Join Us
Joining the Taxpayers' Union costs only $25 and entitles you to attend our annual conference, AGM and other events.
Quite rightly, the focus of the media this week has been the terrible flooding situation in Auckland – for those affected by the flooding, our thoughts are with you.
It's also been a a busy week in politics. We are delighted that more than 11,000 of our supporters have written to Chris Hipkins to tell him which policies they think he should drop using our online tool: BriefThePM.com
While decisions on Mr. Hipkins's full "policy reset" are still being made (especially on Three Waters!) – the signs this week suggest that he is responsive to people power.
You will recall last year that your humble Taxpayers' Union exposed Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson for their outrageous price gouging at petrol pumps around the country. While the Government blamed the Ukraine war for high petrol prices, we pointed out that more than half the cost of petrol is tax!
Since Grant Robertson announced in December that the Government planned to hike fuel taxes back up, we have been campaigning hard to change his mind.
And it worked! Earlier this week, the new Prime Minister announced that the diesel-road user charges reduction and petrol excise tax cut would be extended. This will come as a welcome reprieve to families and businesses who are already struggling with the cost of living given the record high levels of inflation.
New Zealand's fuel taxes go into a big pot called the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF), which was set up to fund roads maintenance. Opponents of the fuel tax cut argue that the extension will force non-drivers to subside drivers, but, in fact, the opposite is true.
Drivers are actually subsiding non-drivers. Under this – and the last National-led – Government, more and more of the NLTF has been being spent on public transport, uneconomic rail services, walking and cycling routes, and even the Road to Zero advertising campaign. Drivers of electric vehicles do not currently contribute into the Fund.
Currently, the Government is siphoning off almost a third of the funding from fuel taxes for pet projects like cycleways and advertising campaigns!
We are calling on the Government to return the NLTF to its original purpose – paying for our roads. This would allow for fuel taxes to be kept lower than they were before, and still increase investment in our roads.
The fresh extension lasts until 30 June, which just a few months out from the election... Will Wellington really hike taxes then?
Whether it is seizing water assets or removing planning powers from councils, denying ratepayers in Tauranga the right to choose their local representatives or abolishing district health boards, the current Government's record on localism is poor.
This week's new cabinet saw a new Local Government Minister appointed. As was widely expected, brief was removed from Nanaia Mahuta and handed to Kieran McAnulty. We hope that this new minister signals a new approach from the Government but remain sceptical.
The first big test will come when the Government announces what it plans to do with Three Waters in the coming weeks. The current proposals must be ditched: They will lead to water services that cost more and that are managed by unelected and unaccountable entities.
But there are viable alternative models of water reform like the one put forward by "Communities4LocalDemocracy" that would keep water assets in community control and ensure that they remain accountable to ratepayers. This proposal already has the backing of 31 councils and the mayors of our two biggest cities.
If the Government thinks it can get away with a few cosmetic changes, it should think again – we will oppose any proposal that does not meet our red lines of ensuring local ownership, control and accountability while driving efficiency and allowing councils to opt out of multi-council models in the long term if they do not deliver for their ratepayers.
Our research interns scour the public service for examples of wasteful and excessive government spending. One of the oddest examples recently has come from Callaghan Innovation. If, like me, you had never head of this obscure Government agency before, its purpose is to provide grants to hi-tech businesses to support innovation opportunities.
Examples of funding awards included $2,000 for a paint brush and sleeve wash system, $3,000 for the development of a low-calorie, refreshing, non-alcoholic RTD, and $4,375 for a pre-mixed cava beverage company. But the prize for sending taxpayer dollars up in flames has to go to the $5000 grant to a company that will turn the ashes of a deceased pet or family member into a stone.
The amounts here might be small but the lesson is a simple one. If these proposals were viable and enough people wanted to buy these products, they should be able to secure private investment without the need for Government support. Especially given the current cost of living crisis, it is difficult to see why this is deemed to be a good use of taxpayer dollars.
In our first episode of Taxpayer Talk for 2023, Peter Williams is joined by lawyer Stephen Franks. Stephen is a founding director of the commercial and public law firm Franks Ogilvie, a former member of Parliament and spokesperson for the Water Users' Group.
Stephen joins Peter to discuss why the Water Users' Group, backed by the Taxpayers' Union, is taking a Government minister to the Court of Appeal and what any alternative Three Waters legislation might look like. The Government has claimed that Crown Law told the former Minister for Local Government Nanaia Mahuta that co-governance of our water services is required under Treaty of Waitangi. The new Water Services Entities Act means the country’s water infrastructure will be co-governed by iwi and local authority representatives, but at what cost to water users?
Listen to the episode | Apple | Spotify | Google Podcasts | iHeart Radio
Thank you for your support.
Yours aye,
![]() |
|
Media coverage:
NZ Herald Prime Minister Chris Hipkins extends fuel tax cuts, half-price public transport: ‘It’s been a lot’
Stuff PM Chris Hipkins set to reverse petrol tax hike, retain half-price public transport fares
TodayFM Tova: 30 January 2023 – Recall Elections (1:47:00)
Stuff Deposit guarantee scheme in place for 2024? Don't bet on it.
NewstalkZB Morning Edition: 26 January 2023 - Fuel Taxes (00:42)
Stuff Could Three Waters be on the chopping block? Here's what Prime Minister Chris Hipkins could do
NZ Herald The Front Page: What to expect from new Prime Minister Chris Hipkins (07:20)
Welcome to the first Taxpayer Update of 2023! I hope you had a good break.
Yesterday's shock announcement of Jacinda Ardern's resignation as prime minister is likely to improve Labour's chances of re-election later this year, based on numbers we're releasing today in the first political poll of 2023.
We don't yet know who will be facing up against Christopher Luxon on 14 October, but if Labour drops some of its unpopular policies, it could be back in the game.
Our job at the Taxpayers' Union this year is to ensure that the issues we all care about – protecting democratic accountability, scrapping wasteful government spending and keeping our taxes low – are at the heart of the general election campaign.
Last year, we put Three Waters squarely onto the political agenda. With your support, we can do it again and ensure taxpayers are front and centre of the political debate.
Available exclusively to supporters like you, we can reveal the results of our January Taxpayers' Union – Curia poll.
Labour falls one point from last month to 32% – its lowest ever level in our poll – while National is also down two points to 37%. ACT is up one point and the Greens are up three points with both sitting on 11%.
The smaller parties are New Zealand First on 2.8% and the Māori Party on 1.6%.
Here is how these results would translate to seats in Parliament, assuming all electorate seats are held:
National is down two seats to 49 while Labour is down one seat to 41. ACT is up one seat and the Greens are up four seats to be on 14 seats each. The Māori Party is down two seats to 2.
This means a narrowing of the gap between the two major blocs with the Centre-Right down one seat on last month to a combined 63 seats and the Centre-Left up three seats to a combined total of 55.
The outgoing Prime Minister's net favourability rating (that is the percentage of New Zealanders who tell our pollsters they have a 'favourable' view less the percentage who say 'unfavourable') has been gradually declining for quite some time. Back in September 2021, she was on +32% but this month, her ratings went negative for the first time. She leaves office with a score of -1%.
Christopher Luxon similarly scores a result of -1% this month, but his trend over the same period has been upwards. In September 2021, before he took on the National leadership, he was on -33% and he has slowly managed to turn this around.
This month, with much media speculation about New Zealand First re-entering Parliament, we asked respondents for their favourability towards Winston Peters. He scores a very poor -40% and does badly across voters of the four largest parties.
While the Centre-Left have not been able to govern on their own in our poll numbers since March last year, the election remains close. The Centre-Right have never been more than three seats over the 61-seat threshold required to form government.
A new prime minister, a new cabinet and potentially a new policy agenda means that everything is still to play for over the next 9 months.
Visit our website for more information and find out how to get access to the full polling report.
Over the break, our research revealed that public servants are receiving additional days of paid leave, beyond their statutory entitlements, amounting to more than $75 million per year!
In the year that’s been, taxpayers paid public servants for over 167,000 days that they weren’t even at work, excluding the normal four weeks leave and public holidays. It’s a 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.
While the money spent could have paid for 1,000 extra nurses, instead it was wasted paying a whopping 457 years' worth of leave total for bureaucrats to sit at home.
We fear how high the total number of extra leave days may be, as the data we obtained only account for 36,400 members of the public service when we know there are more than 60,000 employees. 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. We are calling for leave entitlement to be brought in line with the private sector.
Jordan was interviewed on Newstalk ZB about the findings. Click here to listen.
Last month, we asked our pollster to find out whether New Zealanders support funding the Government's Clean Car Discount of up to $8,625 on the purchase of some electric and hybrid vehicles by taxing the purchase of non-electric cars up to $5,175 depending on the level of their emissions.
Just 33% of Kiwis supported taxing the purchase of non-electric vehicles to fund the Clean Car Discount. Outright opposition to the scheme was at 47% with those who were unsure at 19%.
Most support for the car tax comes from Green Party voters, Wellington, and younger demographics. And it won't come as a shock that rural New Zealanders, on the other hand, are not fans.
We say the 'clean car discount' is a tax on low and middle-income Kiwis, who are shelling out their hard earned tax-dollars so that wealthier, inner-city residents can buy Teslas. With the cost of living crisis continuing to bite, the Government needs to scrap this unfair tax.
At the end of last year, one of our student researches spotted a peculiar charge on the Minister’s expenses. While staying at a London hotel in July, Minister O’Connor and his staffer spent $475.00 on laundry services for just two days' worth of clothes.
The Minister appears to be a serial clothes-spoiler. His own receipts show that just two days prior he had used the laundry services of another hotel, this time in Belgium. The Minister's office declined to give us the name of the hotel that the Minister was staying in at the time so that we could verify that the charge was an accurate reflection of the laundry charges of that hotel, citing that “for security reasons, it is not the policy of my office to release the names of hotels used while travelling overseas.”
This is completely at odds with all of the Minister’s previous releases where every hotel the Minister has stayed at was named. It appears that this policy was adopted after we exposed the Minister earlier in the year when one of his staffers bought themselves a $100 breakfast!
Travel sounds grand when it's other people's money...
Giving a koha is the Māori custom of gifting to show appreciation. In 2022, this tends to be in the form of a monetary contribution. It’s become common for government departments to give koha when they interact with marae or have someone perform a ceremonial role.
While most agencies that reported comprehensive information about koha in their Annual Reviews had spent less than $10,000 in the financial year 2020/21, Kainga Ora blew all other agencies out of the park with a whopping $123,377.00 spent on koha.
Between 2019 and 2021, the public housing agency spent $204,897.00 on customary monetary gifts, many at $1,500 and $2,000 a pop.
We say Kainga Ora's spending on koha is way out of line. Most other agencies got by just fine with more modest spends. The Ministry for the Environment, The Human Rights Commission, and Waka Kotahi all spent less than $500 on koha over the same period.
Kainga Ora needs to explain to taxpayers why they are such a glaring outlier in this area. The agency is completely out of control, spending over $200,000 on koha between 2019 and 2021 alone. Taxpayers should be able to expect that government spending is prudent and accountable. Kainga Ora is achieving neither of those objectives.
Yours aye,
![]() |
|
Media coverage:
NewstalkZB Taxpayers' Union Executive Director wants Government to remove additional leave entitlements for public servants
NewstalkZB Auckland Ratepayers' Alliance spokesperson on AT replacing HOP Cards with National Ticketing Solution
NewstalkNZ Midday Edition: News Fix [from 01:38]
Autofile Kiwis 'not behind' clean car discount
Auckland Council discriminates against vegetarians in $46,000 giveaway to meat eaters
Auckland Council spends $46,227 on a giveaway coercing meat-eating households to convert to vegetarianism.
Around 2 months ago, one of our supporters notified us of an email they received where participants had the chance to obtain a free giveaway by completing a survey in relation to their food consumption.
The survey came from the ‘Different Dinners Trial’; an investigation into the eating habits of Auckland residents for the Council to ‘understand more about what types of interventions work best to support willing Aucklanders to make more food choices with a lower carbon impact.’ In other words, Auckland Council wants to know how to turn people vegetarian.
It should be mentioned this was no ordinary survey either. If anything, it was more of a recruitment procedure, directed on finding willing subjects that were open to trying a plant-based diet. Surveys were sent out to many Auckland residents, but only those who met specific criteria could finish the survey. The Council tells us they received 732 of these ‘completed surveys’ where participants all obtained at least one of the giveaway options. That’s a cost of $63 per response.
The list of criteria to complete the survey was the following:
Listed below are the costs of the survey, showing just shy of $50,000 was spent on providing the project. We can only applaud Auckland Council’s self-restraint on purchasing just 300 MyFoodBag vouchers.
|
It should be reiterated that only completed surveys (ones that met all the criteria) received a giveaway. This meant that vegetarians, light-meat eaters, those who live alone, plus confident vegetarian cooks were all effectively shunned from getting taxpayer funded free giveaways. It is almost comical that the meat-eating individuals this project actively frowns upon are the ones who were rewarded with free meals.
It is clear Auckland Council are shockingly indifferent towards this blatant discrimination. But regardless of this inequity, thousands of ratepayer dollars have been squandered on a council pet project that as I will explain, will not work and is completely unnecessary.
The main goal of this project is to achieve New Zealand’s emission goals through decreasing our meat consumption. As they put it, “This survey forms part of a broader programme of work looking at how Auckland Council can respond to its commitments to address climate change.” This specifically refers to NZ’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which aims to reduce emissions 50% by 2030 and to be net-zero by 2050.
Though, whether or not one agrees with these goals and how much prioritisation should be given to them, collectively having a more plant-based diet here won’t do anything to offset our emissions. If the Council does manage to convert a significant portion of Aucklanders to vegetarianism, which seems unlikely, they will hardly put a dent into NZ’s production of high carbon-emitting red meat. Being an export driven agricultural nation, NZ doesn’t rely on local consumption. 88% of beef and 95% of lamb is sold overseas, and this ratio will only increase if we reduce our meat consumption. When you take into account that demand for meat has generally risen worldwide, foreign consumers certainly won’t be hard to come by.
However, even if our diet did have a large effect on emissions, it’s hardly as if Kiwis' diets are in dire need of an intervention. In general, we have already started transitioning to a more plant-driven diet. We’re actually one of the only nations to have decreased our meat consumption since 2000. And with vegetarianism significantly on the rise, alongside a shift over to the consumption of leaner meats such as low-carbon emitting chicken and pork, it demonstrates that New Zealanders are already strongly line with this project’s intent.
Thus this might be one of the most unnecessary projects Auckland Council has managed in a long time. Not only will it explicitly discriminate against minorities (vegetarians), but the greater project of transforming our eating habits is needless intervention which won’t work to reduce New Zealand’s export-driven agricultural emissions. Overall, this vegetarian conversion project is undeniably the wrong approach to reaching our climate targets.
Agriculture makes up around 50% of our emissions, so it is crucial we look into how the industry can reduce its carbon footprint. Yet it is equally important to get everyone on the same page. Stunts like this will continue to divide people, and this will seriously affect the prosperity of New Zealand in future years. New Zealand farmers are already some of the most carbon-efficient in the world thanks to their ingenuity and adaptability. Their emissions per unit have decreased by around 1% for at least the last 20 years. They should be backed with a manageable framework where they can adapt and prosper, because the status-quo will only continue to push them out of the industry.
In closing, although this project doesn’t cost the Earth on its own, it does reveal Auckland Council’s persistent intent to waste taxpayers’ dollars on ideological projects that don’t achieve anything. Councils are in no position to lecture the public on their eating habits regardless of the cost, but spending tens of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars on what is clearly an attempt to pressurize meat eaters to align with their agenda is completely unacceptable and should be called out.
You can find our OIA response here and a link to the survey format here
This story came as a tip from one of our supporters. If you think you have your own tip relating to government waste or extravagant spending, feel free to drop us a line here.
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.
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.
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.
A link to the data obtained so far can be found here. A small proportion of the data had to be extrapolated where departments provided incomplete responses.
*Based on a $70,000 salary.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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,
![]() |
|
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.
Joining the Taxpayers' Union costs only $25 and entitles you to attend our annual conference, AGM and other events.
With your support we can make the Taxpayers' Union a strong voice exposing waste and standing up for Kiwi taxpayers.
Often the best information comes from those inside the public service or local government. We guarantee your anonymity and your privacy.