Commenting on the Reserve Bank’s decision to keep the Official Cash Rate (OCR) at 5.5%, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The Reserve Bank’s announcement today that the OCR will remain at 5.5% will be tough news for Kiwi families up and down the country who are struggling with the cost of living crisis.

“Businesses and homeowners who are facing mortgage renewals at high interest rates will have a rough few months ahead, and this won’t be getting easier any time soon given Westpac’s expectation that there may be further OCR hikes later this year.

“This high OCR is necessary to try and rein in the runaway inflation which this Government has caused through dangerous levels of reckless overspending. Despite warnings from RBNZ and the IMF, this Government keeps throwing taxpayers’ money down the ever-growing fiscal black hole.

“The cost of government crisis is reaching tipping point, and New Zealand needs a government which will stop shifting the burden of its financial mismanagement onto ordinary Kiwi households.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has commissioned a Bill to repeal and replace the Government’s Three Waters scheme. Law firm Franks Ogilvie has been working on the Bill for several months, with an experienced parliamentary drafter and a Technical Advisory Group.

The Local Water Infrastructure Bill builds on the model proposed to Parliament by Communities 4 Local Democracy. That model was supported by a large number of asset-owning councils across New Zealand and is similarly supported by the Taxpayers' Union. 

The Government’s Three Waters proposals would lead to higher water costs, no local control, more bureaucracy, and less democracy. The Bill project is intended to set out a substantive, workable alternative water infrastructure reform programme that addresses these concerns while fixing the problems councils currently face managing their water infrastructure.

Earlier this year, the Taxpayers’ Union Board appointed a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to provide guidance for and scrutiny of the Bill drafting process comprising the following members:

> Malcolm Alexander (Chair) – Consultant, former Board member of Infrastructure NZ, and former Chief Executive of Local Government New Zealand 

> Dr Eric Crampton – Chief Economist at The New Zealand Initiative

> David Hawkins – former Chief Corporate Affairs Officer of Watercare and former Mayor of Papakura District Council

> Councillor Sam McDonald – Christchurch City Council

> Ray Deacon – Economist at the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union and former Regulatory and Government Affairs Manager for Rio Tinto NZ

The Taxpayers’ Union is today releasing a Question & Answer document explaining how the model would work.

The Taxpayers’ Union will also make available on request – to people who can help ensure the Bill is ready to go and of high quality – the current version of the drafting instructions. They are of the type that would be given to the Parliamentary Counsel Office for Government bills.

The model proposed in the Bill was developed from published work by international water infrastructure experts Castalia, who developed Communities 4 Local Democracy’s (C4LD) model, and who have advised LGNZ, several councils and the Department of Internal Affairs on the water reforms. Castalia were consulted on aspects of the model and the Q&A.

The project expects to result in a Bill ready to be completely fleshed out soon after the election. Some of the technical details will be best done by drafters and officials with access to all the information held within the Government, and the PCO will need to review the work to ensure consistency with their current drafting style. Some important provisions of the Bill will be fully drafted and available to all parties to allow for a swift repeal and replacement of Three Waters should a Parliamentary majority exist to do so after the election. 

The project has been made possible by the donations of thousands of Taxpayers’ Union supporters across New Zealand who have supported our campaign against the Government’s Three Waters proposals.

Callum Purves, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, said:

“The Government’s Three Waters proposals would lead to higher water costs, no local control, more bureaucracy, and less democracy. While Taxpayers’ Union has successfully led the campaign against Three Waters, given that it is clear the status quo is not working, it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask ‘if not Three Waters, then what?’

“This repeal and replacement Bill project is designed to add some meat to the bones of some of the alternative proposals set out by other organisations and political parties. Our alternative for water infrastructure reform addresses concerns about the current plans while ensuring that services and upgrades can be delivered in a financially sustainable way.”

Malcolm Alexander, Chair of the Technical Advisory Group, said:

“I would like to thank the members of Technical Advisory Group for their work on this project. We have sought to present a workable alternative to the Government’s Three Waters proposals that will address the issues in the Three Waters sector, protect community property rights, and be closely aligned to the model presented to Parliament by Communities 4 Local Democracy, a consortium of 30 asset-owning councils.

“We propose that all councils are required to move their water infrastructure assets into Council-Controlled Organisations – either on their own or with neighbouring authorities – that will ensure that they are properly and professionally managed and that will have better access to finance while still respecting the property rights of local communities.

“We also propose introducing a long overdue utility regulation regime for water infrastructure. The Auditor General will have an enhanced role in scrutinising infrastructure plans while the Commerce Commission will take responsibility for economic regulation and infrastructure disclosure. Taumata Arowai retains responsibility for water safety.”

The Taxpayers’ Union understands from a senior media source that Stuff had invited competitors to a proposed meeting tomorrow with Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson with the apparent purpose of agreeing to set of principles or guidelines for how Māori and Treaty matters should be reported on by those in the mainstream media industry. The Taxpayers’ Union had earlier requested an interview with Radio NZ’s CEO on the proposed meeting, but this was not agreed to.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“Putting aside the constitutional questionability of the Minister getting together with the fourth estate executives to ‘agree’ on how a contentious matter should be reported, there appears to be Commerce Act questions about an attempt for industry collusion.

“Groupthink in our newsrooms is one thing, but agreeing with competitors on commercial conduct isn’t just wrong, it could be criminal.

“The Commerce Commission needs to launch an investigation into the circumstances of the meeting, who organised it, and what has been written about its purpose.  We hope that our source is wrong, and that nothing untoward is involved, but for the public’s trust in the media, we need them to get to the bottom of this.”

Responding to Damien O’Connor’s comments to the Red Meat Sector Conference that we “probably don’t have enough tax in this country […] If we want to continue to run our economy the way we have run it in the past, we are going to have to contribute more”, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“This Government’s default response is always to take more of New Zealanders’ hard-earned money. We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis caused by dangerous levels of wasteful overspending, and this comment shows how little regard O’Connor has for the working families of this country.”

“Core Crown spending has increased by 67.9% since 2017, from 27.7% of GDP up to 32.5% in just six short years. Despite taxpayers’ money being thrown at them hand over fist, who can honestly say that Government services have improved in this time?”

“The issue is a Government culture which sees no issue with wasting billions on consultants, middle-managers and vanity projects. If we want a prosperous economy again, we need to start cutting the waste.”

Reacting to the announcement that the Government intends to establish a climate infrastructure fund in partnership with Blackrock, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves said:

“This appears to be another Government corporate welfare slush fund that will cost taxpayers greatly without actually delivering net emission reductions. Because emissions are capped under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), any reduction in emissions in the electricity sector will simply free up carbon credits to be used for emissions elsewhere in the economy, such as manufacturing, leading to no net reduction.

“If the projects this fund invests in are worthwhile, this investment will occur in the private sector without the need for government involvement. Price signals from the ETS already encourage emissions reductions and investment in technologies where it is most financially viable to do so. This fund simply puts some of this risk on taxpayers rather than leaving it with private businesses who are best placed to make decisions around what investments are financially viable.

“It seems the Government has been deliberately unclear as to the extent for which taxpayers will be contributing to the fund in order to shy away from how much ordinary New Zealanders will be paying for this climate virtue signal. Blackrock could set up this fund without government involvement; it is unclear why taxpayers should be on the hook for a scheme which will likely end up socialising the costs and privatising the benefits of the investments made through the fund.”

With the Government books now in crisis, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Grant Robertson to slash wasteful spending and reduce the number of back-office bureaucrats before it is too late.

“Revelations that the Minister of Finance has been calling public service officials into his office to discuss financial restraint shows just how dire the Government’s financial position is,” Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves says.

“But restraint isn’t enough. With Government debt reaching almost $79,000 per household, Grant Robertson needs to significantly slash the billions in wasteful spending to help get the books back in the black.

“It’s clear that Grant Robertson is running out of excuses when it comes to justifying the Government’s monstrous budget hole. Even he knows the current state of the books is untenable.

“The actual budget deficit is already far worse than Treasury predicted and internal sources suggest that the deficit will be significantly larger by next month’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update.

“It is time for Minister Robertson to prove that he is capable of getting spending under control in order to stop inflation and create the confidence for people to invest in New Zealand and grow the economy.”

Concerned New Zealanders can sign our petition here.

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union, in collaboration with its sister group the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance,  has today published the 2023 edition of the Ratepayers' Report at www.RatepayersReport.nz  

The Ratepayers’ Report allows Kiwis to easily compare their local council’s performance and financial position for 2021/22 against others. The report provides transparency for ratepayers, with rate figures presented on a per-rating-unit basis for comparisons between district and regional councils. The Comparison Chart ranks councils by average residential and non-residential rates. 

Taxpayers’ Union National Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said: 

“The 2023 Ratepayers' Report showcases the inner workings of councils all over New Zealand. It provides an essential tool for ratepayers to evaluate their local council and hold decision makers accountable. 

"This year's report is our most comprehensive yet with brand new data aimed at arming ratepayers with all the information they need to scrutinize the decisions and spending of their local council." 

The Ratepayers’ Report is free and available to the public at www.RatepayersReport.nz.

Notable Findings

> Residential rates: Rates continue to rise, with the average residential rate for district and city councils nationwide now at $2,781 – $171 more than just last year. Carterton District Council ranks highest for residential rates at $3,938.91 with Manawatū District Council a close second at $3,713.23. The lowest average residential rates in New Zealand comes from Buller District Council at $2,155.98. 

> Debt: Auckland Council has the highest net debt as a percentage of rates income at 525% with a net debt per rating unit of $17,451. It also has the highest interest per rating unit at $673. Only 9 councils have net debt as a % of rates income at or below 0 (New Plymouth, Northland Regional, South Taranaki, Bay of Plenty Regional, Napier City, Wairoa, Kawerau, Taranaki Regional and Environment Southland.) 

> Dismissals: There were a total of 18 dismissals due to poor performance across all councils in 2021/22. Christchurch City Council had the most with 8. 

> Consultants and Contractors: Hamilton had the highest expenditure on consultants and contractors out of any council at $314,971,368 – almost 3 times more than Auckland Council. South Taranaki District Council spent the least at $155,184. There were a dozen councils that refused our request for the expenditure on consultants and contractors. 

> Salaries: Auckland Council and its CCOs pay 3,742 staff salaries more than $100,000 – an increase of 740 from 2021/22. Greater Wellington Regional Council and its CCOs employees the highest percentage of staff at salaries over $100,000 (43.67%) - The lowest is Wairoa (7.93%).

> Fiscal safeguards: Only 2 councils (down from 7) met the full criteria for prudent Audit and Risk Committees – Dunedin and Kawerau. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of the Ratepayers’ Report?  

> The Ratepayers' Report provides accountability and transparency to New Zealand ratepayers by allowing them to compare their local territorial authority with others around the country.  

Where was the data sourced?  

> The Taxpayers' Union compiled the data in the Ratepayers' Report from figures obtained under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and cover the 2021/22 financial year. 

> The data was sent to each individual authority to be review and error checked prior to public launch.  

> Population and household data is taken from Stats NZ.  

Where did the group finance figures come from?  

> Group finance figures are taken from each Council's annual report and LGOIMA requests from councils. They include figures from the council as well as all subsidiary council-controlled organisations (CCOs). 

Which councils are assessed in the Ratepayers' Report?  

> Of New Zealand's 78 territorial authorities and regional councils, 73 are examined in the Ratepayers' Report. That includes all city, district, unitary and regional councils, with the exclusion of the Chatham Islands Council (due to concerns surrounding that Council's workload pressure and unique position), as well as those who did not respond to our requests.  

Is this the first Ratepayers' Report?  

> No. The Ratepayers' Report was first published in 2014 jointly by the Taxpayers' Union and Fairfax Media (now Stuff). The Taxpayers’ Union has since published updated versions in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. This is the eighth edition, but the first to analyse regional councils.    

How are the councils grouped?  

> Councils are grouped into 4 different categories (District, City, Unitary and Regional) according to definitions from Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) 

> City councils represent a population of more than 50,000 that is predominantly urban based. District councils represent a smaller, more widely dispersed population. This allows us to make comparisons between councils of similar nature.  

How were the average rates calculated?  

> Calculating an 'apples to apples' figure for residential rates is difficult because councils use various mixes of rates, levies, and user charges. Our approach is based on work by Napier City Council to find an average residential rate. The methodology councils were asked to use to calculate the figures disclosed in the Ratepayers' Report is available here. 

> While we think this approach is useful and fair, the average residential and non-residential rate figure should be a guide only. 

> Unitary authorities (Auckland Council, Nelson City Council, Gisborne, Tasman, and Marlborough District Councils) perform the functions of a regional council and therefore can be expected to have higher rates than other territorial authorities.  

Were councils consulted in the process? 

> Yes. Every council was sent a draft version of their respective data to review. 

Can the results of the 2023 report be compared to the 2022 edition?  

> The methodology means that the per-rating unit figures can be compared with the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 report, but not with the 2018 report which used a per-ratepayer figure (aside from the average rates metric which has remained consistent).   

What are the potential limitations of the Ratepayers’ Report?  

> Empty or undeveloped sections are counted as rating units. This means the average residential rates figure for a territory with a high proportion of undeveloped sections, such as Wairoa District Council, may appear relatively low while the actual level of rates levied on an average Wairoa homeowner is likely to be higher. 

TDB Advisory and Infometrics, two of New Zealand's premier economic consultancies, have collaborated on a new analysis of the likely effects of the Government's planned tobacco crackdown.

A headline finding from their 142-page report: additional costs imposed on New Zealanders from the crackdown are conservatively estimated to total around $1.3 billion over the next ten years. That works out as an extra cost of about $3900 per current smoker to implement a set of measures that TDB and Infometrics consider "largely if not entirely redundant".

Ayesha Verrall's Smoked Tobacco Amendment (STA) will slash the number of tobacco retailers by at least 90 percent, slash the nicotine content in cigarettes by at least 90 percent, and prohibit anyone born after 2008 from legally purchasing cigarettes.

The massive costs estimated by TDB/Infometrics only cover those factors considered 'quantifiable': Costs of administration and Customs resources, costs to the retail sector, and costs to broader society including increased travel costs for smokers, increased crime from illicit trade, and impacts on the tax system.

Here's the breakdown:

Interestingly, the single largest cost is one that has received little attention so far: with a 90 percent reduction in retail outlets, smokers will be forced to get in their cars and travel far further to obtain their fix, forking out more in fuel costs and lost time. The report notes this cost will hit Māori smokers (who tend to live more rurally) especially hard.

The report goes on to examine other countries who've pursued strict restrictions on tobacco supply, finding 'little or no reduction' in actual smoking as smokers switch to black markets. Meanwhile black market-related crime increases while tax revenues crater.

On matters of public concern like tobacco harm, politicians on both sides of the political aisle suffer from a near-insatiable urge to be seen to do something. But any experienced policy analyst ought to consider the costs and benefits of a 'do nothing' option alongside proposals for intervention.

Indeed, the TDB/Infometrics report makes a surprising case for the do-nothing option: based on current trends, New Zealand is already on track to achieve its "smokefree" goal (defined by Tariana Turia back in 2011 as five percent of the population smoking) by 2026 as smokers increasingly make the switch to less-harmful vaping products. In fact, among year 10 students, the goal has already been achieved, with just three percent smoking daily.

For those specific population groups (such as Māori and Pacific) who are not on track to reach to reach the five percent goal, TDB/Infometrics recommend more targeted interventions that do not impose massive costs and fuel criminal activity.

TDB and Infometrics conclude:

Overall, this report finds the STA is largely if not entirely redundant, with the smokefree target of 5% likely to be achieved by 2026 even without the STA. The Act is also highly costly, imposing costs on society of over $1 billion, costs that do not need to be incurred. In addition, in some respects, the package may in fact be counterproductive in terms of discouraging smoking, such as if the growth in the illicit market sees reduced price (tax-free) product being more available, if reduced nicotine levels lead people to smoke more low-nicotine cigarettes to satisfy their desired nicotine levels, or if the reduction in the number of retail outlets encourages people to bulk buy cigarettes.

New Zealand's smokers are, of course, taxpayers – persecuted with some of the highest tobacco excise tax rates in the world, paying far beyond any costs they impose on the health system. Instead of forcing them to procure their fix from a criminal-led black market, we ought to be thanking them for their contribution to vital public services.

While the STA has passed all three readings in Parliament, its implementation doesn't begin until mid-2024, meaning there is still the opportunity for repeal post-election.

After successful Hamilton West and Auckland mayoral election debates last year, the Taxpayers’ Union is hosting a series of debates in the run up to this year’s election. 

The series will include debates in key electorates, a finance debate, and a debate on parties’ wider policies. They will give candidates and parties a great opportunity to set out their stall to voters in advance of the election. 

These debates will be moderated by the hosts of The Working Group podcast, Martyn Bradbury and Damien Grant. Like The Working Group, the debates will be streamed live on The Daily Blog (www.thedailyblog.co.nz), Facebook, and Freeview Channel 200. The debates will also be available on the Taxpayers’ Union website (www.taxpayers.org.nz) or to watch or listen back on demand after the event. 

Each debate will begin at 7 pm and last approximately 90 minutes. The schedule is as follows:

• Tuesday, 22 August: Napier 
• Tuesday, 29 August: Ilam
• Tuesday, 5 September: Party Policies (Auckland)
• Tuesday, 12 September: Northland 
• Tuesday, 19 September: Finance (Wellington)
• Tuesday, 26 September: Auckland Central 
• Tuesday, 3 October: Tāmaki

Exclusive Taxpayers’ Union – Curia polling will also be released prior to the electorate and finance debates. 

Register to attend one of the debates at: www.taxpayers.org.nz/debates

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for New Zealand’s Vice Chancellors to front up and justify why New Zealand’s universities are overstaffed with non academic staff.  A research report released by the NZ Initiative think tank today shows that New Zealand universities have a higher proportion of non-academic staff than any other country looked at.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“This report is a wake up call for New Zealand’s education establishment. Non-academic staff add little to research output, teaching, and university rankings.”

“Students too should be outraged. The report suggests much of their university fees are being wasted.”

“Coming at a time when universities are laying off academic staff due to cost pressures, this report, showing how bloated the headcount of pen-pushers is, will be a slap in the face to those losing their jobs.”

“If VCs can’t publicly justify this spending, why should the Government increase funding in future budget rounds? This report is basis for the next government to insist universities cut the fat before they are handed more taxpayer funding.”