Taxpayer Victory! Government scraps jobs tax (for now)

The Taxpayers’ Union has welcomed the Government’s decision to take the proposed social insurance scheme off the table for the rest of this parliament but has warned against bringing back similar proposals in future.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The Government’s unemployment insurance scheme would have hit Kiwi families and businesses hard. This proposed jobs tax would have cost the median worker over $800 a year at a time when people are already struggling with the cost of living."

“The Taxpayers’ Union welcomes the decision to take this scheme off the table, which will come as a great relief to taxpayers."

"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 unsurprisingly created perverse incentives for people to stay unemployed for longer, been open to abuse by making redundancy more attractive, and failed to address skill shortages for sectors who are struggling to find employees."

We were right: Three Waters = Higher Water Costs 💦💰

The NZ Herald has confirmed what your humble Taxpayers' Union has been saying all along – Three Waters means higher water costs. Now that the first bill to implement the Three Waters reforms has passed Parliament, the Government is moving onto the next stages. The latest bill gives powers to the four new super entities to bill ratepayers directly for water usage. This is despite the fact that these entities are not accountable to the ratepayers who pay those bills. 

In documents published alongside the new draft legislation, officials have said that "some prices could increase significantly", which completely undermines the Government's repeated claims that Three Waters is essential to reduce water costs to ratepayers. With this confirmed, it is all the more important that the next government Scraps Three Waters.

Over the summer break keep an eye out for stage two of our campaign to keep this issue in the forefront of the public's mind. If you or someone your know has a good roadside sight, click here to order your own banner.

NEW POLL: Centre-Right reaches new high in seats forecast 📊

Available exclusively to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of our December Taxpayers' Union – Curia poll. 

Here is how these results would translate to seats in Parliament, assuming all electorate seats are held:

The Centre-Right reaches its highest combined level in our poll of 64 seats and could form government. The Centre-Left drops back four seats from 56 to 52.

More good news for Luxon 👍

There is also some good news for Christopher Luxon who has closed the gap in the favourability stakes.

Jacinda Ardern’s net favourability has dropped five points compared to last month from +8% to +3%. This is a new low for the Prime Minister in our poll. 

Christopher Luxon is now almost level with the prime minister with an increase in his net favourability of five points from -3% to +2%.

But "undecided" voters not keen on the National Party leader 👀

As a note of caution, however, when it comes to undecided voters, the Prime Minister maintains a strong lead on net favourability on +1% compared with Christopher Luxon on -29%. 

This month, we also asked how people viewed Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr, and Finance Minister, Grant Robertson. It seems that voters blame them equally for the current economic situation. Both have very low net favourability ratings of -14% each.

Visit our website for more information and details of how to get access to the full polling report.

ACT is wrong on indexation 💸

The Taxpayers’ Union has long supported the indexation of tax brackets to inflation. This is to stop the Government from taking a higher share of your income each year by stealth without a single vote having been cast in Parliament.

Until recently, ACT supported this approach too. Last month ACT put out a newsletter to say it had changed its mind. One of the reasons ACT gives is that it would apparently lock in Labour’s current tax rates and would not bring about the more radical reform ACT wants to see.

Now ACT’s proposals are the most thorough of what parties are offering, and the closest to what we want to see long term. But ACT is proposing two tax brackets rather than a flat tax and therefore its own policy will still be subject to bracket creep.

One of our young researchers, Connor Molloy, has written a great op-ed that looks into the issue of fiscal drag in more detail and explains why ACT have got this one wrong. Read Connor's op-ed here.

POLL: Kiwis back lobbying cooling off period for former ministers 🥶

In the past few months, the revolving door from cabinet table to political lobbying has been in the spotlight thanks to the switch made by former Cabinet Minister Kris Faafoi. Such quick moves undermine trust in our democratic system.

Unlike in Australia and the United Kingdom, there is nothing to stop former ministers from jumping straight into the world of lobbying and monetising their recent intel and contacts. We have been calling for a cooling-off period to be introduced to prevent this.

Last week, we released polling showing that 62% of New Zealanders supported a two-year cooling-off period for former ministers. 14% of respondents were opposed while 24% were unsure.

It is a privilege to represent New Zealanders in Parliament: Former politicians should not be using their positions to make a personal profit.

We now need to see action—not just words. We have called on all parties to work together on a Parliamentary Bill to bring New Zealand into line with other Westminster-style parliaments and ban the revolving door of former ministers going straight into for-profit lobbying.

Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams: Andrew Bayly + Dr James McDowall MP🎙️

There have been two editions of Taxpayer Talk with Peter Williams since our last update. 

In the first episode, Peter speaks to National Party MP and Revenue Spokesperson, Andrew Bayly. They discuss the Inland Revenue Department's new powers to request information from individuals. 

In 2020, while all the attention was focused on the new 39% top tax rate, another clause was added into the Tax Administration Act 1994 that gives the IRD Commissioner the power to demand any information from individuals that they consider relevant for a purpose relating to the development of policy for the improvement or reform of the tax system.

Listen to the episode here.

In the second episode, Peter hosts ACT Party MP Dr James McDowall to discuss his candidacy for the Hamilton West by-election. 

The three highest polling candidates for Hamilton West were all invited to appear on this podcast but only Dr McDowall agreed to appear. Peter and James discuss the issues facing the electorate, his background before politics and why he wants to be Hamilton West's local MP.

Listen to the episode here.

Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio

Thank you for your support.

Yours aye,

Callum Purves Campaigns Manager New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Newshub Ratepayers unsure of mayor Wayne Brown's proposal to sell Auckland International Airport shares

Hawke's Bay Today Hawke's Bay councils plan to hike rates for years to come – but can we afford it?

Stuff Majority of people don't want RNZ and TVNZ to merge, survey says

Waikato Times National holds double-digit lead over Labour in Hamilton West poll

NZ Herald Poll: National's Tama Potato leads Hamilton West byelection race

Pacific Mornings Jordan Williams Interview 

The Working Group with Gerry Brownlee, Matt McCarten and Taxpayers' Union

Otago Daily Times Tear down this wall

RNZ Media Merger meets mounting resistance as clock ticks

CLARIFICATION: In this opinion piece, Connor mentions David Seymour's support for Simon Bridges's indexation bill as an example of how ACT's policy on this issue has shifted.

David Seymour got in touch to point out that he made clear in his speech that his support for Bridges's bill at first reading was conditional on an amendment that would use the revenue earnt from fiscal drag to lower the top tax rate and flatten the tax system. He is quite correct and this particular criticism was unfair and we apologise for the oversight. 

The following is an op-ed by Taxpayers' Union Researcher Connor Molloy

ACT claims to be the party of principle, but when it comes to indexing income tax brackets to inflation, it appears they have lost their way. After rightly criticising the National Party for their U-turn on abolishing Labour’s 39% top tax rate last month, ACT has now done a public U-turn of their own.

Last year, David Seymour supported Simon Bridges’s member’s bill to index tax brackets to inflation. Then, in August this year, Mr Seymour said that tax bracket indexation is “a good start” but that it didn’t go far enough. And now ACT has said they don’t support the policy at all. That’s quite a shift in the space of a year.

But Seymour and ACT have it wrong this time.

When inflation occurs, the prices of goods and services increase, which diminishes the purchasing power of each dollar we earn. This means that if you receive a pay rise in line with inflation, you are not actually earning more income in terms of what you can buy but you end up paying more tax.

Governments of all stripes have been happy to cash in on inflation when individuals’ tax bills increase as a result of being pushed into higher tax brackets or paying a higher proportion of their income at their top marginal rate. Without any consultation or justification, the government is able to receive automatic, unlegislated tax hikes by stealth. This is known as ‘tax bracket creep’ and it makes us all poorer.

ACT’s November newsletter argues against tax bracket indexation on the basis that focusing on taxes without reducing spending leads to more government debt, which is effectively just higher taxes in the future. We agree that tax relief should be funded by savings in government expenditure, but ACT misses the point.

Indexation is not a tax cut. Without indexation, governments get a free pass to increase spending because it is already paid for through bracket creep. Indexation does not reduce the total tax take, it simply doesn’t increase it.

ACT’s new found opposition to indexation stems from confusion because they wrongly conflate different policy issues that should be looked at separately – indexation, distribution of the tax burden, and government spending.

In a system that has indexation, there is nothing to prevent a party from implementing policies that shift the tax burden or cut spending.

ACT’s alternative budget addresses the latter two issues by proposing cuts to government spending, significant tax reductions and a simplification of income tax rates. We support the principle of their proposals but the problem of bracket creep will persist.

ACT argues that “[b]racket creep is not a problem in itself, it is a symptom of progressive taxation.” It’s true that if we all paid a single income tax rate, we would not need indexation. But ACT’s proposed tax system is not flat. Mr Seymour has abandoned his own  2019 tax policy of a single income tax rate. Mr Seymour’s 2022 policy is designed in a way that, over time, taxes would steadily increase year on year.

If ACT’s new tax proposal had been in place since 2017, someone earning $80,000 today would be paying $1050 more tax each year than someone on the same real income in 2017.

ACT could easily advocate for their newly proposed two-tier income tax regime to be implemented and then be indexed to inflation to ensure that the real tax rates remain constant unless changed by Parliament.

It is difficult to understand how ACT reached their current position on this policy when they accept that bracket creep is a tax increase by stealth. Each of their concerns arise from other factors that can be addressed through policies that are not incompatible with tax indexation.

If Seymour truly thought his proposed tax settings were the best for New Zealand, he would commit to indexing them. Otherwise he needs to show some courage and campaign for his 2019 flat tax proposal that would fix this issue completely.

Seymour is clearly positioning himself to play a major part in the next Government. But this U-turn is wrong both in terms of principle and in politics. He should rejoin the cause that even the Nats agree with us on: ‘No taxation without indexation!’

The Inland Revenue Department now has the power to force anyone to reveal personal information about themselves and their family. The Government says that this change is just to help inform tax policy, but as we have seen overseas, this could have more wide-reaching implications.

In 2020, under urgency, the Government passed an amendment to the Tax Administration Act (1994) sneaking in section (17GB) which allows IRD to force New Zealanders to provide personal information regarding their spending matters. At the time, Revenue Minister, David Parker, explained that the amendment was only to solidify the powers which the IRD already had. If that was the case, however, why did this need to be passed under urgency?

Quick use was made of the alteration. A compulsory survey was sent out to some of the wealthiest New Zealanders shortly after the bill was passed, asking probing questions to gain insight into the spending habits of both them and their families. You might wonder why you should be bothered about these changes—the project does after all only affect 400 individuals—but given the power that the IRD now holds, there is no reason why this won’t rapidly expand. We know what dangers can occur from politicizing the tax department just by looking overseas. 

Efforts to weaponize the USA’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) were rife throughout the 60s and early 70s and the service has seen continued abuses even in recent history. John Andrew’s book ‘Power to Destroy’ outlines numerous breaches of the IRS across the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon years where he explains how the department evolved into a political vehicle used as a defense against any dissidents of the administration.

The abuse consisted mainly of auditing individuals and organizations who spoke out against the administration. This would usually be to reveal fraudulent activity, or to simply bombard opponents with lengthy processes and in-person investigations. Through the Kennedy administration, under what was known as the Ideological Organizations Project (IOP), right-wing groups were explicitly targeted, where audits were used to defund these organizations by revoking their tax exemptions.

“Despite the cover of tax audits, the IRS was certainly aware that ideology and political activities rather than tax liabilities had singled out these organizations as targets.” (Andrew, 27, on IRS abuses under Kennedy).

This IRS behaviour continued after Kennedy’s assassination and into Johnson’s term, but Richard Nixon took it to an extraordinary level, aiming for widespread ‘ideological conformity.’ His enemy lists go down as perhaps the most well-known abuses of the Internal Revenue Service in American history. Their inception and operation represented a large portion of continued IRS abuse throughout the late 60s to early 70s in which audits were used to harass any opponents of Nixon and his administration. This, in addition to the discouragement of tax audits on his close allies, revealed a process of rewarding friends and punishing enemies. In general, it was an attempt to demonize his critics, ‘turning differences of opinion into matters of state security’.

“Attempts to politicize the IRS began almost as soon as Nixon took the oath of office. His first objective was to find a compliant individual for the office of IRS commissioner. Politics and Ideology were his chief concerns…”  (Andrew, 180).

Andrew’s book also discusses the much lesser-known and even more shocking Secret Service Staff (SSS). The group managed a far more extensive exploitation of the department, where the service dug into the territory of mass information gathering, rather than enforcement of tax laws. It continued to target dissidents of the Nixon administration as well as critics of the IRS, though unlike the enemy lists, it was primarily an IRS-led exercise.

“More than any other IRS program, the SSS exemplified an abuse of the income tax system. It focused more on intelligence gathering than it did on enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code.” (Andrew, 251).

How does this relate to the New Zealand context? Section 17GB doesn’t allow for subsequent prosecution from any findings under the law, but with such a broad scope for questioning, it opens the door for governments of any stripe plus the IRD to gather more and more personal data related to things further and further away from the purposes of the revenue service. While this may start off as a well-intentioned data-compiling effort to ‘inform future tax policy’, there is little in the way of protection to prevent the rule from turning the IRD into a partisan weapon.

As we see in America, political targeting and nontax-related investigations by the IRS were continuously used in one form or another, whether it was against the left or the right. There is no reason why the same won’t happen here. The importance of the IRD being apolitical is paramount and the relationship between Government and the department must be managed carefully.

Listen above to a recent episode of Taxpayer Talk discussing the issues with these new powers.

Regardless of any sinister intentions that may reveal themselves, the enactment of this law presents a clear attempt to gather information on an enormous scale. The extent of what data can be obtained is egregiously broad, and this means that extremely sensitive material could be vulnerable. However, while this may be through intentional Government prying, there is a far greater risk of breaches through IRD incompetency, negligence, or maleficence. In the US there were significant issues with unauthorized access by staff through the 90s in which service suffered serious security deficiencies and provided inadequate attempts to solve these problems according to a GAO report.

This Government has shown it will do anything to gain insight into people’s lives. Just a few years ago we saw IRD inquiring into where Kiwis sat on the political spectrum. Intelligence gathering is becoming a larger part of society more generally, with sensitive data less and less protected. We should be able to expect IRD to act independently from Government and other intelligence departments when so much power is at stake.

“The IRS often shared the results of its intelligence gathering with other intelligence agencies, congressional committees or the White House. Sometimes this was done at its own initiative; other times it stemmed from specific requests or political pressures.” (Andrew).

It is unclear exactly what Minister Parker and the Government’s intentions are more broadly with the enactment of this new power, but there is no reason to be certain that the IRD won’t be exploited in the future if this clause is not revoked.

In closing, let’s be clear: This change gives the IRD too much power. There is no viable cause for the taxman to be inquiring about your spending habits when you’ve done nothing to be suspected of being unlawful. And when family members including partners and children are also being probed, it becomes a completely inappropriate use of the powers of the department. It has started with those at the top, but there is no reason why this overreach won’t trickle its way down the pyramid.

It should not be underestimated what governments are capable of, especially when they have a powerful institution such as the IRD at their fingertips. That’s why we at the Taxpayers’ Union are opposing this change with our Nosey Parker campaign. You can help stop future violations of privacy by using our email tool to let David Parker know exactly what you think.

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union is disturbed to see the Human Rights Commission suggesting economic policies for which they clearly have no knowledge or understanding of. 

The Commission recently called for urgent action on rent control, an idea normally spouted by economically-illiterate far-left organisations such as the Green Party. 

There is strong consensus among economists, along with substantial real world evidence that shows rent controls reduce housing supply, cause deterioration in quality and harm those who are struggling to find accomodation. The government's own advisors warn against rent controls stating that "evidence from overseas shows that there are significant adverse consequences in the housing market, such as disincentivising supply, driving up prices in parts of the market where rents are not controlled, and reducing incentives for landlords to maintain their properties."

Economist Assar Lindbeck famously said, "in many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city - except for bombing" – we agree.

Economics 101 will tell you that when you reduce the price of something, the supply of that thing will reduce. In the case of rental properties this is clear and can be logically explained.

Firstly, rent controls reduce the potential return that landlords and developers can get on their investment. This disincentivises them from investing in building new properties or renting out those that are currently vacant. At a time where we need to be building more houses, discouraging people from doing just that only makes our housing crisis worse. 

When the price for a good is below the market price, there are more people wanting to rent and less people willing to supply rental properties to the market. This creates a shortage of rental properties making it difficult for those who are not currently locked in to rent-controlled accomodation. This results in reduced mobility in the rental market as people know they will be unable to find new accommodation.

Because people are unwilling to leave their current properties, we end up with a large number of people in living situations that are neither suitable or efficient. Families who have more kids or people getting into relationships stay in their small overcrowded houses, not willing to risk being thrown onto the street. Similarly, empty nesters are less likely to move out of their rent controlled properties and end up living in larger properties that would be better suited to more people. This has other wider societal effects such as people not moving to areas with more job opportunities or for education. 

Landlords are also more likely to sell their properties to owner-occupants in order to realise the full market value of their property. This results in the supply of housing moving away from those most in need of affordable housing towards young professionals who are fortunate enough to afford a deposit, perhaps with some help from the bank of mum and dad.

Some may argue that the impacts of this can be mitigated through exemptions for new builds or certain kinds of property. This is also a bad idea because, in a rent controlled market, any properties not subject to controls face high rental prices, pushed up by the spill-over of people unable to win the lottery of a rent controlled house. Furthermore, overseas analysis says that when these kinds of exemptions are in place, landlords convert properties to be compliant with exemptions or even demolish them completely to rebuild as uncontrolled new builds.  

The final point is that the conditions of homes will deteriorate. When landlords get less return on their properties, they invest less in them. When there is a shortage of housing it is easy to find new tenants so anyone complaining will be turfed out, tenants are unlikely to risk this. 

If the price of groceries is too high, we don't put a cap on the maximum price for a loaf of bread. Instead, we look for ways to increase competition in the market such as by reducing barriers to entry as recommended by the commerce commission. The same thinking should be applied to renting.

If you want cheaper rent and better conditions, the simple fact of the matter is that we need more houses. We want a renters market where landlords are competing for tenants, undercutting each other with lower prices and higher quality. In the mean time, we can create more competition in the market by significantly reducing the regulations on rental properties.

Allowing people to rent out properties that are not compliant with current standards provides lower cost alternatives to those who want it. These kinds arrangements won't be suitable for everyone but provide a low cost alternative to those who are willing to accept it while simultaneously reducing the demand (and cost) of all other available properties. Reducing red-tape on constructing and renting out 'tiny houses' on vacant land also provide quick, low-cost solutions in the short term.   

We invite anyone from the Human Rights Commission, the Green Party or any other organisation advocating for rent controls to join us for a debate on our podcast. In the mean time the Human Rights Commission should stick to their remit and take some time to listen to our podcast on this issue with Brad Olsen. 

About two weeks ago Labour released its tax policy programme that it intends to implement if elected Government come 20 September.  Predictably the increase in personal tax rates by 3% to 36%, and the confirmation of a capital gains tax, was widely criticised by senior National ministers as envy taxes and a hindrance to investment.

Whatever one’s personal view, the good news for voters is that for perhaps the first time in a number of elections there are now very clear differences between the two large political parties on taxation policy. While tax will unlikely be the determining factor of which party voters will support, it is at least good to see some very clear and distinct alternative thinking between the two main political parties. The most obvious difference being a capital gains tax.

There is little doubt that a capital gains tax will come to New Zealand eventually. Whether it is in 2015, 2018 or 2028, New Zealand will get a capital gains tax. We are one of the only developed countries not to have a capital gains tax and while it is true that it takes some years before it becomes a significant revenue contributor, once implemented it will influence investment decisions and also contribute towards our infrastructure requirements and social spending needs. It is difficult to rationally argue against a capital gains tax on economic grounds. However, the timing of when such a tax should be introduced, and the immediate impact this might have on investment, are issues that voters will be weighing up. 

As someone that has a good understanding of how large companies structure their New Zealand business investments, it’s disappointing that almost all parties continue to seek to score political points at the expense of multi-nationals. Labour is no exception in making its tax policy announcement, highlighting its intention to provide additional funding to enable many specialist tax investigators to base themselves in the downtown offices of those multi-nationals considered to be serial tax avoiders. Apparently some $200 million per annum of additional tax revenue will be raised simply by doing this. Whether this is politics or a genuine expectation on the part of Labour’s finance spokesman David Parker is something that could be debated well into the night. National has not been innocent of similar point scoring and regularly highlights how much extra resource and effort it is putting into the fight against large multi-national tax avoidance.

The actual reality of the situation, however, is that our Inland Revenue Department is already perhaps one of the most aggressive revenue authorities in the developed world when it comes to applying the tax avoidance provisions to collect additional revenue. Where taxpayers legitimately take a tax position that the Commissioner does not like, all too often the response is not one of challenging the technical merits of the position, or recommending to Parliament a legislative response is required, it is to jump straight to applying the tax avoidance provisions to achieve the outcome the Commissioner considers just.

The impact of this approach on new investment in New Zealand is difficult to gauge, however, there is little doubt that foreign investors are not only aware of the “avoidance risks” of investing in New Zealand, they also place a risk factor on New Zealand investment that did not previously exist. Basing many specialist tax investigators at the premises of multi-nationals is therefore highly unlikely to bring in any more additional revenue than is already being collected; and certainly not the $200 million per annum that Mr Parker has budgeted. 

Without fundamental reform of how we tax non-residents, there is little that can be done to collect tax revenue from companies that do not have a significant presence in New Zealand. The solution lies in making New Zealand a jurisdiction where multi-nationals wish to be based, not in applying the tax avoidance provisions to those companies that currently are based here.

Remembering that this “tax avoidance” initiative announced by Labour is about ensuring everyone pays their fair share of tax, it was disappointing that perhaps the most obvious source of additional revenue under the “paying your fair share” heading has been overlooked. Rather than seeking to gain headlines at the expense of multi-nationals, a much greater return on investment could be achieved by targeting additional resources at our black economy. Estimated at as much as $20 billion by some economists, if only GST was collected on just 20% of this, an additional $600 million more tax revenue would result. This is greater than all of Labour’s personal tax hike, the capital gains tax and the additional $200 million avoidance revenue combined. If income tax was also collected this additional revenue could potentially double. Reduce the black economy by half, and up to $3 billion of additional tax revenue could be collected.

If Government, regardless of political persuasions, is serious about ensuring everyone pays their fair share of tax, then surely this must be where the significant investment is made. Better use of technology and a more strategic approach to information sharing could result in enormous amounts of additional revenue coming from a large sector of society which illegally operates outside the tax system.

Grandstanding at the expense of multi-national companies, whose investment dollars New Zealand needs if we are to prosper long term, is not a good look and will do nothing to raise additional tax revenue or encourage new investment. Our Inland Revenue officials are already overzealous in their application of the tax avoidance rules and if anything they should be encouraged to pull back a tad rather than become even more aggressive.

Regardless of the winner on September 20, the challenge for the post-election Government is to grow our revenue base in a manner that does not discourage investment and truly does result in everyone paying their fair share. Tax should be used as a tool to encourage, not discourage investment….and anyone operating outside of the tax system should be the focus of significant additional audit activity.

This article is the opinion of KPMG Tax Partner Tony Joyce

Yesterday the Labour Party confirmed its proposal for a new Children's Ministry and Minister. The Taxpayers' Union emailed Jacinda Ardern, the party's Spokesperson for Children.

Dear Ms Ardern,

We understand from your public comments today that the Labour Party is proposing a new “Children’s Ministry” and “Children’s Minister” (refer to http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1312/S00106/report-slams-government-inaction-on-protecting-our-kids.htm).

The Taxpayers’ Union supports all evidence based measures to help Kiwi kids succeed. We are not certain what yet another ministry (and job title) will achieve in terms of results on the ground. As you are probably aware we welcomed your announcement last month to abolish the Families Commission quango, a move we hoped signalled Labour’s intention to divert resources into front line services, rather than bureaucrats writing reports such as the one titled “Eating Together at Mealtimes”.

As such, we seek the background material on the proposed Ministry/Minister that would answer the following questions:

1. What are the cost projections to establish the Ministry?
2. What is the projected per year baseline funding?
3. Will the Ministry’s primary focus be policy advice or service delivery? If the latter, what responsibility and resources will be taken away from CYF, MSD or other ministries/departments? 
4. In terms of the number of FTE employees, how large do you propose the Ministry to be?
5. Can you point to any overseas models or research which would indicate how you propose the new Ministry will work, its service delivery, and outcomes?
6. How would the Ministry differ from the existing Families Commission?

We propose to post this email on our website. If you have any objection, please let me know without delay.

New Zealand Taxpayers' Union Inc.  

Once we have a response, we'll post here.

In the mean time, we're planning our activities for election year. We're considering a 'cost calculator' service to track the promises from each party and check what politicians plan to do with taxpayers' money.  Do you think it's worth us doing? Give us your thoughts by commenting on our Facebook page.