The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union is calling for the Governor-General and Government House to be brought under the Official Information Act, following King Charles’ decision to disclose his personal tax bill.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman Austin Ellingham-Banks said:

“Buckingham Palace says the King’s unprecedented tax disclosure reflects its ‘commitment to transparency’ as royal finances come under growing public scrutiny. Government House should follow that lead.”

“The Governor-General is the King’s representative in New Zealand. Taxpayers fund the office, the staff, the residences, the travel, the $458,600 salary, the $41,745 allowance, and $23,082.11 in Heathrow VIP charges.”

“But unlike almost every other taxpayer-funded office in the country, Government House still sits outside the Official Information Act. New Zealanders are required to pay for the vice-regal operation, but not allowed to ask where the money is going.”

“If Buckingham Palace can commit to transparency, Government House can too.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is slamming IRD and Statistics NZ after the Government announced it’s scrapping the Census and replacing it with a mass data-harvest from across government departments without public consent.

IRD will share sensitive personal data like income and benefit details that must be linkable back to individual taxpayers to be usable by Statistics NZ.

Taxpayers’ Union spokesman James Ross said:

“Big Brother is back with IRD’s latest taxpayer data lolly-scramble. There’s zero excuse for leaking sensitive income and benefit data, and covering for Stats NZ’s Census failure last time around doesn’t come close to justifying it.”

“After previously leaking more than 250,000 taxpayers’ unencrypted details to foreign tech giants, Revenue Minister Simon Watts is back for round two. This time, it’s every taxpayer’s identifiable data on the line.”

“Taxpayers aren’t being asked, and they haven’t consented. Just like with IRD’s custom audiences scandal, there are huge ethical concerns being swept under the rug in the hope no one notices. Not to mention possible legal breaches of the Tax Administration Act.”

“Minister Watts’ silence while his department repeatedly throws Kiwis under the bus speaks volumes. His job is to represent taxpayers, not sell them out to make life easier for bureaucrats.”

The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for the plan to be scrapped.

The Taxpayers’ Union, in collaboration with Fairfax Media, this morning launched "Ratepayers’ Report” hosted by Stuff.co.nz. 

Ratepayers’ Report builds on the work of local government expert and financial analyst, Larry Mitchell and his work in previous years comparing New Zealand’s 67 territorial authorities. The data was pulled together by the Taxpayers' Union and supplied to Fairfax Media. Fairfax has had the data checked independently and supplied it to councils for viewing before its publication.

For the first time, New Zealanders now have an interactive online tool to compare their local council to those of the rest of the country. Go to Ratepayersreport.co.nz to compare your local council including average rates, debt per ratepayer and even CEO salaries.

Ratepayers’ Report compares, for the first time, average residential rates.  The figure has been calculated using a methodology developed within the local government sector to compare average residential rates.  Only Kaipara District Council was unwilling to provide the Taxpayers’ Union with the average residential rates information.

Some highlights: 

• New Zealand’s highest average residential rates are in the Western Bay of Plenty District, $3,274
• The Mackenzie District has the lowest average residential rates, nearly two thirds less at $1,104
• The average council liabilities are $4,386 per ratepayer
• Auckland Council’s liabilities are now $15,858 per ratepayer (and increasing!)
• Dunedin is not far behind. For every Dunedin ratepayer, the Council owes $15,093

The Taxpayers’ Union has been provided a copy of a leaked report Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) commissioned. The report was prepared in response to work by the Taxpayers’ Union to improve transparency in local government. Earlier today Ratepayers’ Report – interactive local government league tables – launched at ratepayersreport.co.nz.

We've also been leaked confidential briefing papers for council CEOs. These appear to have been prepared by LGNZ's spin doctors as an aide for councils to avoid any criticism resulting from questions relating to Ratepayers' Report and other efforts by the Taxpayers' Union.

We approached LGNZ earlier in the year and sought its help to ensure New Zealanders got a fair picture of how their local council is doing. Instead, LGNZ went into defence mode and hired an accountancy firm to discredit the expert analyst we were using. They were not interested in ensuring ratepayers got an accurate picture, rather creating reasons why we shouldn’t be providing the public with the information.

Despite promising that the report would be made available to the Taxpayers’ Union, we’ve only seen it today because it was leaked to us. The report suggests that LGNZ is more interested in toeing the party line, rather than identifying the councils which are under-performing.

The report, by Grant Thornton, appears to have little basis for what they deem as ‘acceptable’ for the financial measures they apply to councils. They've not provided a league table, or a scoring system and even the data points on the graphs do not reference the councils they relate to.

It appears they’ve put in the data then picked the spot that shows that everyone is doing well.

The report makes soft criticisms of Kaipara District and Waitomo District Councils - but then defends them. It makes assertions that all under-performing councils are dealing with their issues. To us it demonstrates that LGNZ is a lobby group to protect local councils rather than a champion of best practise.

Grant Thornton Report_Local Government a Financial Snapshot

We now have more details of the deal uncovered by the Taxpayers’ Union over the weekend between Dunedin’s Mayor Dave Cull and former MP, Pete Hodgson, which the Mayor described in the media as a “gentleman’s agreement”.

This morning’s Christchurch Press editorial analyses the deal:

Editorial: Gentlemen sign contracts too

...

There is no reason to believe that Cull and Hodgson are anything other than honest gentlemen, but the geographic accident that also gives them "southern man" status should not put them above the usual requirements by which local government business is conducted.

The standards that apply to council administration in the south should be no less rigorous than in Auckland city or the Whangarei district. Why should ratepayers in Dunedin tolerate a more easy-going attitude towards the spending of their money than anywhere else, just because of a romantic notion that southerners are somehow more honourable? Actually, they aren't.

This morning the Taxpayers’ Union went public with material concerning a payment (or payments) totalling $3,400 by the Dunedin City Council to former MP Pete Hogdson with no documentation or contract.

We're questioning the internal controls at the Council after the uncovering the payment following a recent media report that Mr Hodgson had been recruited by the Council for lobbying. We asked for information about the services being provided by Mr Hodgson under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. Click "continue reading" below to view the Council's response.

According to the Council, Mr Hodgson’s work consisted of “lobbying and advocating on behalf of the Council” and there is no supporting documentation. 

The Council has told us that:

• Everything was verbal. The Council could not provide a single report, email, or even letter of engagement.
• All of the contracts were negotiated verbally.
• The contracts were negotiated by the Mayor and there is no documentation to explain the deal.

We asked for copies of any work by Mr Hodgson. All we got back was two letters by the mayor on which Mr Hodgson apparently had input. It is not clear what precisely that was. For example, there is no 'tracked changes" document.

We think Dunedin ratepayers will be alarmed that their Council paid $3,400 apparently without so much as an invoice. Dunedin ratepayers should ask their Mayor:

• What did Mr Hodgson do? Was this just expensive proof reading?
• Why was the Mayor negotiating this in the first place?
• Why verbally?
• Why is there absolutely no documentation for the arrangement, not even an email?”
• Is Mr Hodgson friends with the Mayor?
• Why doesn't Dunedin Council have the most basic internal controls, requiring amounts to be paid by invoice only?

The Council’s response raises serious questions.  We can't think of another government agency that would spend $3,400 without being able to provide as much as an invoice. 

Without an explanation from the Council, we are left wondering whether the Auditor-General should get involved."

Dunedin City Council LGOIMA response - Pete Hodgson

The Taxpayer’s Union has discovered that the 'Fizz' group of academics campaigning for a ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks appears to have been falsely claiming the endorsement of the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC).

A group of academics who have received a lot of publicity recently, calling themselves "Fizz" and pushing a sugar tax, appear to have been caught out. On the 'programme guide', which was available on their website, fizz.org.nz they listed the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC)'s logo. The full document is available here.

We wrote to the HRC asking what the nature of its support is for Fizz. We wondered why this group of academics, clearly pushing for political ends (i.e. a sugar tax) were receiving taxpayer support from the HRC.

We found that "Fizz" were fibbing - HRC are not supporting their sugar tax campaign.

The letter from the HRC's Chief Executive, Dr Robin Olds, is below. It states that Fizz is not receiving any support form the HRC and suggests that Fizz has been misleading its supporters, the public, and the media.

Subsequently, we've also learned that Dr Olds has asked that the HRC logo be removed from Fizz’s promotional material. In an email to the Taxpayers’ Union Mr Olds said,

“In a phone call to the conference organiser we pointed out that using our logo was inappropriate, given that [Fizz] did not seek our permission, and that some appeared to interpret the logo as the HRC endorsing the conference."

We've also written to the other government bodies that are apparently supporting this Fizz group. We want to know whether they are supporting Fizz's political activities or whether Fizz is also falsely claiming support. 

In the meantime, we think that one has to be sceptical about a group claiming to be 'evidence based' and about science when they use the HRC’s logo without permission. We think it potentially calls into question their academic credibility.

Further to our questions about whether or not DoC is a supporter of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (the scientific expedition that got stuck in the ice recently), yesterday we received another letter from DoC confirming that DoC has not supported the AAE. It states that DoC has now asked the AAE for its logo to be removed from the expedition's website.

To recap, after asking how much taxpayer money had been committed to the failed expedition, we discovered that the AEE was falsely claiming DoC as a 'supporter'. See my earlier posts here and here.

We look forward to receiving responses from the other New Zealand 'supporters', Landcare Research and the University of Waikato.

Ltr from DoC 15 Jan 2014

Further to my discovery and blog post earlier today that DoC is in fact not supporting the Australian Antarctic Expedition ("AAE") - despite being listed as such on the AAE website, the Australian blog "Watts Up With That" reports that the Australasian Antarctic Devision (i.e. a division of the Australian Department of the Environment) has also been caught on the hop as an unknown 'supporter' of the AAE trip to the ice.  The Ministry has made an effort to disassociate itself on Australian radio ABC.

Also, since this morning's post one of our volunteers has  pointed out the following on the AAE website:

That would appear inconsistent with what DoC told us yesterday, i.e. that no support was being provided.

So what's going on? Are the Australian scientists or DoC fibbing? Or it is a case of the right hand of DoC not being aware of the left is up to? Is it just a coincidence that the Australian equivalent of the Ministry for the Environment was mistakenly included as a 'supporter' with our own DoC?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Following the well publicised case of global warming scientists being stuck in record pack ice in Antarctica (ironically the expedition was intended to study the dwindling sea ice) and the efforts to rescue them, the Taxpayers' Union began enquires late last year to find out precisely how much taxpayers' money the NZ Government "supporters" listed on the expedition's website had contributed.

It appears that thankfully New Zealand taxpayers' haven't forked out the huge amounts feared. In fact, it appears that the Australasian Antarctic Expedition (AAE) is claiming at least one 'supporter' it doesn't have...

The expedition's website lists expedition supporters the Department of Conservation, Landcare Research, and the University of Waikato.

Despite asking the AAE leader (via email and his very active twitter account), and the media contacts at the University of New South Wales, no one would tell us how much kiwi taxpayers had contributed via the three agencies.

On 1 January we lodged Official Information Act requests with DoC, Landcare and the University of Waikato.

To DoC's credit it responded by 8 January, stating that DoC were not participants in the expedition and therefore the information (i.e. what financial and non-financial support was given) does not exist. DoC's letter and our response is below.

Department of Conservation response and Taxpayers' Union request for clarification re AAE January 2014.

Last night DoC's Director of Policy Jeff Flavell called me and confirmed that the Department not being 'a participant' in the expedition was intended to mean that DoC did not provide any support to AAE at all. In fact he seemed surprised that DoC was listed as a supporter on the AAE website and that he would ask his officials whether it was known that the AAE was using the DoC logo and claiming support.

So credit for DoC for coming back to us so quickly and from someone so senior, especially given our recent expose of failings within the department.

We await the responses from Waikato and Landcare.