Time to tax the rich

Aotearoa has a problem: the rich don't pay their fair share. They benefit from our society: the state protects their wealth and provides peaceful conditions allowing them to carry on business without fear. And yet they refuse to pay for it. Meanwhile, their cartels suck the money out of ordinary New Zealanders, so they can spend it on bigger and bigger houses, bigger and bigger yachts, helicopters, and so on.

Its time we made them pay their fair share. And over the weekend, the Greens put up their election year tax policy, which will make them do it. A wealth tax, targeted at the super-rich, which will finally bring them into the tax system. A new top income tax rate, for those earning top incomes. A capital acquisitions tax, targeting gifts and inheritances over $1 million, to limit intergenerational accumulation and tax-dodging. A higher corporate tax rate for big companies. A bank-levy, targeting our biggest cartel parasites, Aussie banks. Stopping foreign tech companies from dodging New Zealand taxes by pretending the profits happen elsewhere. And reversing Luxon's landlord and property speculator tax cuts.

These are not radical socialist policies. They are all perfectly normal overseas. But the rich have bought so much power in our society since 1984 that they've been able to gaslight us into thinking that the normal is abnormal, that other countries don't have wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, more progressive income taxes, restrictions on tax cheating. And they've been able to do that, in part, because they can use their money to buy politicians and media outlets, steering our society in their preferred direction, despite huge public support for taxing them.

Taxing the rich and limiting their ability to accumulate and weaponise their wealth is a necessary thing for the preservation of our society. And the best bit is that it won't affect the vast majority of New Zealanders. Only a tiny proportion of people - the Chris Luxons of this world - have more than $10 million. Only a tiny proportion of people inherit or are given more than $1 million. Only a tiny proportion (which includes every MP) "earn" more than $160,000. None of that affects us. Instead, what we get in practice from this policy is a reduction in inequality, a restriction on the power of the rich, better-funded public services, and a tax cut! Because most of us will end up better off, thanks to a shift in the tax burden from the poor to the rich. Which is perfectly sensible the moment you think about it. There's no point taxing people who don't have any money. Instead you go after the people who do have it, the bloated accumulators who have sucked all the wealth out of our society into their own pockets.

Sadly, Chris Hipkins - a man paid $305,900 a year plus slush, who rorted his parliamentary superannuation scheme into buying his holiday home and then said "it's my money" - is saying that none of this will happen if he's in charge. Voters should take that as a challenge: if we want these policies, we have to vote for them. We need to put the Greens in a position where they can force this policy on Labour. Otherwise, nothing will change, and the rich will just keep on leaching and looting us.

Something we need to fix

An OIA request on FYI has alerted me to an unpleasant quirk in Parliament's rules. Someone has asked Jenny Marcroft, who is Parliamentary Under-secretary for media and communications and fisheries, for information she holds about her hateful terf bill. The request will be refused, because Marcroft will play the hat game, and claim that any information she holds on the bill is held in her capacity as an MP, rather than her capacity as a Parliamentary Under-secretary. But it does raise the question: given her role, why was she allowed to advance the bill at all?

The short answer, given by McGee, is that "[a] Parliamentary Under-Secretary may introduce a member’s bill." In other words, it is "within the rules" (as members of the political class love to say).

But again, we can ask why? Because member's bills are meant to be for members, not the executive. And Parliamentary Under-secretaries are absolutely members of the executive. They're defined as such in the Cabinet Manual, and effectively recognised as such in various parts of Parliament's Standing Orders. For example, they are treated as members of the executive when allocating oral questions under Standing Order 391, and they do not count for support to immediately introduce a member's bill under Standing Order 288. If Standing Orders were consistent, they would also be excluded from entering member's bills into the ballot.

The answer is almost certainly historical. While Parliamentary Undersecretaries were always part of the system, they'd fallen into disuse in favour of Associate Ministers. They were revived comparatively recently thanks to MMP and its need to hand out official baubles as bribes to supporters, some of whom might not have the pull or experience to merit even an associate ministerial position. So John Key made Rimmer an undersecretary in 2014, and since then every coalition government has included them as a bribe to its minor partners and as training wheels for those who might one day be Ministers. The present regime includes a PUS from each party (Marcroft from NZ First and Simon Court from ACT), giving each of them a fat salary bump and a bunch of perks to rort - which will help keep everyone sweet and not wanting to rock the boat. And the rules have struggled to keep up - undersecretaries were excluded from the OIA until 2016, despite being members of the executive, simply because no-one had really thought of it.

This is another example of the rules failing to keep up with practice. And its something we should fix. While its far too late for it to go into the review of standing orders, hopefully the next government will bring a sessional order to remove this oddity.

Good riddance

Shame Jones' corrupt Fisheries Amendment Bill is dead:

Controversial fisheries reform led by New Zealand First minister Shane Jones is being abandoned until after the election.

Jones, appearing before a select committee in his role as Oceans and Fisheries Minister, told MPs his “much-beloved bill could use some more panel-beating” and as such, would not be progressed in this term of government. The Fisheries Amendment Bill had caused division within the coalition, particularly with National which faced a backlash from recreational fishers over changes to minimum legal-size limits for commercial fishing operators.

Plus of course there's the quota changes, which let fishers over-fish; the restriction of judicial review, so we'll never be able to force the Minister to follow the law; and of course the absurd secrecy for camera-footage, which existed solely to protect criminal fishers from public scrutiny. The entire bill was bought and paid for by fishing industry donations, the public could see that, and they responded with utter revulsion.

And now its "delayed", which basically means dead. But if we want it to be gone for good, we need to throw the corrupt regime which advanced it out of office.

The price of justice

Last year, the regime rammed through the Equal Pay Amendment Act under urgency, gutting pay equity laws, dumping all claims, and stealing $13 billion from New Zealand women. Labour wants to reverse that. So naturally, they're getting the usual bullshit question from the regime and its stooges: "how will you pay for it?"

The short answer to this is "who the fuck cares?" It is fundamentally immoral to pay people less because of their gender. The state has been committed to eliminating this form of discrimination for over fifty years. It is appalling that it has taken so long to do so. It is even more appalling to see people quibbling about the fucking cost. Do they think we should pay women less? This is justice; we pay whatever it costs. It's that simple.

And the substantive answer is that we could afford it up until last year. What changed then is the government's priorities: they decided to spend all the state's money on landlord tax cuts and stupid fucking roads, and that these things were somehow more important than justice. That was an appallingly immoral decision, which shows what disgusting sexist pieces of shit the present regime are. But a different government can change those priorities. It can not be sexist, and put justice ahead of greed and stupidity. So, it can "pay for it" by simply reversing National's landlord tax giveaway. Or maybe just by cancelling some stupid roads.

Either way, the people asking these questions should be asked one in return: do they think women should be paid less? If so, they're ghouls and weirdos who have no place in the modern world and can be simply ignored. If not, then why are they even asking? Either way, maybe they should be thinking about the values underlying the policy, rather than the details.

Out of touch

There's been some stuff over the last few weeks about how MP's high salaries and extensive perks put them out of touch with normal people. How out of touch are they? Revenue Minister Simon Watts thinks that people with $50,000 invested overseas aren't wealthy:

Inland Revenue figures suggest only tens of thousands of New Zealanders have directly invested more than $50,000 in overseas shares.

But Revenue Minister Simon Watts has rejected the assertion that those whose purchases total less than $100,000 and who stand to gain from a tax change in Budget, could be described as mostly wealthy.

Watts has four houses, three trusts, and a salary of $320,600, plus perks (including $52,000 a year for housing and a tax-free "expense allowance" of $19,000). With all that, I think its fair to say that he has a certain level of wealth, and might not see $50,000 as a big deal, and certainly not real money. But $50,000 is vastly more than most kiwis have - median savings balances are less than a tenth of that, and a third of kiwis don't even have $500. Only 38% have a Kiwisaver balance of more than $40,000, so Watt's "not wealthy" is more than most people's entire lifetime savings.

You'd think as Revenue Minister, Watts might have some acquaintance with these facts. But wealth is something this regime steadfastly refuses to look at, because if it did, it might face pressure to do something about it. So he just falls back on his own reckons as a four-house, three-trust, $300K salary guy. $50K isn't a lot of money to him, so ergo people who have it aren't wealthy.

Which just goes to show that ministers and MPs are in a completely different boat from the rest of us. And that calls into question their claim to be "representatives".

Cheap but effective

Labour has finally announced some policy, with a promise of cheaper public transport:

Labour has vowed to cap public transport fares at $20 a week in main centres and $10 everywhere else if elected.

Its fare cap policy, announced on Wednesday, would put money back into New Zealanders' back pockets, said leader Chris Hipkins.

"This is real cost-of-living relief. It means cheaper commutes, more money left at the end of the week, and a public transport system that works for everyone."

This seems quite effective. Most public transport systems already include weekly fare caps, so it uses existing mechanisms. It will push people to use public transport (so its a climate change and fuel saving and congestion policy), and deliver real savings for doing so (so its a cost of living policy as well). And it costs fuck all - only $65 million a year. What's surprising is that we're not doing it already.

Hopefully there'll be a lot more of this. When parties are standing for election, they owe it to us to tell us what they hope to do in power. Labour's previous "small target strategy" is a strategy of deceit, an attempt to deny us the information we need to make an informed choice on how to cast our vote. It is fundamentally dishonest and fundamentally undemocratic. And we deserve better than that from those who want to be our leaders.

Fucking absurd

Since time immemorial - or at least the 1990's - the National party's Big Economic Idea was cuts. Slash the state! Sack people! Give away billions in tax cuts to cronies so future governments couldn't fund anything! And to justify this peculiar fixation, they talk constantly about debt. There's too much of it! We can't afford the interest! We're about to go bankrupt! And sadly, this ideological framework has been swallowed wholesale by Labour, who sternly promise to keep debt low and not increase spending

But as Bernard Hickey points out this morning, none of this is true. Sure, the NZ government has $426 billion of debt - but it has $611 billion of assets, a positive net worth of $185 billion. And interest payments - which are now fixed and in NZ dollars, unlike the 1980's - are just 2% of government revenue. Which is perfectly sustainable.

And yet, National still keeps demanding cuts. Meanwhile, we have failing infrastructure, collapsing public services, and 33,000 homeless children. Hickey asks the obvious questions: would you leave kids homeless when you were worth $207 billion? Would you leave your kids homeless with interest costs of 2% of income? Answering "yes" to those isn't just fucking absurd, it's absolutely sociopathic. But I guess that's the sort of person right-wing politics attracts: the sort of person who wants to deliberately starve and freeze children, while running the country into the ground, all so they and their rich mates can steal more from us.

We need to vote this NeoLiberal plague out. Both sides of it. Because as long as Labour remains committed to NeoLiberalism and the "too much debt" myth, they will continue doing exactly what National does. The only difference is they'll lie to us about how they're helping us while they fuck us over.

Deeply unethical

Yesterday, the Labour party announced its party list, parachuting senior police officer Superintendent Rakesh Naidoo in at 13th place to show how much they care about "law and order". Which immediately caused problems, because Naidoo apparently hadn't told his bosses until the last minute.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins claims this is all OK, because while they had been talking to Naidoo "over a couple of months", his selection "was done at the last minute deliberately" to enable him to stand. But that's not OK. We have a politically neutral public service, and to protect this, section 52 of the Electoral Act 1993 requires public servants seeking office to take leave. This is normally from nomination day, but where candidacy undermines the perception of political neutrality, it may be for longer. While the police are not public servants, these provisions explicitly apply to them. And Naidoo is a senior police manager, working on policy issues, and that's simply not something you can do while seeking political office.

On top of that, the Police Manual chapter on elections and political matters specifically requires police employees seeking public office to

advise their District Commander or Director at the earliest opportunity so that the potential impact on their role as a Police employee and any necessary plan of action can be discussed early.

An ethical person following the rules would have advised their managers when they were considering seeking office, to ensure that risks were managed and they had obviously obeyed the rules. Naidoo didn't do that. Instead, he and Labour seem to have contrived a process, with the latter deliberately manipulating its normal candidate selection procedures so he could pretend not to be running, so he could keep on collecting his salary (and, potentially, accessing police information) right up until the last minute.

This is deeply unethical behaviour which reflects badly on everyone involved. It doesn't meet the standard of ethics we expect from police or political parties. And given how low our expectations are of either, that's pretty damning.

Time to end MPs' property rorts

Last week we had the unseemly sight of Social Development Minister Louise Upston cutting housing for the needy, while being paid $1,000 a month to live in an apartment she already owns. It was "all within the rules", of course - because politicians write the rules to suit themselves - but it was all a bit Marie Antoinette. And its not just her. Politicians have claimed over $2.5 million so far this term to live in their own houses - a practice which makes it clear how low the ethical standards of our rulers are.

As Thomas Coughlan points out, it is entirely right and proper that MPs are paid, and paid expenses, for doing their jobs. But this is taking the piss. And if you made expenses claims like this in a normal employment situation - demanding to be compensated for living in your own fucking house, in some cases the house where you had always lived - you would be fired, if not prosecuted.

The practice of rorting expenses delegitimises parliament, and it delegitimises the political class as a whole. They're nothing but thieves and fraudsters, unfit to rule over us. Once again, they are earning their reputation...

So what can be done? Coughlan has a good suggestion:

The obvious fix is a simple one: ban related party leases for electorate offices and Wellington accommodation, and tidy up Parliament superannuation scheme rules to ensure MPs aren’t using private super schemes to build property portfolios.

It’s this particular issue that’s at the nub of most expenses scandals in the past decade or so: an MP claiming an awful lot of money to rent accommodation that they or a related entity own.

It’s within the rules now. But it shouldn’t be.

It is blatantly obvious that we need to do this, and blatantly obvious why: because it is a naked conflict of interest. It is dishonest, and it is corrupt. I'd throw in preventing MPs from effectively moving their place of residence after election in order to access a higher allowance. If you live in or near Wellington already, then that's where you live for the term, and we're not going to pay for you to pretend to live elsewhere so you can campaign and/or get a holiday home (this means you, Andy Foster).

MPs complain constantly about how the public perceives them. I suggest that if they don't want to be viewed as corrupt and dishonest, they should stop behaving that way, and amend the rules so that they can't. Its that simple. And if they don't, the public will continue to hold them in the contempt they deserve.

Parliament fails to defend transparency

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee has reported back on the Commerce (Promoting Competition and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The bill makes various changes to competition law, which the National-dominated committee has naturally gutted. It also includes an odious secrecy clause, effectively granting the Commerce Commission a ten year exemption from the OIA, which is renewable, meaning it is really an indefinite exemption. The case for this was exceedingly weak, it was denounced as "unnecessary and excessive" by the Ombudsman, and it seems to have been driven by misunderstanding of and hostility to transparency from senior Commission staff (here are the receipts; if you keep scrolling you'll also see they also admitted that it was completely unnecessary). So what did the committee thing? Rather than standing up for transparency or conducting a first-principles analysis, they simply split the difference, reducing the exemption to five years. But its still renewable, meaning its still effectively indefinite, unless the commission fails to do the paperwork).

In talking about the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which also included a secrecy clause, the Ombudsman noted that:

In circumstances where the OIA already protects the relevant interests, only an extraordinary harm to those interests would justify a permanent exclusion of information from the scope of the OIA.

In this case, the OIA also protects the relevant interests, and the Commission (in advice it attempted to keep secret) admits that. There is no extraordinary harm to justify exclusion. Secrecy cannot be justified.

Using austerity to attack democracy II

Back in March, Newsroom's Sam Sachdeva reported that the regime was planning to use high costs as an excuse to limit access to the Official Information Act, and had commissioned consultants to build them a case. Obviously, I was quite curious about this, so I fired off a series of OIA requests to government agencies. Some were about costs, and revealed (unsurprisingly) that no-one (at least, no-one in the sample of core government agencies I checked) had any idea how much the OIA cost them, and that no-one was counting. Some, aimed at understanding recent large increases, were about the types of requests received, and when they had started being counted in statistics, and they were quite illuminating. And of course there was a request for the policy advice underlying the regime's plans. A request for Te Kawa Mataaho's advice got bounced to Ministry of Justice - saving me the effort of asking them directly - where it was delayed, and then delayed, and then delayed again. They finally responded yesterday, having illegally delayed the response until a related proactive release was signed off.

The response letter, with links to the released documents, is here. There's a lot of emails (some of which are significant), a couple of contracts, and notes from a meeting with the Ombudsman which suggests the regime's intent is to use this as an excuse to declare requesters "vexatious" - something both the Law Commission and the Ombudsman have opposed in the past. The Ombudsman is clear, both there and elsewhere, that one of the drivers of costs is increasingly convoluted agency review and sign-off procedures, where every response is scrutinised by multiple layers of management for arse-covering and "no surprises" reasons. This frequently results in delays, and it has been a frequent topic of the Ombudsman's practice reviews.

As for the costs themselves, they're in the proactively released Tregaskis Brown report and accompanying briefing. You hire consultants to deliver the answers you want, and TBL has delivered in spades, with a headline cost estimate of

$183.6 million for the 2024/25 financial year, within a possible range of $175 million – $250 million depending on estimated complexity of OIA requests.

They've calculated this by (roughly) taking the number of requests, estimating the proportion per agency which are complex (expensive) vs routine (cheap), and multiplied by the relevant cost per request, based on Australian data. They correctly highlight that 77% of requests come from 6 agencies (Police, Natural Hazards Commission (EQC), Department of Corrections, NZ Defence Force, Fire and Emergency NZ, and NZ Customs Service), and (sensibly) recommend further work to understand both actual costs, and what is driving them, as well as strengthening proactive release. Those bits are fine, but the cost estimate is absolutely absurd. How? The accompanying A3 (p10 of the proactive release) estimates the police's annual OIA costs at $50 million. But the police are actually one of the few agencies we have good OIA cost data for! A November 2025 request made on FYI, the public OIA request site, included both the numbers of requests processed, and the staff numbers and costs for both the police Ministerial Services OIA group, and the Information Requests Service Group (IRSG), for exactly the time period TBL is looking at. Ministerial services processed 1014 requests in the second half of 2024, and 832 in the first half of 2025, for a total of 1846 in 2024-25. IRSG processed 28921 and 25280 respectively, for a total of 54201. (Yes, there's a discrepancy between these numbers and those published by TKM. The reason for that is speed cameras and media requests, which are handled by other groups).

As for costs,

Police advises that there are 13 people in Ministerial Services who process OIA requests. As at 1 November 2025, the annual total for their salaries is $1,547,991.

There are 53 people who work in the Information Request Service Group and the annual total for their salaries is $4,489,296.

This gives a cost-per-request for police ministerial services (which handles the most complex requests) of $838.57, and for IRSG as $82.83. While there's no cost-estimate for speed cameras and media requests, both are likely to be at the lower end (the former because they are routine, the latter because anything non-routine gets kicked into the formal OIA process and handled by Ministerial Services). These are obviously far lower than TBL's estimates of $3530 for complex requests and $353 for routine ones. Even allowing for overheads (which TBL estimates at 66%), TBL's costs are inflated by a factor of 2.5.

You would hope that TBL's followup work will reveal that. In the interim, though, Goldsmith has got what he paid for: a big, scary number for costs, which he can decry as "waste", plus the inevitable line-go-up graph, showing those costs will increase into the future. Which he will probably consider to be a case for action.

The proactively-released briefing notes that the OIA is of constitutional significance, and that any change will attract significant interest. It recommends 10-12 weeks of public consultation on any proposal. That's clearly not happening on the original proposed timeline of "before July", so it may have been kicked back until after the election. Alternatively, Goldsmith being Goldsmith, he may just not bother with proper process. This regime has established a terrible reputation for ignoring advice and enacting radical, anti-democratic, even constitutional vibe-based policy under urgency. Sadly, we can't rule out them acting as they have in the past, and wrecking the OIA in the same manner. The only way to stop them is to throw them out of office as quickly as possible.

A crime

Last week, we learned that climate polluters had been writing our climate laws, and trying to hide the evidence by handing over their demands in hardcopy (which was then conveniently "lost" and so unavailable to an OIA request). That was highly suspicious, suggesting a deliberate attempt to thwart the Public Records Act and its requirement to create and maintain full and accurate records of official business. And now it gets worse, with news that prime ministerial staffer and former far-right lobbyist Matt Burgess was getting official documents sent to his private email account.

Once is suspicious. This however suggests a pattern of behaviour to hide public records, a deliberate non-compliance with the Public Records Act. And that is a crime. While the penalty is pathetic, he needs to be prosecuted, pour encourager les autres. Failing to do makes a mockery of the law.

But that's not enough. We clearly need law reform here to protect transparency. This must include explicit penalties in the OIA, stronger (and matching) penalties in the Public Records Act, and a tweak to the Electoral Act declaring violation of either to be a corrupt practice - meaning anyone convicted will be automatically removed from parliament. Add a legal principle of absolute ministerial responsibility for the actions of their subordinates, and we would finally have proper incentives for open government.

If Ministers refuse to do this, it is effectively an admission that they are guilty. The question is, how shameless is how political class?