The 2026 Ratepayers’ Report – the local council league tables – shows that among New Zealand’s biggest urban councils, staffing costs have become a major burden on households.  

While Auckland runs the country’s largest council machine in absolute terms, three other councils stand out for punishingly high staffing costs per household. Tauranga is costing households $2,047 in staff spending alone, Hamilton City $1,955, and Wellington City $1,919. 

Across the five councils, at least 324 council staff are paid more than $200,000 a year, with 88 paid $256,800 - more than a Government minister (outside of cabinet). 

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Josh Van Veen said: 

"At a time when families are cutting back, councils are asking ratepayers to fund ever-larger payrolls and management structures."

"For households feeling the pressure of high rates, these figures confirm exactly what they have long suspected: too much of their money is being swallowed by council staffing costs before a single pothole is filled."

"Wellington, Hamilton, and Tauranga lead the pack on a per-household basis. Auckland may spread its costs across a bigger base, but it still runs a vast bureaucracy that would make even Wellington blush."

"These figures suggest that the idea of 'public service' appears to have disappeared from local government. In some small towns now, the best paid jobs are at the local council. That's not sustainable."

"Local councils often claim that rates hikes are needed to fund infrastructure. But time and time again, the extra money goes on staffing. That is why capping rates to inflation is overdue."
 

NOTABLE FINDINGS 

• Tauranga is the most staffing-expensive of the metro councils on a per-household basis, with staff costs of $2,047 per household. 

• Wellington has the densest workforce, at 19.3 FTE per 1,000 households, and the highest consultant-and-contractor spend per household at $736 per household. 

  • This is 28 percent more than second-placed Hamilton City Council, which spent $575 per household. 
  • Christchurch refused to declare their contractor cost, but spent $72,416,538 on consultants, at $436.20 per household. 

• Hamilton is the most top-heavy structurally, with 26.8 percent of staff in management/comms roles. 

• Auckland ratepayers are not just funding services; they are propping up a bureaucracy with 948 managers and 77 communications staff. 

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has today released a new briefing paper, The Wealth Tax Fantasy, exposing the economic risks and unrealistic assumptions behind the Green Party’s proposed wealth tax. The paper finds the policy would hit farmers, retirees, and small business owners while raising far less revenue than claimed.

Taxpayers’ Union Policy Analyst, Austin Ellingham-Banks, said:

“The Greens are proposing one of the most aggressive wealth taxes in the developed world, but the numbers simply don’t stack up.”

“The idea this only hits the ‘top 3 percent’ is misleading. Retirees, farmers, and small business owners are already over the threshold — and without inflation adjustment, more Kiwis will be dragged in every year.”

“For farmers, the tax bill can exceed what the farm actually earns. For small businesses, it means paying tax on assets, not income, forcing owners to cut back investment or sell up.”

“And it’s double taxation. Income that’s already been taxed gets taxed again, year after year, just for being saved or invested.”

“Overseas experience is clear: wealth taxes drive investment offshore and raise less than promised. Treasury has already warned the Greens’ approach would be economically costly.”

“This policy is light on evidence, heavy on wishful thinking, and ultimately just another tax on aspiration.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers' Union has today released a new report, Green with Envy: Wealth, Death, and Trust Taxes Examined, exposing the real-world impact of the Green Party's proposed $17 billion tax grab. The report finds the policies would hit far more than the super-wealthy, catching homeowners, farmers, retirees, and small business owners across the country.

Taxpayers’ Union Policy Analyst, Austin Ellingham-Banks, said:

"The Greens are proposing one of the most aggressive tax regimes of its kind anywhere in the developed world, resulting in a broad-based raid on Kiwis who’ve worked hard, saved, and built something over a lifetime."

"The idea this only hits the wealthy simply doesn't stack up. One in five Kiwi homes is held in a trust, and the Greens would tax those assets from the first dollar. In Auckland, that means an annual bill of over $18,000 on a mortgage-free family home, or $3,600 for first home buyers with a 20 percent deposit."

"And it doesn't stop there. A 33 percent death tax would force many families to sell farms, homes, or businesses just to pay the bill. Inheriting the average dairy farm would trigger a $1.2 million tax bill. There is nothing fair about taxing grief, or taxing the same income again when it's earned, saved, and finally passed on."

"Most countries that have tried wealth taxes have scrapped them because they drive investment and talent offshore. Death taxes are even worse, New Zealand tried one and abandoned it in 1993 because it crushed farming families and raised almost nothing."

“This package is light on evidence, heavy on populism, and green with envy.”

A new Taxpayers’ Union briefing paper released today finds claims that income inequality in New Zealand is worsening simply do not match the evidence.

Based on work by Treasury officials on income distribution from 2007 to 2023, The Myth of Rising Income Inequalityfinds inequality peaked around 2012–13 and has since fallen, leaving it lower in 2023 than at the start of the period.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Austin Ellingham-Banks says the findings undermine calls for higher income taxes justified on the basis of rising inequality.

“The narrative that inequality is spiralling out of control simply isn’t supported by the data. Analysts at Treasury show inequality peaked more than a decade ago and has since fallen.”

“Raising income taxes would impose economic costs without solving the real issues facing New Zealanders. Kiwis are struggling because of weak economic growth and the cost-of-living crisis. Hiking income tax won’t fix that; pro-growth policies will.”

The full report, The Myth of Rising Income Inequality, is available here.

A new report on New Zealand’s illicit tobacco market shows the Government’s tobacco excise policy is blowing smoke up gangs and criminals — while driving the first increase in smoking rates in decades.

The report by FTI Consulting reveals that illicit tobacco now makes up 27 percent of all cigarettes smoked in New Zealand, up from 23.6 percent last year and 16.5 percent in 2022. The result: over $600 million in lost excise revenue in 2024 — and an increase in smoking rates.

Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan Williams said:

“This is textbook Laffer Curve economics. The Government has pushed excise rates so high that every further tax increase now reduces the tax take. While tax receipts for tobacco products are falling, demand hasn’t disappeared — it’s just gone underground."

“With nearly a third of cigarettes smoked in New Zealand now illicit, the losers are taxpayers, the health system, and legitimate retailers. The winners are the counterfeit Chinese producers, the smugglers, and organised crime."

“The irony is staggering: years of punitive tax hikes meant to cut smoking have instead increased smoking while starving the Treasury of hundreds of millions in revenue. If the Government is serious about a smoke free New Zealand, it needs to stop virtue signalling and get serious about enforcing the law.”

“Over-taxation has created a whole new market for dirt-cheap counterfeit cigarettes. That means while the tax receipts are going down, the actual number of people smoking is going up. This report should be a wake-up call.”

Going for Growth: Taxpayers’ Union urges Government to adopt Full Capital Expensing in new briefing paper  

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is today launching the first in a series of briefing papers aimed at tackling the country’s long-standing under-capitalisation and low productivity. Titled Going for Growth: Full Expensing of Capital Expenditure, the paper makes the case for a tax policy with a proven track record of boosting investment, productivity, and wages. 

Full Capital Expensing allows businesses to immediately write off the cost of new equipment, machinery, and technology, rather than spreading the deduction over years under complex depreciation schedules. This policy has been successfully implemented in the United States and the United Kingdom, driving economic growth and increasing tax revenue in the long run. 

The briefing paper can be downloaded here (or read below).

Economic growth is not just a theoretical concept—it’s the key to higher wages, better public services, and greater economic opportunities for future generations. Full Capital Expensing is a no-brainer that would supercharge investment and make New Zealand businesses more productive.

With Finance Minister Nicola Willis set to deliver Budget 2025 in less than three months, the Taxpayers’ Union is urging the Government to seize the opportunity and implement the policy to come into effect on Budget night. 

If Christopher Luxon is serious about growth, Full Capital Expensing should be at the top of his agenda. And if the Government really want to put a rocket under the economy, they could adopt the ‘use it or lose it’ approach used by Donald Trump and Rishi Sunak – making the policy time-limited to encourage businesses to bring forward investment decisions.

The briefing paper highlights the success of Full Capital Expensing in other jurisdictions and details how New Zealand can implement it effectively. 

Politicians love to dangle short-term sweeteners in front of voters, but real economic growth comes from policies that drive productivity. Unlike tax cuts designed to boost consumer spending, Full Capital Expensing supports the kind of investment that lifts the entire economy.

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Kiwis who support pro-growth policies to endorse the initiative and send a clear message to the Government. 

Poll after poll shows Kiwis are tired of managed decline, and they want more than fiddling round the edges from Budget 2025. Here’s a cost-effective solution which will go a long way to breaking us out of our economic downward spiral.

A new report by Taxpayers’ Union Research Fellow, Jim Rose,analysing the impacts of implementing a tax-free threshold concludes that the policy would be an expensive and poorly targeted way of reducing the tax burden and increasing after-tax incomes of New Zealand families.

Key findings of the report include:

> The introduction of a tax-free threshold is poorly targeted with many of the intended beneficiaries of the policy already receiving other Government support such as benefits, superannuation and tax credits, which could be increased without spillovers to other higher income groups.

> The more important tax threshold that needs to be adjusted is the $48,000 income tax threshold that when crossed sees individuals paying a 30% marginal tax rate. Given that a full-time minimum wage worker earns $47,216 annually, they only need to work one additional hour a week or get a 40 cent per hour pay rise in order to be pushed into the higher tax rate. This, combined with the 27% abatement of Working for Families tax credits, can create punishing effective tax rates well above 50%, which has significant impacts on incentives to work.

> Most of those in incomes low enough to substantially benefit from a tax-free threshold are either in groups where more targeted support can be provided (such as those listed above), are students working part time, or are second earners, again working part-time.

> The tax-free thresholds proposed by the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, along with the one considered earlier in the year by Labour, would cost more than what is currently spent on Working for Families but spills over to many taxpayers who do not need it, rather than just those the policy intends to help.

Commenting on the report, Taxpayers’ Union Head of Campaigns, Callum Purves, said:

“While it might be seen as appealing at first, the introduction of a tax-free threshold is arguably one of the least effective tax cuts. It is poorly targeted and doesn’t address the real issue, which is high marginal tax rates for primary earners in a household. Marginal tax rates matter because the impact on incentives to work, invest and up-skill along with being key determinants for whether people come to New Zealand or if our best and brightest decide to head overseas for a better return for hard work.

“The Taxpayers’ Union would of course prefer a tax-free threshold be introduced to the current high-tax status quo if it was funded by reductions in wasteful spending. However, there are far more effective options which should be explored instead, such as reducing the tax burden at the point where it hits the hardest by increasing the income threshold at which the 30% tax bracket kicks in.

“Hiking taxes even further to fund a tax-free threshold is simply untenable. The taxes proposed by the Greens and Te Pāti Māori (and previously by Labour) would economically ruin New Zealand by punishing innovation, investment, and success, draining New Zealand of the income needed to sustainably fund such a threshold.” 

The Full Report can be read below or by clicking here:

A new report published by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union analysing the impacts of taking GST off fresh fruit and vegetables concludes that the policy would be expensive, complicated, poorly targeted and would see most of the benefits going to supermarkets rather than consumers. 

Using a collection of the leading research on GST and VAT systems from around the world, the report concludes:

> Evidence of significant litigation internationally over the categorisation of certain food products demonstrates the significant cost and bureaucratic complexity of determining whether different items should be zero-rated or not.  

> The inherent complexity of a GST system with a zero-rating regime adds significant compliance costs to small and medium sized businesses who currently enjoy the benefits of a system that is simple to calculate and administer. 

> Taking GST off fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables will not see a 100% pass through to consumers and is likely to be substantially less than this. Any pass-through of less than 100% therefore leads to wasted money which would be more effectively spent on other social policy tools such as an increase in Working for Families payments.

> The lack of competition in the New Zealand grocery sector means that consumers are even less likely than their international counterparts to see the GST reduction result in lower prices at the checkout. 

> Removing GST off food items is a poorly targeted way of reducing the cost of living for those most in need with most of the benefit going to those on higher incomes.

> Undermining the GST system for fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables is likely to lead to a slippery slope where lobbyists push for more exemptions to be made to other products such as other basic foods, sanitary products and children’s nappies which would further erode the efficiency and simplicity of the current system. 

In response to the report, Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“A flat-rate GST system with few exemptions is one of the few things economists have been able to almost universally agree on as being good policy. It is a shame that certain politicians and political parties are willing to go against the overwhelming consensus for a policy that supposedly focus groups well.   

“The Finance Minister’s own comments in relation to GST before the policy was announced shows that he knows creating GST exemptions is a bad idea, a sentiment which was also shared in earlier comments from former Revenue Minister David Parker and former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The Labour Party strategy seems to be one of simply hoping that New Zealanders are too silly to see this policy for what it is.

“If the Government wants to bring down grocery prices for struggling New Zealanders, they should focus on removing overseas investment barriers for supermarkets, particularly those relating to the purchase of land, and also cutting the red tape in our resource management system that make it so costly and complex for any major developments to occur.”

A new report published by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union exposes the bad decision-making that led to a 61% cost blowout in Auckland’s City Rail Link and shows that the costs of the project now significantly outweigh any benefits.

‘The City Rail Link: A Great Big Sucking Sound for Taxpayer and Auckland Ratepayer Dollars’ provides the first in-depth analysis of cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in the Auckland City Rail Link (CRL). The report’s author, economist Jim Rose, argues that key decisions made first by the Government and Auckland Council were premised on a flawed business case.

As of December 2022, total costs for the CRL project were estimated to be $5.5 billion, 61% higher than the original cost estimate. While project managers blame COVID-19 for this big cost over-run, the evidence suggests that the project should never have gone ahead.

Key findings of the report are:

1. Auckland Transport originally estimated a cost-benefit ratio of between 0.4 and 0.9 in 2011
2. The business case presented to Cabinet in 2019 assumed $1 billion in wider network improvements not included in the project cost
3. In 2022, a review by the Auditor-General found that KiwiRail and Auckland Transport would have to spend a further $6.7 billion between 2022 and 2036 before the full benefits of the CRL could be realised
4. With rail patronage down 30-40% on pre-COVID levels, it is unlikely that the supposed travel time savings will ever be realised
5. As of December 2022, the cost of the project exceeded the $5.1 billion of benefits estimated by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2019
6. It is therefore more likely than not that the cost-benefit ratio has dropped below 1, meaning the costs of the projects now outweigh the benefits
7. A briefing summarising the key points of the report and the full report have been sent to the Auckland mayor and councillors ahead of a meeting tomorrow (Thursday 23 March) to discuss the $1 billion increase in projected costs.

Taxpayers’ Union Campaigns Manager, Callum Purves, said:

“The City Rail Link will go down in history as a monument to the sunken costs fallacy as we continue to throw good money after bad. It is clear that the benefits of this project are now more likely than not to be outweighed by the costs of the project that have been allowed to spiral out of control. 

“The planners at Auckland Transport who dreamt up this project shouldn’t be let anywhere near the public purse again. If there is a silver-lining from this, it’s that Cabinet ministers and Auckland councillors might think twice before trusting the advice they get from Auckland Transport in the future.”

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, its sister group, the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance, and Rodney-based ratepayer group Northern Action Group, are today launching a joint campaign and proposal paper calling for the introduction of recall elections across local government, including District Health Boards.

To support this campaign, click here to email the Labour and National Parties calling on them to adopt recall elections into the their 2020 election manifestos.

Louis Houlbrooke a Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson says:

“Recall elections affirm the basic concept of ‘sovereignty of the people’. In a democracy, it is a fundamental right to elect representatives and that should also include the right to remove them from office and replace them at any time. It is also suggested in the report that the term of local government bodies be extended by one year to four years, once the safety mechanism of recall elections is in place.”

Jo Holmes a Ratepayers’ Alliance spokesperson says:

“Ratepayers deserve the right to fire their poorly performing representatives. We’ve had Len Brown, and the pain of having to wait three years to get rid of a lame-duck mayor after the expose of his abuse of office. Now we have a Mayor facing an SFO investigation, with no way to get rid of him should charges be laid.”

William Foster a Northern Action Group spokesperson says:

“A right to elect should mean a right to eject.  Ratepayers deserve the right to fire their poorly performing representatives.  We’re backing this proposal to increase the democratic accountability of elected officials.”

Under the system proposed, a motion to recall a named elected official will need to acquire signatures from 10% of the number of voters who last voted in the constituency. This is called the trigger threshold. If the threshold is reached, there will be a recall poll to determine if the representative should be recalled. If recall is supported by a majority, the official is recalled. There would then be a special election to fill the vacant position. A recalled official would be eligible to stand in that election (unless they are otherwise prohibited by existing law).

Mr Houlbrooke says:

“We are encouraging people to express their support for recall elections and put it on the political agenda for the coming election. To aid this, we have built an email tool which will allow people to email Local Government Minister Hon Nanaia Mahuta and the National Party local government spokesman Lawrence Yule directly. The policy could easily be adopted for the October’s election.”

Recall Elections for Local Government, a joint proposal paper, can be read below.