NEW POLL: The Best (And Worst) Big-City Mayors
For the first time since June 2024, Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger takes the top spot as the country's most popular metropolitan mayor, after a 19-point surge this quarter.
Commenting on this, Taxpayers' Union spokesman James Ross said:
"Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger backed rates capping, and in that same period surged 19 points to become the most popular big-city mayor. If that's not an endorsement of rates capping, I don't know what is."
"Local body elections are less than three months away. Any candidates looking to boost their appeal might do well to follow Mayor Mauger's example by putting ratepayers' needs front-and-centre."
"Mayor Brown remains steadily well-liked, no doubt thanks to the fourth-lowest rates hikes in the country over the last three years. And even Tory Whanau has seen a boost since announcing she'd step aside - all in all, everyone's a winner this poll."
The latest Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll ranks New Zealand's three metro mayors by their net approval, and tracks their approval over time.
The results are based on a series of monthly polls across New Zealand. Because the sample sizes for Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington are larger, trends are able to be deduced over time.
The full results can be found at www.taxpayers.org.nz/mayors_0725
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
3 days ago
- The Spinoff
Windbag: Why the Taxpayers' Union endorsed this Green Party policy
They say politics makes strange bedfellows, and there are few stranger pairings than this. Wellington is the remnant of a failed startup. The New Zealand Company, which established the city, was a for-profit enterprise with a clear business model: sell land to wealthy people, and use the proceeds to bring working-class people to New Zealand for free. In theory, the mix of capital and labour would work in perfect harmony: founding businesses, working the land, and creating a functioning economy that would improve everyone's property values. So what went wrong? There are many factors, but one of the most important was absentee landlords. Many investors stayed in London, hoping the value of their land would increase due to the work of others, while contributing nothing themselves. The New Zealand Company brought more labourers than could be employed by independent businesses, so it had to provide them with work, which eventually drove the company to bankruptcy. From the very beginning of British-style property ownership in Aotearoa, land banking has been one of our biggest problems, dragging down productivity and hindering the growth of our cities. It's still the case today. There are empty lots and surface car parks in the centre city, underdeveloped sections in city-fringe neighbourhoods, and a single family owns almost all of Wellington's remaining greenfield land. The Wellington Green Party is targeting this issue with a policy to change the rates system to be based on land value rather than the current combination of the capital value of buildings and land. Several other councils have already adopted land value rates, including Nelson, New Plymouth, Napier and Whangarei. The Greens found an unlikely ally in their campaign last week when the policy was endorsed by the Taxpayers' Union – which even the Taxpayers' Union seemed surprised by. 'The Greens are right on this one,' executive director Jordan Williams said in a statement. 'Taxing land, rather than housing and development on land, creates the right incentive of avoiding land banking or not putting land to its most productive use, such as housing.' Williams went even further than the Greens' policy, calling for local government minister Simon Watts to embrace land value rates nationwide, saying he 'should reach over the aisle and grab this phenomenal policy'. Alex Baker, the Green-ish mayoral candidate who isn't officially endorsed by the Greens, is also campaigning on a switch to land value rates. This story in The Post implies it's suspicious that Baker and the party could have come up with the same idea separately. It's not. Land value taxes are the big current thing in the Yimby movement. Henry George is Sabrina Carpenter for online urbanists. 'The current setting is inefficient,' Baker told The Spinoff. 'It discourages capital investment, business, new houses and intense developments and encourages the accumulation of under-utilised land. I simply want to change to a system that is more efficient. The long-run impact of that is improved housing supply, which will mean rents come down and quality lifts, which will attract more people and bring down rates.' The alliance between Wellington's Greens and the free-market TPU is rare, but it's not the first time it has happened. The TPU was strongly supportive of the zoning reforms in last year's District Plan, which were led by Wellington's progressive councillors. This ability to form cross-partisan consensus is one of the things that has made the Yimby movement so successful. The TPU sees zoning reform as giving more property owners more rights to develop their land, and land value rates as an economic incentive to do so. The Greens see it as a way to improve housing supply, quality and affordability. The motivations might be different, but the outcomes are the same. 'The TPU-Green coalition is exactly where I see myself as a candidate,' Baker said. 'It's a free-market change. A more efficient tax. But it will result in change, which is something that conservatives who don't want the city to grow or improve will always be against. I expect over time the business community will get aligned with me, because no amount of taking a blunt axe to the council will improve outcomes for the city.' The two conservative councillors who have put up their hands for mayor, Ray Chung and Diane Calvert, both oppose a switch to land value rates. Calvert said debating rates reform was 'like moving deck chairs while the ship takes on water. The real problems run deeper and we need to fix those first. Chung told The Post the policy was 'built on a false ideology that anyone who gets ahead should pay more' – which is not an accurate analysis of how land value rates work. The TPU specifically called out Chung in its statement. 'It is sad to see Ray Chung further disgrace himself by coming out against this policy. We'd urge him to reconsider and put policy ahead of partisanship,' Williams said. Andrew Little, who is widely considered the frontrunner in the Wellington mayoral race, said he was open to the idea. 'Land value-based rates is an idea worth considering,' Little told The Spinoff. 'We can also use rates loading to incentivise better land use, and we should do so to make sure Wellington gets proper housing density in key areas.' Baker is claiming Little's soft support as a victory. He doesn't believe Little would be talking about land value rates if it weren't for his and the Greens' policy. Baker said he entered the race after Tory Whanau left because he felt someone needed to drive the debate from the progressive side. 'I wasn't seeing anything from any other candidates that indicated they would turn things around,' he said. Wellington City Council considered a switch to land value rates last year as part of its rates review, but basically decided to put the idea in the too-hard basket. In the short term, that's probably a fair approach. It's looking increasingly inevitable that a Wellington supercity will be back on the table soon. Porirua and Hutt City voters will both vote in non-binding referendums on amalgamation at this year's election, and the region's chief executives seem to be largely united on the idea. It probably doesn't make much sense for Wellington City Council to upend its rating system right now, given the likelihood of such a major restructure in the next few years. But with the possibility of major reform happening soon, this is the perfect time to have the debate.
NZ Herald
6 days ago
- NZ Herald
The rates crisis – a canny view for New Zealand: Nick Stewart
Council rates increased 12.2% annually.¹ The Taxpayers' Union documents cumulative rate increases of 34.52% over three years whilst inflation totalled just 13.7%. This is systematic wealth confiscation by people who face no market discipline for their decisions, and the Hastings District Council provides a fine example of the melee ahead. Yet, Hastings is simply one example among many bad apples across NZ. Rate increases, or daylight robbery? In Hastings, ratepayers who budgeted for normal 3-4% increases got hammered with 19% in 2024-25, followed by 15% in 2025-26. That's a compound 37% increase over two years for Hastings ratepayers. An average Hastings family paying $3000 in rates now face $4300 annually – that's $1300 extracted from household budgets that could have funded children's education or emergency savings. The timing makes this especially vicious. Right as petrol prices fell 8% – providing families with a glimmer of relief – councils threw on rate increases that more than wiped out these savings. It's almost as if they calculated how much breathing room households gained … then took it. Hastings has projected debt rising from $400 million to $700m by 2030. We're witnessing a council that has grown beyond what its ratepayer base can sustain. The rider has become heavier than the horse, which spells eventual capitulation. Every private business understands that customers have a finite capacity to pay. Exceed that capacity and customers disappear. Councils operate under no such constraint. They simply send bigger bills to ratepayers who can't escape. Like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, today's councillors have forgotten they're supposed to serve ratepayers – not rule them. While private-sector businesses slash costs and implement redundancies to survive, councils expand their fiefdoms with impunity. The contrast couldn't be starker. Business managers whose jobs depend on efficiency face market discipline daily. Councillors face elections every three years, where complex budget decisions get reduced to campaign slogans. Meanwhile, they enjoy inflation-plus salary increases and gold-plated job security while imposing austerity on the very ratepayers who fund them. Richardson's Democratic Solution Ruth Richardson captures the fundamental problem: councils have become 'arrogant', 'unaccountable', and 'wasteful' and 'have got to be brought to heel'. Her proposed solution cuts through the bureaucratic nonsense: cap rate increases at inflation unless ratepayers approve higher amounts through binding referenda. This isn't radical – it's basic democratic consent for taxation. An inflation cap would restore planning certainty overnight whilst forcing councils to choose between genuine necessities and bureaucratic empire-building. Critics claim this assumes ratepayers lack perfect information about 'complex' infrastructure trade-offs, but that misses the point entirely. The current system assumes councils have perfect information about ratepayers' financial capacity – an assumption that Hastings' compound 37% increase rudely disproves. When families face financial warfare dressed up as fiscal responsibility, the 'complexity' argument becomes irrelevant. Hastings, the bellwether? The upcoming Hastings mayoral election represents more than political choice – it's an opportunity for forensic examination of fiscal responsibility: every council vote recorded, every budget decision documented, and no way for candidates to escape their fiscal DNA through clever spin and newfound fiscal enlightenment. Some councillors already express concern about 'diminishing borrowing capacity' – a tacit admission that current spending is unsustainable. When the reality finally penetrates the bureaucratic bubble, it's too late for the ratepayers. This same dynamic is playing out from Auckland to Invercargill. Yes, New Zealand faces genuine infrastructure challenges. Ageing water systems, earthquake strengthening, and climate adaptation create real costs. But this reality has become the perfect smokescreen for herculean spending growth. The question isn't whether infrastructure needs exist. The infrastructure bill was always coming due. It's whether councils have used it to justify spending that extends far beyond pipes and roads – into glamour projects, consultant fees and bureaucratic expansion. Again – when the rider becomes heavier than the horse, the system collapses regardless of how noble the rider's intentions. Why can't RBNZ just drive rates down? The Reserve Bank faces an impossible choice. It cannot provide the interest rate relief the rest of us desperately need whilst councils pump 13% of total inflation into the economy. We all need to row the boat and play our part – including the public sector. A dollar is a dollar, whether it comes from a rates bill or a grocery receipt. When councils exempt themselves from inflation discipline, they force the RBNZ to keep interest rates higher for longer – crushing mortgage holders and businesses who had no say in council spending decisions. Every responsible household and business starts the year with careful financial planning. These assume government costs increase roughly in line with inflation – a reasonable expectation in a functioning democracy. The problem lies in the fact that our councils have abandoned this social contract. When rates contribute 13% of national inflation whilst representing a fraction of household spending, councils have become the primary destroyer of private planning. Families who budget carefully find their fiscal discipline rendered meaningless by public sector excess they cannot control or escape. Voters, now's your chance … Real reform requires acknowledging that councils have become the enemy of household financial stability. October's elections offer a chance to demand proven fiscal discipline, not conversion stories. The question isn't whether New Zealand can afford fiscal responsibility – it's whether families and businesses can survive another term of public sector excess. The arithmetic doesn't lie. It simply raises the question of whether voters will finally hold councils accountable for the mathematical reality they've created.
Scoop
7 days ago
- Scoop
DOC Reshuffle Fails To Deliver For Taxpayers
The Taxpayers' Union is slamming the Department of Conservation's latest staffing changes as another weak attempt to dodge real savings, saying the bureaucracy remains overstaffed and under-accountable. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Tory Relf, said: 'After months of dragging their feet DOC has finally confirmed some actual job losses, but let's not kid ourselves.' 'We said it in May and we'll say it again: this is optics over substance. DOC's headcount exploded by 37 percent between 2017 and 2023, so they're barely scratching the surface with these latest changes.' 'This isn't bold reform, it's damage control. Taxpayers were promised savings, not press releases and token trims. Every dollar spent propping up bloated departments is a dollar not spent on frontline conservation work or returning money to the pockets of hardworking New Zealanders.' 'The Government can't fix the books with PR spin and half-measures. It needs to show some backbone and start cutting where it counts, and that means tackling the bloated back-office beasts like DOC head-on.'
