nearly no media attention.

David Parker's new planning bills are even worse than Three Waters – and apply to your land/house/business

Right now, the Government is sneaking through legislation that is almost identical to Nanaia Mahuta's original plans with Three Waters, but relates to our homes, town planning, consenting, and natural environment.

The short point is, if you thought Three Waters was bad, the Government's proposed replacement to the Resource Management Act is much, much worse. 

While most New Zealanders looked at the Three Waters shambles with horror, Environment Minister, David Parker, was taking notes. He’s decided to replicate the worst elements of the water reforms in his proposed replacement to the Resource Management Act. 

But you won't have read much about this issue in the media. Unlike Three Waters, there's no taxpayer-funded Government ad campaign or even much of a public discussion.

Make no mistake: The Government is trying to sneak this one through. The bills – 891 pages in total – were dumped just before Christmas and the Government closed submissions on Waitangi weekend. That – plus the fact Ministers have deliberately not promoted the bills – has meant that the media is only just starting to wake up to the possible implications of these reforms.

Under this proposed law, powers over planning and when a resource consent is required will be stripped from local councils and handed to 15 new co-governed ‘Regional Planning Committees’. That means the decisions about the building consent for your deck, new home, factory, your farm's water take, and how your city or town is planned will be made by people you cannot vote out. 'Regional Planning Committees' will be tasked with enforcing a litany of costly new rules from Wellington to restrict the way you use your property. 

I need to be clear: The Resource Management Act is broken. Its planning rules have fuelled a housing and infrastructure crisis. But we need to get RMA reform right, and David Parker’s new Soviet-style planning regime is not the answer. Instead of cutting red tape, he's come up with a cure worse than the disease.

Local control will be lost: Instead of elected decision makers, town, city and environmental planning will handed to co-governed Regional Planning Committees before the end of this year

If you thought dealing with silly rules from your local council was bad, wait until it's a co-governed Regional Planning Committee that voters cannot sack making the rules. David Parker wants to take responsibility for planning rules away from our 67 democratically elected local councils and hand it to 15 new co-governed ‘Regional Planning Committees’.

That’s right: First your council lost its responsibility for water asset management, and now it’s losing responsibility for planning. At this rate your Mayor will be responsible for little more than the library collection and the annual Christmas parade! 

Unless we act right now, the law will be passed before this year's election. And with the election result looking so close, the only way to ensure we defeat this is to blow the whistle now, so these proposals become as unpopular as Three Waters.

Think of all the conversations in your local community about zoning rules, intensification, and planning priorities. I'm no fan of my local council, but at least under the current system, voters can hold the decision makers to account. Under this new system, the decision makers will be out of town, beholden to Wellington, and insulated from accountability by layers of bureaucracy.

Each local council – even large metropolitan ones – will have just one representative on the new regional committees. That also means that local voices in, say, Waitaki will be drowned out by other committee members. Decisions over say a proposed geothermal energy plant in Taupo would be made in Hamilton by a co-governed, unaccountable, committee.

The rules even allow the Minister (currently David Parker) to make his own appointments to the Regional Planning Committees so that Wellington has people to ensure that these committees dance to the Government's tune.

And the new committees will be bound by ‘National Planning Frameworks’ issued by the Minister every nine years, dictating comprehensive environmental targets and limits, and rules governing resource allocation from Kaitaia to the Bluff. That means environmental decisions and regional 'quotas' on things like CO2 emissions will be made by Wellington.

We need your support to stop this unaccountable co-governed centralisation by Wellington.

Even more co-governance will make public input meaningless 

Under the proposed regime, all persons exercising planning power must “give effect” to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. David Parker wants to strictly enforce this rule with three new layers of co-governance: 

1. Unelected appointees from local iwi/hapū will sit on the new Regional Planning Committees with full voting rights. 
    
   • David Parker is trying to say this isn't co-governance as the proposed legislation only requires a minimum of two iwi/hapū representatives and the exact number is up to local communities. But it's not as simple as that. The committees deciding on appointee numbers for local councils and those from iwi will be bound by the principles of the Treaty. A recent Waitangi Tribunal decision makes it explicit that, "nothing less" than a 50/50 split will do in order to satisfy the so-called "partnership" principle.
     
     
2. A new, unelected ‘National Māori Entity’ will put pressure on the new planning committees to ensure that they abide by Treaty principles, and will have priority over public consultation on the new National Planning Frameworks.
   
   
3. At any time, iwi or hapū can produce a Te Oranga o te Taiao (environmental wellbeing) statement, dictating how the Minister of Environment must uphold the “intrinsic relationship” between iwi/hapū and the environment in National Planning Frameworks for which there is no appeal process outlined in the bill.

David Parker is trying to say that these reforms don't involve co-governance, but, as you can see, that is blatantly untrue.

We need your help to make sure New Zealanders know about these Bills, and step up to protect democratic accountability before it is too late.

Higher costs for ratepayers due to bureaucracy and legal minefields

These reforms mean everything from building a new deck to constructing a new hospital or supermarket will be even harder.

The legislation's first reading was snuck through just before the Christmas break. The Government wants to have it passed before this year’s election and only gave the summer holiday period for formal submissions.

Of course, our team worked over summer to get their heads around the 891 pages of legislation and made a submission. But the real fight is the political one: We need to raise public awareness.

If New Zealanders were fully aware about the true implications of David Parker’s power grab, it could turn into a real political headache for the Government just like Three Waters. 

18 months ago, the Taxpayers' Union decided that we had no option but to take on Nanaia Mahuta's Three Waters. Back then the vast majority of Kiwis were backing the Government, as very few understood the downsides of what the Government was doing. It was only after a mammoth campaign, hundreds of events, and thousands of banners, signs, and an advertising blitz across TV, radio and online did the National Party (and the media) catch on to the costs of Three Waters. Three Waters would not be the thorn in the Government's side, had the Taxpayers' Union not led the fight (and supporters like you making the campaign possible with substantial financial support).

Just like we did not let Nanaia Mahuta get away with Three Waters, we cannot let David Parker get away with these even more radical proposals.

We need to put so much political pressure on the Government that David Parker's plans become a liability for Labour’s re-election prospects and are therefore scrapped by Chris Hipkins.

Thank you for your support.

David Farrar Co-founder New Zealand Taxpayers' Union

Government U-turn highlights confused transport policy

Yesterday’s quick U-turn from the Government on the reported shift to an emissions reduction focus for the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) highlights a more fundamental problem with transport policy making. 

Forcing road users to subsidise walking, cycling and other activities is not only unfair on them, but will not achieve its desired goal of reducing emissions.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The Fund was set up with a very simple principle: The amount you pay towards the upkeep of our roads should be linked to the effect your vehicle has on them. The money raised from these taxes and charges goes into a pot that pays for roads maintenance and investment.

“But road users are now subsidizing non-road projects through the Fund, including walking and cycling routes, uneconomical railway lines, and the ‘Road to Zero’ advertising campaign too. All the while, our roads – which will always be necessary for Kiwis – continue to deteriorate

“And while the Government might have the noble motivation of reducing emissions, it misses the crucial point that our Emissions Trading Scheme means any reduction from cuts to road projects or increased public transport investment will be offset by greater emissions in other areas.

First and foremost, our thoughts are with those who are facing yet more severe weather across the North Island with Cyclone Gabrielle.

Last week was a big week for the Taxpayers' Union with multiple policy victories announced by the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins: The jobs tax was put on ice, the RNZ/TVNZ merger was scrapped, and tax relief for motorists was extended for a third time. None of this would have been possible without supporters like you. Thank you for fuelling our work and forcing Wellington to respond.

The new Prime Minister has said he wants to focus on bread and butter politics, including tackling the cost of living. The results of our first poll since Chris Hipkins took office reveal what effect this is having on how New Zealanders plan to vote in October's election. 

NEW POLL: Labour bounce but Centre-Right remains ahead – just 📊

Exclusive to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of this month's Taxpayers' Union – Curia Poll.

The two largest parties are tied at 34% – Labour is up two points on last month while National is down three points. ACT is up one point to 12% while the Greens are down three points to 8%.

The smaller parties are NZ First on 2.9%, Māori Party on 2.1%, TOP on 2.0%, NZ Outdoors & Freedom on 1.0%, Democracy NZ on 0.9%, New Conservative on 0.8%, and Vision NZ on just 0.2%.

The two biggest parties are on 46 seats each with Labour up five seats on last month and National down three. ACT is up one seat to 15 while the Greens are down four to 10. The Māori Party is up one seat to 3.

As with other recent public polls, Labour has clearly seen a bounce under Chris Hipkins's leadership, but based on this poll, the increase in support has primarily come at the expense of the Greens.

The means only a slight uptick in the combined total for the Centre-Left to 56 seats – up one from last month. While the Centre-Right dips to 61 seats – down two seats – but still has just enough to form a government. 

Net Favourability: Voters like Chippy 

Over on our website is further polling information and details on how to get access to the full report.

Taxpayer Victory! TVNZ/RNZ merger scrapped 📺🔥

Last week was a great week for taxpayers! The Government was forced to drop its expensive plans to merge TVNZ and RNZ on which it planned to spend $3 million on rebranding alone. 

The Taxpayers' Union has been at the forefront of the campaign against the merger. Far from creating a more diverse media landscape, the merger would have served to concentrate power, and erode diversity and trust in media sources. 

Our former Chairman, a former TVNZ board member, Barrie Saunders was among the first to ask the fundamental question about what problem the proposed merger intended to solve, and point out the disgraceful process in which this reform was hatched.

While one of our Board Members and former TVNZ presenter, Peter Williams, called out the merger for being a waste of money, saying: "The question I've had right from the time of the idea of merging TVNZ and Radio NZ was first mooted is 'just what problem are you trying to fix?' Is there not a better use of $370 million?"

Now TVNZ and RNZ can get back to the day job of good public service broadcasting. That means a rejection of polarization and striving to serve a wider audience rather than creating a safe space for the intellectual or metropolitan elite.

Jobs tax put on ice 💰🧊

Another taxpayer victory last week was the decision to scrap plans to introduce an unemployment insurance scheme during this parliamentary term. This proposed jobs tax would have cost the median worker more than $800 a year at a time when people are already struggling with the cost of living.

But it isn’t just the wrong time to bring in the policy. It’s the wrong policy too. Paying 80% of someone’s salary not to work for six months would have created terrible incentives for people to stay unemployed for longer, been open to abuse (by making redundancy more attractive than resigning), and would have failed to address skill shortages for sectors that are struggling to find employees. We say Labour shouldn't just delay this policy, it should be consigned to the scrap heap.

While Chris Hipkins is undoubtedly getting rid of unpopular policies to boost Labour's re-election prospects, the work of the Taxpayers' Union – supported by hardworking Kiwis like you – has been vital to ensure that voters are aware of just how bad Jacinda Ardern's policies were. 

Three Waters: How far is Hipkins prepared to go? 💦❓

While last week's bonfire of policies was a step in the right direction, we still await an announcement about Three Waters. Chris Hipkins has said his Government plans to 'refocus' the reforms – whatever that means.

Any changes must ensure that the property rights of councils are respected and that those making decisions on water infrastructure remain accountable to ratepayers. The biggest risk, however, is that the Government makes some changes that might seem big on the surface but fail to meet these key criteria. 

With the support of thousands, we have made Three Waters an albatross around the Government's neck, but we need to keep up the pressure to make it clear that cosmetic changes – such as renaming 'co-governace' to 'mahi tahi' – will not be enough. Our new 'Scrap Three Waters' banners have been doing just that with supporters across the country putting them up in recent weeks. You can get yours here. 

While we await the Government's amendments, stay tuned for a big announcement about the next step in our Scrap Three Waters campaign in the coming weeks.

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Fed Farmers' Paul Melville and Mark Hooper on the resource management reforms 🎙️

In the latest edition of Taxpayer Talk, host Peter Williams talks with Federated Farmers’ Paul Melville and Mark Hooper about the proposed new planning and environmental legislation to replace the Resource Management Act.

While there is almost unanimous agreement the much maligned RMA needs to be updated and changed, Federated Farmers have serious doubts the new Natural and Built Environments Bill and its companion Spatial Planning Bill is the way forward.

Also in this edition, a new segment called War on Waste where a member of the Taxpayers' Union staff exposes profligate spending by government or local authorities. This time researcher Alex Murphy has Auckland Council in his sights.

Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

NZ Herald PM Chris Hipkins’ bonfire of the policies - refocus sees RNZ/TVNZ merger gone, income insurance scheme to change

Newstalk ZB PM's policy bonfire- what you need to know
 
NZ Herald Chris Hipkins’ ‘policy bonfire’: Government cops criticism for refocus with more changes to come

NZ Herald Damien Venuto: The slow, painful death of the TVNZ-RNZ merger leaves media vulnerable

The Front Page Why does housing remain such a problem in New Zealand?