Revealed: Taxpayers spending at least $75 million per year on additional days off for public servants

New research from the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union reveals that public servants are receiving additional days of paid leave, beyond their statutory entitlements, amounting to more than $75 million per year. This year, taxpayers paid public servants for over 167,000 days that they weren’t even at work, excluding the four weeks that they are legally entitled to and public holidays.

This equates to more than 457 years.

We struggle to believe that public servants are working so much harder than the non-government workers who pay their salaries that they need all this additional time off.

The money spent could have paid for 1,000 extra nurses*, but instead it was wasted paying bureaucrats to sit at home.

The data obtained account for only 36,400 members of the public service when we know there are more than 60,000 employees.

We fear how high this number might be. Almost all public servants receive an additional three ‘department days’, but some public servants are receiving up to 30 additional days annual leave, which is absolutely ridiculous.

The worst offenders are the Ministry of Social Development and MBIE who spend more than $14 million and $12 million, respectively. The Department of Corrections, Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry for Women have not yet provided a response while the GSCB, NZSIS and Serious Fraud Office refused to provide a monetary value. The cost of this doesn’t even include productivity losses from the days the public servants are not working such as delays in processing times for visa and passport applications.

The Government should remove all leave additional entitlements for bureaucrats. If four weeks annual leave and 11 public holidays is good enough for those in the private sector, it is good enough for backroom bureaucrats.

Dear Supporter,

Our lastest Taxpayers' Union Curia poll has just been released. We summarise the results at the end of this update – and what would happen if this poll was reflected in an election and we ended up with a hung Parliament.

More taxpayer funding for the media: Will this affect election coverage?

The Government has doled out another $4 million to media from the 'Public Interest' Journalism Fund this week.

The latest announcement includes $1.2 million for Allied Press, $374,245 for iwi news, $160,000 for The Spinoff to write about the 2022 local body elections and $39,380 to Metro Media Group to write a four-part series on how the arts get funded, and $800,000 for a programme introducing young people to journalism as a "viable career".

Check our website for the full list of funding recipients from the PIJF.

In his last blog post for the Taxpayers' Union, Louis explained how this funding damages media independence, no matter how much the journalists deny it:

Significant funds have been allocated for struggling outlets to train and employ new journalists. But with the $55 million soon set to run dry, the Government will face immense pressure from the media to top up the funding, lest they have to lay off their new young journos.

New Zealand media bosses and editors are protective of and loyal to their staff, and financially invested in keeping their outlets afloat. This presents an obvious conflict of interest in next year's general election campaign: media figures have a personal and financial interest in electing a Government that will protect their funding. New Zealanders will rightly view their election coverage with this in mind.

Click here to read the full piece.

Only a week left to have your say on Three Waters

Time flies: it's now just one week until Parliament stops accepting written submissions on the Water Services Entities Bill (a.k.a Three Waters).

If you haven't already made a submission, click here to use our tool.

Alternatively, you can spend a bit more time making a submission through Parliament's webpage.

Already, 16,000 New Zealanders have made submissions through our website. That's a stunning effort. And thousands of you have requested to have your submission heard orally – this is crucial to delaying the legislation, and we know that each day the Three Waters debate drags on, the more the Government suffers politically.

Waiting an Adernity: When will taxpayers see housing at Ihumātao?

Eighteen months after the Government forked out $30 million in housing funds to purchase the paddocks of Ihumātao, there is still no sign of progress towards construction.

In fact, the group of iwi and government representatives meant to make decisions about the land have only had one meeting with Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson, who has given them another three and a half years to just to stump up a plan for housing on the land.

The ACT Party has described the amount of time it's taking to get houses build at Ihumatao as an 'Ardernity' – a label that could just as easily be applied to the wait for 100,000 KiwiBuild homes, or progress on Auckland light rail...

New Taxpayers' Union Chair

We're delighted to have Laurence Kubiak appointed as the new Chair of the Taxpayers’ Union Board.

Laurence is a high tech entrepreneur, a recent Chair of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, and former CEO of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

Here's what he told media:

I’m delighted to have been asked to chair New Zealand’s leading voice for government transparency and fiscal prudence.

The Union stands for public spending that is efficient, transparent, and subject to appropriate accountability: values that are the heart of any robust system of governance. The Taxpayers’ Union gives a public voice to these values, a voice that will become stronger and even more important as we chart our course through these unsettled times.

I'd like to thank Casey Costello, our Acting Chair since the launch of our ‘Stop Three Waters’ campaign late last year. Anyone who saw her speech against co-governance at our town hall event in Auckland will know she's a star.

New poll: Labour/National-blocks neck and neck

Our latest Taxpayers' Union Curia Poll was released just a few moments ago. 

While there are no significant shifts in support for the major parties, a boost for the Māori Party means that this month's result would likely translate to a tie on election day.

National and ACT win 60 seats, Labour and the Greens win 55, and the Māori Party nets 5 seats.

You can read more on the poll's findings on our website. But we better answer the obvious question...

Hung Parliament – What happens in a tie?

It’s election night 2023. The centre-left bloc of Labour and the Greens, joined by the Māori Party, has won 60 seats. National and ACT have also won 60 seats. In a 120-seat Parliament, neither side has the majority required to form a government. What happens?

Josh Van Veen (a member of the Taxpayers' Union team and a part-time political historian) lays out potential scenarios:

Scenario 1: Labour and National could put aside their ideological differences to form a ‘grand coalition’. There is precedent. In Germany, under Chancellor Angela Merkel, the centre-right Christian Democrats governed with the centre-left Social Democrats on three separate occasions. Back home, we can see parallels with the United-Reform Coalition that governed New Zealand between 1931 and 1935. The Coalition eventually led to the formation of the modern National Party. What about a NatLab Government?

If this seems far-fetched, remember that Jacinda Ardern once personally picked Christopher Luxon to chair her business advisory council!

Scenario 2: Labour and National could agree that the party with the most seats should govern. This would mean that the ‘loser’ abstains on confidence and supply while otherwise fulfilling the duties of Opposition. But such an arrangement would leave a "lame duck" Government unable to pass any laws without consent from the Opposition. On the other hand, New Zealanders might welcome this kind of consensual politics as a positive and constructive innovation.

Scenario 3: To make Scenario 2 work for the full three-year term, Labour and National could agree to govern on a ‘rotational’ basis. Christopher Luxon would serve 18 months as prime minister before handing back power to Jacinda Ardern (or another Labour leader) to see out the Parliamentary term. The arrangement would require both parties make significant policy concessions and perhaps sign up to a joint legislation programme. Scenario 3 is a grand coalition in all but name.

Scenario 4: Of course, National could dispense with Labour and attempt to win over the Māori Party. This would likely see National abandon its stance on co-governance and might complicate relations with ACT. But if he pulled it off, Christopher Luxon could go down in history as our wokest prime minister – changing the country’s name and perhaps establishing a separate Māori parliament or upper house.

Scenario 5: If the first four options are ruled out that leaves only one alternative: a new election. This scenario regularly plays our in Israel, where four general elections were held between 2019 and 2021. With Jacinda Ardern cast in the role of Benjamin Netanyahu, she would remain Prime Minister through the new election. And so on. While it could be the tidiest option, it is the most expensive.  In 2020, it cost $160 million to run the election (though this included two referenda).

Re-doing an entire election might sound like banana republic stuff, but frankly it seems more realistic than the alternatives.

Thank you for your support,

Jordan Williams Executive Director New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union.

Media coverage:

Timaru Herald  South Canterbury mayors urge people to have their say on Three Waters reforms

Waikato Herald  Three Waters Reform: Waipā mayor Jim Mylchreest says it's time to speak up and share your thoughts

Politik  Everybody is worried about Groundswell

Hawke's Bay Today  Hawke's Bay rates issues highlighted in annual increases

Homepaddock  7 questions on 3 waters

Stuff  Beware of fish-hooks in free trade deals

1 News  NZ Maori Council further distances itself from Matthew Tukaki

Southland Times  Three Waters advocacy group to front Invercargill City Council

Rotorua Daily Post  Three Waters Rotorua protest: 120 turn out to oppose ‘loss of local control’

SunLive  WATCH: Three Waters: NZ’s hot topic

SunLive  Three waters roadshow stopping in Tauranga 

Stuff  Polls diverge on voter direction as left and right blocs neck and neck

The Working Group  The Working Group Podcast with Jordan Williams, Maria Slade and Brooke van Velden 

The Daily Blog  Winners & Losers in latest Taxpayers’ Union Curia Poll: NZ Political Spectrum is splintering

Stuff  The Ardern Government is in a death spiral with no hope … or is it? 

Marlborough Midweek  Stop Three Waters turnout ‘amazing’ 

Stuff  Turnout draws praise at Stop Three Waters roadshow in Blenheim 

RNZ  Auckland councillor appalled at national cycleway project blowouts

Dominion Post  Contract of NZSO board chairperson not renewed after Taxpayers’ Union appointment

Offsetting Behaviour  Thou shalt not suffer a conservative on your Board

Timaru Herald  Timaru stop for five-week nationwide roadshow rallying opposition to water reforms

Otago Daily Times  Strongest turnout yet at latest Three Waters roadshow meeting

Otago Daily Times  Three Waters plan ‘undemocratic’

Otago Daily Times  Hundreds at 3 Waters reforms protest meeting

SunLive  Three Waters protest to oppose “loss of control”

Oamaru Mail  Lower rates with Three Waters 

Otago Daily Times  Three Waters meeting packed

RNZ  Political commentators: Brigitte Morten and Lamia Imam 

The Platform NZ  Sean Plunket speaks with former New Zealand broadcaster Peter Williams 

Stuff  Fired up crowd heckle Gore’s mayor at Groundswell’s 3 Waters meeting 

RNZ  Groundswell, Taxpayers’ Union roadshow in Gore

The fourth round of 'Public Interest' journalism funding was announced by NZ on Air this week, costing taxpayers $4,144,909.

So far $43,968,004 of the $55 million fund has been paid out to media organisations to fund a variety of projects, journalism roles and industry development. 

The latest announcement includes $1.2 million for Allied Press, $374,245 for iwi news, $160,000 for The Spinoff to write about the 2022 local body elections and $39,380 to Metro Media Group to write a four-part series on how the arts get funded, and $800,000 for a programme introducing young people to journalism as a career. You can view the full list of Public Interest Journalism Funding (PIJF) to date here.

Results from a Taxpayers' Union commissioned Curia Market Research Poll

While media outlets recieving taxpayer funds deny that this biases their reporting, our scientific polling shows that Government funding undermines public trust and confidence in the media – something that is in itself harmful. Distrust in mainstream media pushes readers towards fringe information sources that may be perceived as more independent, but are less likely to provide accurate reporting. This risks a spiral effect: the more audiences turn away from mainstream media, the more politicians will be tempted to prop up the struggling outlets with more funding.

To be clear, New Zealanders are right to be concerned about the impact of Government funding on journalistic independence. One of the requirements of the PIJF is that recipients must "actively promote the principles of partnership, participation and active protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi".

Our board member and former broadcaster Peter Williams put it well in his speech on our Stop Three Waters roadshow when he said, "where I come from, journalism is not 'actively promoting' anything. Journalism is about offering all sides of the story, examining facts around the issues and leaving the reader, the viewer or the listener to make up her or his mind on an issue".

Despite the name, there doesn't seem to be much public interest in the a lot of the content being produced. Online magazine The Spinoff recently published an article begging for donations because "thousands of readers have stopped donating over the past year."

The Spinoff has so far recieved $1,686,122 from the PIJF and used it to write articles about furries and Efeso Collins' campaign song. Apparently, this has not inspired loyalty from readers.

A sample of Spinoff articles funded through the Public Interest Journalism Fund

One looming problem caused by the PIJF is that significant funds have been allocated for struggling outlets to train and employ new journalists. But with the $55 million soon set to run dry, the Government will face immense pressure from the media to top up the funding, lest they have to lay off their new young journalists.

New Zealand media bosses and editors are protective of and loyal to their staff, and financially invested in keeping their outlets afloat. This presents an obvious conflict of interest in next year's general election campaign: media figures have a personal and financial interest in electing a Government that will protect their funding. New Zealanders will rightly view their election coverage with this in mind.

We're calling on all parties to remove this dangerous conflict of interest and restore faith in the media by ruling out further funding for private media after the election.

We're also calling on those outlets who have recieved PIJF funding to commit to repaying it. Click here to sign the petition.

The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union can reveal that only 60% of seats were filled on the ratepayer subsidised Wellington-Canberra flight route, compared to an average of nearly 80% for all flights in and out of Australia.

Figures published by the Australian Government in their international airline review for 2016/17 make for sober reading. No one at the office is surprised that Singapore had to move their flight route to Melbourne after examining the flight utilisation figures from 2016/17. Making profit, even after ratepayer subsidies, on a route where 40% of seats are empty on an average flight would be very difficult. Unfortunately it's difficult to ascertain whether Wellington Regional Economic Development Agency expected this kind of result, because the documentation surrounding the subsidies (which according to some reporting, amount to $8 million over ten years) is extremely limited.

Changing the route to Melbourne is unlikely to be successful either. Jetstar had to discontinue their Wellington-Melbourne route in 2016 because it was unprofitable to compete with Air New Zealand and Qantas. Are ratepayers really getting a good deal by subsidising flights on a route which is already serviced by two airlines?

The efficiency of the Office of Treaty Settlements' travel arrangements needs examination, after just nine officials racked up a $57k travel bill to the Chatham Islands alone, in only 18 months. 

Serious questions need to be asked about why the Office have not elected to use other means to remain connected with those involved in the negotiations on the Chatham Islands. Have they thought of video conferencing, emailing, or even picking up the phone? One official’s return flight from the Chathams alone cost the taxpayer over $2,600 – that is enough to get you around Europe and back.
 
The figures, which were obtained under the Official Information Act and are broken down below, are made up of $44,214 on flights, $10,911 on hotels, and $2,025 on rental cars and fees.
 
The Office have blamed the quality of internet on the Chathams as restricting other means of communication, but the local council there advised us that the internet works perfectly fine.  They said that people can even come into their offices and use video call facilities.
 
What’s more, officials have been negotiating with local iwi since August 2015, but they don’t even have an agreement in principle to show for it. When asked how long the negotiations are expected to last, the Office were unable to pinpoint an end date. These travel costs could go on for years and years to come.
 
A Google search of the lavish farm-stay accommodation officials elected to put themselves up in indicate that there has been no expense spared on these island getaways.

The broken down figures and OIA response can be seen below: 

Further to our earlier exposés of aid money being wasted on countries spending it on space programmes and the millions going to subsidiaries of the Clinton Foundation, we can now reveal that under the current Government, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade has given $215,000 to North Korean aid projects, despite the despotic regime's efforts to develop delivery systems for nuclear weapons aimed at some of our closest allies. 

Included in the aid were six tractor/trailer units to be used on a DPRK "NZ Friendship Farm" - i.e. equipment under the direct ownership and control of the despotic regime.

While North Korea wants to wipe Western nations off the face of the Earth, our Government has been diverting taxpayer money to business schemes owned and managed by the regime. It is inexcusable.

The Government can say all it likes to justify this spending, but the fact it stopped when Taxpayers' Union started asking questions on the issue, shows that it really is indefensible.

Statistics New Zealand’s new lease with Wellington’s Chow Brothers for offices at 318 Lambton Quay signs up taxpayers for $794 per square metre per year — an astronomical amount for office space.
 
As reported by this morning's Dominion Post, documents (see link below) show that the Ministry is paying $1.857 million for 2,338sqm of space – including paying $1,279.56 per square metre per year for level 3 of the building.  Westpac Bank, a tenant renting floors in the same building, pays only $331.22 per square metre per year.

Despite the market rate for ‘A’ grade buildings being no more than $500 per square metre, this eye-watering deal went through and is the talk of the town in Wellington’s property sector.

The building owners must be over the moon – they wouldn’t believe their luck. An office lease priced at nearly $800 per square metre is astronomical.

Until today, we thought Auckland's Independentt Maori Statutory Board swanky offices in Auckland's viaduct harbour were the most expensive publicly paid offices in the country.  Looks like we were wrong - taxpayers are forking out big bucks for what is nothing special in the middle of Wellington.
 
The Statistics New Zealand official who signed this bizarre lease should be held to account. It makes a mockery of the Government’s previous efforts to get value for money in relation to office accommodation procurement.

The fact this deal has attracted the attention of Wellington's commercial property owners, who are laughing behind the Government’s back, shows the deal is worthy of a ‘certificate of achievement’ for wasting taxpayer money.

A schedule of tenants and amounts is available here.

Taxpayers are on the hook for between $90,000 and $100,000 in by-election costs in the case of Lawrence Yule being selected as the National Party's Tuki Tuki candidate and subsequently elected in this year's general election. This figure was revealed after we asked the council for its calculation of the anticipated costs of such an election.

While no price can be put on democracy, the figure puts into perspective the promises to not make a tilt at Parliament that Mr Yule made when seeking to be re-elected last year as mayor of Hastings.  It's obvious that Mr Yule should have been upfront at the time, given the huge costs that are now likely to fall on ratepayers.

With sitting councillors likely to contest the Mayoralty, ratepayers could be hit a second time round too, in the event a second by-election is required to fill a Council seat.  It could be a double whammy.

The correspondence can be viewed here.

With news that the Clinton Foundation is laying off 22 staffers due to the discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initiative, we have revealed that the Australian Government is cutting all financial ties with the Clinton Global Health Initiative.

In 2014 Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop announced that the Australian Government had committed to five years of financial support for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the sister organisation of the Clinton Foundation.  By last year however, that funding had stopped, with the Australian Government jumping ship very soon after Donald Trump’s victory in the US election. 

News.com.au reported late last year that:

Which might make you wonder: Why were we donating to them in the first place?

The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

The Clinton Foundation has a rocky past. It was described as “a slush fund”, is still at the centre of an FBI investigation and was revealed to have spent more than $50 million on travel.

Despite that, the official website for the charity shows contributions from both AUSAID and the Commonwealth of Australia, each worth between $10 million and $25 million.

News.com.au approached the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for comment about how much was donated and why the Clinton Foundation was chosen as a recipient.

A DFAT spokeswoman said all funding is used “solely for agreed development projects” and Clinton charities have “a proven track record” in helping developing countries.

Australia jumping ship is part of a post-US election trend away from the former Secretary of State and presidential candidate’s fundraising ventures.

The news follows our petition launched last week calling on Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully to veto MFAT’s plans to give another $5.5 million of NZ Aid Money to the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an affiliate of the Clinton Foundation. The petition has attracted nearly two and half thousand signatures and can be signed at: http://www.taxpayers.org.nz/clinton_petition

NZ Aid should be going to programmes that are the most effective and efficient in achieving our aid objectives. Channelling money through entities established by international politicians is not a proven effective and efficient method of giving aid to those who most need it.

It is simply bad practice for MFAT to give Aid money to an entity so closely associated with politics and politicians. The money would be much better going straight to an organisation like the Red Cross.
 
The Australians have stopped - so why haven't we?