This year the Taxpayers’ Union is campaigning to keep Labour out of government while helping supply the news through which voters understand the election. It commissions opinion polls, organises candidate debates and now has the NZ Herald livestreaming its electorate debate series. In the Union’s latest annual review, its executive director Jordan Williams tells supporters the aim is to “do everything in our power to ensure that Labour does not return to office”.
Many voters share its goals, and it is perfectly legitimate for it to campaign for them. But an advocacy group playing such a big role in an election deserves scrutiny of its own. Voters should know who finances these campaigns, what interests the Union’s policies serve, and how its relationships with the media work.
Its new manifesto sets out an agenda for both the election and the coalition negotiations that follow. Williams’ appearance on TVNZ’s Q+A with Jack Tame on Sunday gave some indication of how the organisation intends to pursue that agenda. With Nicky Hager launching a new book tonight (with the title, apparently, of “Dirty Work”), the Union could soon face further scrutiny.
Supplying the election news
There is an obvious attraction for newsrooms in the material the Union supplies. Polls cost money, debates take organisation, and reporting teams are under pressure. The Union provides stories, figures and events that journalists and audiences want. Its annual review reports 2,467 media mentions over a one-year period. That is its own count, but it gives some indication of the scale of the operation.
Co-founder David Farrar is candid about the ambition. In the review he describes a political “battle tank” and says the organisation sometimes takes on the role of the “fourth estate”. He explains that its strength is translating research into messages for a broad audience and making politicians respond.
Some of its authority has been earned through worthwhile work. Economist Brian Easton wrote in 2024: “Seeking out that waste has been a key element in giving the NZTU so much public authority.” The difficulty comes when credibility earned by exposing a particular instance of waste is carried over into much wider claims about the proper size of government. Finding a badly spent million dollars does not establish how much should be spent on hospitals, benefits or public housing.
The Union’s current seven-electorate debate programme, hosted by former Labour MP Anna Lorck and commentator Damien Grant, combines candidate debates with fresh electorate polling and a national media platform. The Herald’s Wellington Bays page labels the material “Sponsored Stories” and “advertorial”, prepared by the Union. That disclosure is useful. The wider arrangements still deserve explanation: who pays, who chooses the questions, and what editorial control does the Herald retain? Any news reporting arising from the Herald-Union partnership should make the relationship clear.
The Union can commission an accurate poll and still gain political influence from it. Newsrooms should explain their arrangements with the organisation and scrutinise its policy claims as closely as they would those of a political party.
Pushing National further right
The Union’s campaign against Nicola Willis shows how hard it is prepared to push National on spending. As Henry Cooke reported in The Post, during last December’s dispute with Union chair Ruth Richardson, Willis challenged her: “Instead of lurking in the shadows with secretly funded ads in the paper, come and debate me right here in Parliament.” Richardson eventually rejected a “sideshow designed to distract from fiscal failure”.
On Q+A, Williams explained that securing National’s commitment to “no new taxes” had been an objective set by his board. The purpose was to increase pressure on the next Parliament to tackle government spending. He acknowledged that it was difficult to know how much credit the Union deserved, but the strategy was clear. By ruling out new taxes, the Union narrows the next government's fiscal options and leaves spending restraint as the main lever.
The Union therefore wants more than the re-election of a National-led government. It wants to shape what that government can do. Its manifesto expressly invites parties to carry its programme into coalition negotiations.
What cutting waste would mean
The scale of that programme deserves more attention than the publicity stunts. Its manifesto seeks to reduce core Crown spending to 25% of GDP, against its stated baseline of 32.6%. Tame put the gap at roughly $35 billion a year on current numbers. Williams said the target would not be reached within the next three years. Even allowing for a longer timetable and economic growth, this is a major change in the share of national income spent through government.
Williams pointed to superannuation, public-service growth and poorly targeted assistance such as the Winter Energy Payment. Some are legitimate subjects for reform, but do not explain how the full target would be reached. Pressed by Tame about which services would worsen and whether cuts would cause harm, he eventually acknowledged trade-offs.
Government spending cuts can mean larger private bills for taxpayers, or services no longer available. After all, a taxpayer may also depend on a hospital, disability support or housing assistance. A campaign conducted in the name of taxpayers should explain what happens to their overall living standards. Describing expenditure as waste does not answer that question, especially when the proposed reduction is this large.
Tame also challenged the manifesto’s interpretation of wealth-tax modelling. Treasury and Inland Revenue’s advice assumes that a particular 1% wealth tax would reduce the wealth base subject to the tax by 17.5%, allowing for changes in taxpayers’ behaviour. It does not forecast that 17.5% of all New Zealand wealth would leave the country. The manifesto conflates these things and then extrapolates to suggest that a 2.5% tax could drive out nearly 44% of the country’s wealth.
Treasury and Inland Revenue themselves warned of substantial economic risks and recommended against proceeding with the tax in Budget 2023. That does not support the manifesto’s claim that 17.5% of all New Zealand wealth would leave the country. The Union should correct that claim.
The supermarket test
The Union’s position on the supermarket duopoly provides another test of whose interests its programme serves. It would be wrong to say it denies the duopoly problem. In January 2024, its policy adviser James Ross condemned “cartel-like price setting” and “bumper profits for the fat cats at Foodstuffs and Woolworths”.
The issue is the remedy. The Union attributes the problem largely to government-created barriers: planning restrictions, consenting delays, overseas-investment rules and compliance costs that make it difficult for competitors to establish themselves. Its preferred solution is to remove those obstacles. This closely resembles Act’s approach, which also emphasises new investment and warns that compulsory restructuring could deter potential entrants.
On that basis, the Union has opposed several measures intended to constrain the existing supermarket groups. It has criticised the Grocery Supply Code, rejected the Greens’ publicly owned supermarket proposal as “CommieMart”, and attacked Labour’s proposed prohibition on excessive pricing. Responding to Labour, spokesman Rhys Hurley said the answer was “more competitors, not more red tape”. The Union has supported some intervention, including removing restrictive supermarket land covenants.
National would pursue the separation of Foodstuffs into competing nationwide chains, subject to an independent Commerce Commission assessment that it would benefit shoppers. The Union’s 19 September newsletter questioned whether politicians should be “forcibly redesigning” existing businesses. It concentrated on the signal this would send to potential investors.
So, National is now more willing than the Union to contemplate using state power to change the structure of this market. But does the Union believe that taxpayers would have to compensate the supermarkets for National’s policy if implemented? After all, the Union’s new manifesto calls for compensation when regulation “takes or materially restricts the use of someone’s property”. The proposal follows a discussion of resource-management law and does not expressly address supermarket restructuring. The Union should clarify before the election whether it believes the principle would apply to National’s proposal.
Who pays for the campaign
On Q+A, Williams emphasised ordinary supporters as funders, saying roughly two-thirds of income came from small online donations and less than 3% from industry. Its annual review gives a different breakdown: 54% small-dollar support, 42% “Taxpayer Caucus”, 2% industry and 1% other income. Its small-dollar category includes membership dues and donations from individuals giving less than $1,000 in the preceding year. The categories are not identical and the reporting periods may differ. The annual review shows that larger donors are a substantial funding source.
Supporters contributing at least $1,500 a year become eligible for the Taxpayer Caucus, with exclusive polling information, board updates and events. The website says the organisation relies on them to give opinions on its direction and “the choice of campaigns”. Membership is confidential unless the donor chooses otherwise.
The Union’s general assurance that “donations never buy influence” therefore sits alongside a fundraising offer that invites significant supporters to help shape its work. The Union should explain how those donors are consulted about campaigns, and whether it discloses any financial interest they have in the policies being promoted. The industry percentage tells us little about donations made personally by business owners, how concentrated larger donations are, or whose interests overlap with the campaigns being funded.
Asked by RNZ’s Guyon Espiner in May 2024 about tobacco-industry funding, Williams defended confidentiality: “It’s not my place to dox who supports us.” Privacy for someone contributing $25 is understandable. Substantial funding for an organisation campaigning nationally creates a different public interest. Voters do not have to prove that a donor dictated a policy before asking who supplied the money.
Transparency on its own terms
The Union has also converted from an incorporated society to a not-for-profit company, while promising to keep publishing financial information. Asked why on Q+A, Williams said the new incorporated-societies regime contained provisions that opponents could use to cause mischief. “They could bombard us with information requests, for example,” he said. He denied that avoiding an audit requirement was the reason for the change.
Writing at The Standard, Greg Presland drew attention to the irony: the TPU makes extensive use of information requests to scrutinise others, yet Williams had identified such requests as a concern for his own organisation. The society provisions concern requests by members; they are different from the official-information laws that apply to public bodies. Even so, it is a revealing explanation from an organisation whose public identity rests so heavily on accountability.
Williams told Tame the Union would continue to be “more transparent than the political parties”, referring to its voluntary publication of accounts and a donor breakdown. Registered political parties must identify donors above disclosure thresholds; the Union does not offer equivalent disclosure. Publishing totals and funding categories leaves voters unable to establish who supplies much of the money.
The people and organisations behind the campaigns
The Union’s influence also rests on its relationships. Farrar has long polled for National, Richardson was a National finance minister, and its board includes former Act MP John Boscawen and former Act parliamentary chief of staff Chris Milne. Former campaigns manager Louis Houlbrooke went on to work for Act, while former economist Joe Ascroft moved into senior work in Christopher Luxon’s office. Callum Purves, formerly the Union’s chief operating officer and head of campaigns, is now Act’s campaign director. These connections, also recorded in my Lobbying and Influence Register, help explain the organisation’s political knowledge and reach. They do not make it formally controlled by a party.
Casey Costello’s move from Union chair to New Zealand First MP and Associate Health Minister deserves scrutiny for a more specific reason. A former leader of an organisation that has received tobacco-industry support took responsibility for the coalition’s reversal of tobacco restrictions. Williams told Espiner the Union had played no role in formulating that reversal and that Costello had not been involved in its industry fundraising. Her previous role makes transparency about the assessment of any actual or perceived conflicts particularly important.
In Ruth Hill’s 2021 RNZ reporting, former Act researcher Grant McLachlan alleged that Act used apparently independent groups to prepare the ground for its positions. He cited the Union’s Campaign for Affordable Housing, which opposed the Greens’ wealth-tax proposal. Williams defended that campaign and rejected the suggestion that the Union was a party mouthpiece. Asked whether Act used or created organisations such as the Union to generate support for its positions, David Seymour answered “no”. The allegation remains contested; the need to examine the funding and relationships does not depend on accepting it as fact.
Andrea Vance reported in April 2025 that Williams’ business, The Campaign Company, produced the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s anti-Green billboards. Vance also reported that the Trust rented desk space in an Auckland office shared by the company and the Union, but its spokesperson Louise Parsons said the TPU “had nothing to do with” the campaign.
I examined The Campaign Company’s wider political role in Dirty Politics 2.0? Lobbying in the Shadows. The shared premises make it reasonable to ask how office costs are allocated and how potential conflicts are managed. The Union said in a 2023 statement that it had procedures for managing conflicts of interest. It should explain how those procedures apply to these arrangements. A commercial client should not automatically be described as a Union donor.
Registered to campaign
The Union is registered as a third-party promoter and can spend up to $424,000 on election advertising during the regulated period. But the Electoral Commission’s 2026 handbook tells promoters: “You don’t have to record or report any donations to your campaign.” The rules therefore allow an organisation to conduct a substantial election campaign while keeping its financial backers confidential.
The remedy should apply across the political spectrum. Business-backed organisations, trade unions and left-wing campaign groups should all face appropriate disclosure requirements for substantial electoral funding. In David Williams’ 2023 Newsroom reporting, legal scholar Timothy Kuhner called the broader problem the “privatisation of democracy”. The Union’s claim to represent all taxpayers cannot resolve that: taxpayers also include people who support higher taxes and better public services.
What might Hager reveal?
Nicky Hager’s new book launches at Unity Books at 6pm today, with its subject still under wraps. My suspicion is that the Taxpayers’ Union and the campaigning organisations around Williams could feature. This is a hunch, not advance knowledge. In 2023 the Union itself said it believed Hager was researching it, although that statement did not establish that a book about the organisation was forthcoming. At the time, Hager denied it, saying “They’re not important enough for a book“. And this afternoon Williams has posted on social media about the rumours that the book would be about his organisation, adding “I’m flattered we may have finally made the cut”.
Hager has already examined Williams in Dirty Politics and criticised the Union’s Campaign for Affordable Housing. In Hill’s 2021 RNZ report, he questioned the interests behind a campaign presented as a concern about housing affordability: “We still don’t know whose money was behind it, whose interests, who pushed it along, what they were trying to achieve.” Williams defended the campaign as a legitimate response to a wealth-tax proposal.
Asked on Sunday whether he expected to feature in Hager’s new book, Williams replied: “I think your guess is as good as mine.” He said Hager had not contacted him, that he understood former staff had been approached, and that he was not worried.
The Union wants politicians held to account for the money they spend and the promises they make. Voters should also be able to assess its policy claims and know who finances its work. They should not have to wait for an investigative author to discover who is paying for a campaign conducted in their name.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Director of the Democracy Project
Further Reading:
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: Annual Review 2025/26 — The Campaign Plan for 2026.
Jack Tame (TVNZ): Why the Taxpayers’ Union wants government spending slashed, interview with Jordan Williams.
Brian Easton: The Taxpayers’ Union at eleven
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: 2026 Election Debates
NZ Herald, Sponsored Stories: Taxpayers’ Union Election Debate — Wellington Bays
Henry Cooke (Post): Ruth Richardson pulls out of ‘circus’ debate with Nicola Willis (paywalled)
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: Taxpayer Manifesto 2026
Treasury and Inland Revenue: Advice on a wealth tax
James Ross (Taxpayers’ Union): Small-Fry Grocery Pricing Investigation Won’t Stop Spiralling Food Prices
Act: Token supermarket policies show desperate, visionless election campaigns.
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: Grocery Supply Code will drive food prices even higher.
Tory Relf (Taxpayers’ Union): Greens’ CommieMart plan won’t fix supermarket competition
Rhys Hurley (Taxpayers’ Union): Labour’s Price Gouging Plan Ignores the Cause
National Party: National to pursue separation of Foodstuffs.
Tory Relf (Taxpayers’ Union): Taxpayer Update
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: Budget 2022 analysis
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: Join the Taxpayer Caucus and About Us.
Guyon Espiner (RNZ): Jordan Williams on why the Taxpayers’ Union went to Panama to debate vaping
Greg Presland (The Standard): Hager’s next book
Bryce Edwards (Democracy Project): Taxpayers Union, Lobbying and Influence Register entry.
Act: ACT Party appoints new General Manager/Party Secretary, announcing Callum Purves’s appointment.
Act: Online session — Taupō Conference, identifying Callum Purves as campaign director.
Ruth Hill (RNZ): Ex-ACT staffer Grant McLachlan says party created fake grassroots groups
Andrea Vance (Post): Firm owned by Taxpayers’ Union boss behind Green Party attack billboards
Bryce Edwards (Democracy Project): Dirty Politics 2.0? Lobbying in the Shadows
Electoral Commission: Register of promoters for the 2026 General Election, guidance for third-party promoters, Third Party Handbook 2026, and rules for party donations and loans.
David Williams (Newsroom): Chiding in plain sight
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union: Pre-election Books — Avoiding False Impressions, 2023 statement.
Nicky Hager: Dirty Politics: How attack politics is poisoning New Zealand’s political environment, Craig Potton Publishing, 2014.
I always smirk when I read about "wasteful public spending". In local government this is a frequent cry. "Experts" spout on about the millions wasted. When challenged about what they would cut, the answer is I seldom heard an answer that at the Council table wasn't already under scrutiny. The key issue is we need more taxes. How many people need to die in A & E waiting rooms? How many people have to wait to see their local doctor for an unnecessarily long period? How long before Roads of National ( Party) significance continue to remain unscrutinized by hand wringers like Simeon Brown? When will lobbyists and party funders be scrutinized properly? While we allow the TPU to continue stirring the pot major questions will remain unasked, and unanswered; because they don't want us ordinary voters to look at them and their funders.
Good scrutiny, Bryce. I'd add the myth sitting under their whole operation, the one in the name.
"Taxpayers' money" isn't quite the thing they claim. A currency issuer spends first and taxes after. Tax doesn't fund the spending, it manages demand. So the premise that the government is spending "your money," and that cutting it hands you a refund, is the household myth they keep promulgating in all their propaganda.
And that $35bn "waste" cut? Government spending is someone's income. Remove $35bn and you haven't saved taxpayers a cent. You've deleted $35bn of private-sector income, wages and contracts that get spent in the shops.
The trick is the word "taxpayer." Everyone's cast as a taxpayer being robbed, never as the patient or pensioner who relies on the spending. Same person, both sides of the ledger. Name one side, hide the other.