Taxpayers Union hides its funding

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: - 32 comments
Categories: dpf

Looks like the Taxpayers Union has now gone offline so that we have no idea where its funding came from.

Because it claimed, without justification, that it was a democratic organisation with a commitment to the public good, and so it registered as an incorporated society.

One of the obligations of an incorporated society is publicise accounts each year. Here are the TPU accounts from last year.

It had income of $2.3 million but expenses of $2.5 million. I thought it would be building up a warchest for the campaign like it did last time when it had nearly a million dollars in the bank.

This time it looks like TPU has a lot more employees. And a lot less money in the bank.

But thanks to it deregistering we will no longer have any ability to understand how it is funded. And we will not know how much of a warchest it has, at least some of which may be funded from overseas.

Which is a concern.

After all it gets lots of media attention and it funds the Curia Poll which I always had concerns about.

The latest poll looks dubious. I mean Labour and TOP both being hit? Sure one might be hit but both? Are Labour voters really going to switch to Act?

Over in the UK Nigel Farage is being pummeled because Reform anonymously fed polls paid for by donations by crypto bros to the media and these were used to attack Labour.

Over in Aotearoa we have polls quite possibly funded by Atlas entities and circulated by TPU being used to attack the Labour Party.

Please explain to me why we should not be concerned for our democracy.

32 comments on “Taxpayers Union hides its funding”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    2. 2.2

      I see John Boscawen is one of the TU company directors. He was on Radio NZ's The Whip political discussion a couple of weeks ago spouting massively pro-ACT opinions. No sense of balance.

      And of course Jordan Williams is another director, and Ruth Richardson.

      Gawd ‘elp us. Who would trust a TU/Curia poll with that list.

    3. 2.3

      Thanks

      So only shareholders get to see accounts and that includes Farrar, Williams and Ruth Richardson …

      So much for being a grassroots activist group.

      2. 2.3.2

        Previously the some "associated" organisations such as the Campaign Company that were used to run campaigns on behalf of ACT and National, and apparently either TPU or the NZ Initiative have been training grounds for Ministerial advisers in all three government parties – including for the Finance Minister – apparently he did not learn how to totally hide submissions from "friends / donors" that turned up word for word in legislation. Interesting that Farrar is back in a Director position – perhaps independence is not as necessary now that Curia is no longer a member of an industry organisation concerned with market research standards it is taking less of his time. The TPU do seem to have more staff than a year or so ago – see: https://www.taxpayers.org.nz/our_team.

  3. 3

    Political donations and campaign financing are in urgent need of reform. Possible foundational points in such a reform – first thoughts anyway:

    • all donations must come from named individuals who are enrolled on the NZ electoral roll.
    • cap these donations annually for each individual at some lowish percentage of the median income.
    • political parties must set their annual membership fees at or below this threshold. Membership fees are considered to be donations and not exempt from the donation capping provisions
    • the Electoral Commission should be funded to top up parties at some ratio based on each party's membership numbers – this is just to provide operational funding at some appropriate level that does not permit the creation of 'warchests' and lopsided advertising budgets. This encourages parties to communicate with the public throughout the electoral cycle.and grow their memberships
    • no political polls may be published within 12 months of the statutory latest possible date for the next election, though they may be conducted privately.
    • the leaking of private polls during the prohibited period is an offence against electoral law and attracts financial punishment
    • polling companies doing political polls must be registered with an authority that audits it regularly to ensure its methods are reputable.
    • polling companies publishing political polls must explicitly declare the names of their directors, senior management and any funders/donors. All of these individuals must be registered on the NZ electoral roll.

    If OPP do make it into Parliament and Hipkins is in a position to talk to them, this is the one area where they may have some common ground.

      1. 3.2.1

        Yes it will – but that has to be accepted to get any legislative control over the whole donation and campaign financing sh*tshow. The principle here is the core democratic one of "equal influence over outcomes".

        1. 3.2.3.1

          Donations (as suggested above) have to be given under the name of an individual who is on the electoral roll. Many union members may not be happy for a public donation to be made in their name. People belong to unions for a whole lot of reasons, and their personal politics may not be the same as one the Union supports.

    3. 3.3

      How would any if this (apart from the inability to release polls) affect what the TPU does?

      And, by extension, donors giving funding to lobby groups as a proxy for political parties

      1. 3.3.1

        Agreed, that's the rub. I heard on Nat radio (I think it was the bogey man Farrar) the salient point that the harder you make it for people to donate to parties the more likely we are to end up like America with the rise of Super PACs that are very influential and there's no idea where the moeny comes from. I'm a union member and thankfully my union doesn't donate to any party.. they do however donate to CTU which pisses me off occasionaly.

      2. 3.3.2

        Limiting their ability to release political polls is an improvement. You rightly raise the wider question of the TPU (or any big donor) poisoning the well of public discourse in some other way. None of what I suggested is done with an assumption that all the ingenuity and malign intent of big money can be easily stopped. We can keep mopping up the more egregious examples of that with additional regulation, but there is no doubt a point of diminishing returns and unworkable regulatory complexity. However, that doesn't imply that we should do nothing.

  4. 4

    I think we can safely assume who their donors are and who is pulling their strings.

    So lets not be shy about telling the world about who the TPU really is. If they don't like that they can front up with their accounts.

  5. 5

    For this election the spending limit for registered third parties during the regulated period (7 August to 6 November) is $424,000, gst inclusive. Spend more than $100,000 and the registered party needs to report its expenses after the election.

  6. 6

    Unless we have the courage to say that democracy actually means the equal influence of every citizen over electoral outcomes, we may as well go and die in a hole of our own making. Implement that principle in whatever damn way it works best.

  7. 7

    Is this TPU Curia still kicked out of the regulators?
    I remember Farrar kicking up a stink, but why were they removed?
    Are they now moral and following whatever rules they were previously breaking?

      1. 7.1.1

        From Gemini

        "Curia Market Research was not technically expelled; its principal, David Farrar, voluntarily resigned from the Research Association of New Zealand (RANZ) in August 2024 to preempt potential disciplinary action.

        • The Triggers: Curia faced a series of public complaints made to RANZ regarding its polling practices. The complaints centered on the use of leading or biased question design, problematic sampling methodology, and issues with full disclosure when conducting commissioned surveys for advocacy and interest groups (such as Family First, the Free Speech Union, and the Taxpayers' Union).
        • The Disciplinary Threat: After investigating a complaint, the RANZ Professional Standards Group (PSG) upheld findings against Curia and recommended a sanction that included potential suspension or expulsion from the industry body.
        • The Preemptive Resignation: Upon learning that the PSG was considering a recommendation for suspension or expulsion, David Farrar tendered Curia's resignation from RANZ on August 10, 2024. Farrar stated publicly that he disagreed with RANZ's handling of complaints, alleging the process had become overly bureaucratic, weaponized by political opponents, and punitive.
        • The Outcome: Despite Curia's resignation, RANZ exercised its constitutional right to continue the review process with an independent panel to reach a final formal conclusion on the complaint. Curia currently operates outside RANZ, claiming it independently follows the international ESOMAR/ICC Code of Practice instead."

Comments are closed.