There has been another horrific school shooting and one wonders when every school will be required to have an armed guard patrolling the grounds.
The trans ‘movement’ has lately been hinting at violence if they do not receive public acknowledgment and respect from their decision to change sexes. Instead, when a ’trans’ man goes into women’s restrooms he is met with fear. If they go into men’s restrooms they are met with derision and contempt. They can’t fit in and it makes ‘em angry. Now we see trans flags adorned with silhouettes of AK-47s, and there has been several other mass shootings by murderers who are trans.
The left continues to encourage the trans delusion. In a way, the Democrats are mentally ill themselves.
This week, we’re celebrating a major Taxpayer Victory, an unexpected Taxpayer Hero, and a young chap who gives us all hope for the future.
But first, a bouquet…Credit where credit is due: a ‘tax cut’ (of sorts) on groceries 👍Here at the Taxpayers’ Union, we’ve been more than a little critical lately of Finance Minister Nicola Willis. 👀Sure, she’s increased spending since the Government got into office (despite promising to get Grant Robertson’s ‘addiction’ to spending under control); increased the size of the deficit and daily government borrowing, and even increased the total number of bureaucrats since the last election (it initially dipped a bit, but the latest Public Service Commission figures speak for themselves).
So this week’s announcement from Nicola Willis of a so-called “express lane” for new supermarkets would have been easy to dismiss. But, we’ve been taking a look into the details, and credit where credit is due.
The changes target the key reason we lack much international competition in the grocery sector: principally the Resource Management Act – which operates as a ‘regulatory tax’ keeping out competition.
Back in May, our friends at the New Zealand Initiative, a Wellington-based economic think tank, published a research note on how to open New Zealand’s markets to more competition, which included specific drafting instructions on a Bill to fix many of the regulatory hurdles that make New Zealand an unattractive place to start a new grocery chain.
Often, especially once in Government, politicians turn a blind eye to new or bold ideas. This works for the bureaucracy too — who dislike groups like the NZ Initiative (or the Taxpayers’ Union!) having the ear of their Ministers.
TAXPAYER VICTORY: Nosey Parker IRD information gathering powers capped
We celebrated a MAJOR Taxpayer Victory this week with the announcement that Section 17GB – otherwise known as the Nosey Parker clause – of the delightfully-named Tax Administration Act 1994 is on the chopping block.
Back in 2022, David Parker introduced what amounts to a ‘snoopers’ charter’ for IRD, which was rushed through Parliament.
Historically, IRD could only demand information relevant to determining your tax liability. But that wasn’t enough for David Parker, who, in an outrageous affront to the rights of taxpayers, gave IRD powers to literally demand (with the threat of jail time) any information IRD officials wanted.
And it was even worse. The Minister could (and for the purposes of a particular political project did) instruct officials to conduct ‘research’ and use those powers however the Minister liked.
Well, it took three years, but this week we can finally claim victory! 🎉Revenue Minister Simon Watts has included in this year’s annual tax adjustments bill an amendment to scrap the Nosey Parker clause. First rates capping, now this.
Bravo Mr Watts!
Speaking of rates capping… Caught on camera: Grey District Councillors literally laugh at those struggling with high rates bills 🎥
Remember folks – when you can't pay the mortgage or afford your supermarket shop, your councillors are LAUGHING at your concerns. 🤯
This isn't nervous laughter as Grey District Council claimed. This is councillors who think they know better than you how your hard-earned money… pic.twitter.com/e4tMiTY9OQ
— New Zealand Taxpayers' Union (@TaxpayersUnion) August 28, 2025
It might surprise many, but we can’t watch every council meeting every day around the country. So when we saw this headline from 1News, it’s fair to say Jordan spat out his coffee. At a meeting earlier this week, Councillor Timothy Mora asked aloud if there’d been any pushback regarding the Council’s proposed 13.7 percent rate increases. The answer was yes.
And that’s when Grey District Council rather let themselves down.
How did they react? With concern over the increased cost of living? With compassion for the families struggling to make ends meet? No. They laughed.
Weirdly, 1News reported on the laughter, but didn’t actually publish the recording (weird, right?).
Again, your humble Taxpayers’ Union is here to help 🙃.We’ve dug out the actual recording, and published it for all to see. Judge for yourself
The Mayor has apologised. But apologies are cheap. If any of these councillors really are contrite, they ought to be committing to stopping the rates raids on their local community. And thanks to your humble Taxpayers’ Union, they can: by signing the Ratepayer Protection Pledge.
[They need a medicine known as Votemout —Eds]
This week, we launched the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, drawing a line in the sand between those mayoral and council candidates committed to standing with ratepayers and those who are not.
Every candidate standing for mayor or council has been asked for their commitment to ratepayers on three vital issues:
Oppose any measures that will see the total burden of rates, levies and additional council charges exceed the level of inflation and population growth,
Support initiatives that will improve transparency of council expenditure, including the public disclosure of all expenditure items (known as ‘armchair audit’ and ‘open data’)
Ratepayer Protection Pledge: Your 2025 Ratepayer Voting Guide 🗳️🛡️
Oppose unelected appointments onto council committees with spending and regulatory powers. Councils are only as good as the people we elect to sit on them. And we’ve seen more than enough evidence to show councils are in bad shape (looking at you, Grey District Council). Every candidate who signs the pledge will be published online, so voters can make an informed decision on who stands for what.
Right now, the whole team are working the phones and contacting candidates asking them to sign the pledge. Once we know who is with us (and who isn’t) we’ll be getting to work to make clear to ratepayers who is – and isn’t – on our side.
NEW POLL: All ages, regions and parties support capping council rates 🧢
With behaviour like Grey District Council’s, is it any wonder why Kiwis back a rates cap law by 3:1?
We published our latest poll results this week, showing a majority of Kiwis – no matter the age, region or party split – backing an introduction of a law to cap council rates.
We knew it was popular. You told us you wanted it. And you were bang on.
When you’ve got a policy that unites Labour and ACT, National and Te Pati Māori? You know it’s a good one.
Auckland Transport gets schooled by a 20-year-old law student 🏛️
Have you ever felt extraordinarily old when someone younger than you does something most of us will never achieve? I did this week, when 20-year-old Auckland University law student Sean O’Loughlin took a case to the High Court at Auckland against Auckland Transport – and won.
He tripped AT up at their own game – layers and layers of paperwork – after discovering that AT did not consider whether a raised pedestrian crossing and three speed bumps on The Parade in Bucklands Beach would unduly impede vehicular traffic.
Of course, they never admit it, but that’s usually Auckland Transport’s intention: to impede getting placed in a car…AT were found to have not fulfilled their legal duty drivers and therefore the decision was unlawful. Given they spent a whopping $667,000 on installing the things, you would have thought AT could have paid a bit more attention. Maybe they were distracted by spending more than $147,000 on social media influencers?
Either way, it’s yet another reminder that AT needs to be stripped back to basics and focus on providing decent service to all Aucklanders, including the ones in cars.Huge, huge congrats to this Taxpayer Hero. You’re a legend, Sean
Taxpayer Talk: Infrastructure NZ CEO Nick Leggett on building infrastructure, costs, and local government 🎙
Building anything in New Zealand has no shortage of challenges. Whether it be soaring costs, reels of red tape, or problems with supplying labour, our choked infrastructure pipeline deeply affects this country’s economy and quality of life. CEO for Infrastructure New Zealand, Nick Leggett, joins Peter Williams for a deep dive into how we can overcome these challenges so we can build faster, more efficiently, and more affordably.
A retired airline captain and immunology expert says pilot health and aviation safety have been in serious decline since the 2021 rollout of covid ‘vaccines’, which were mandated or heavily encouraged by most airlines.
Dr Kevin Stillwagon, speaking with epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, says deaths among pilots under retirement age rose by 40 percent in 2021. Long-term disabilities have tripled, and near-miss incidents at Washington National Airport jumped from one a year to 28. He believes the data point to adverse effects from the mRNA injections.
Stillwagon argues the shots were experimental and should never have been given to pilots. He cites the FAA’s own medical guidance, which requires pilots to avoid unapproved pharmaceuticals. “They were paid to break the law,” he says, accusing airlines of coercing pilots into breaching both legal and ethical rules.
He claims the spike protein produced by the mRNA shots can move through the bloodstream and trigger heart failure, blood clots, seizures, and brain fog. “This is a big deal,” he says. “The pilot is the least monitored component in the cockpit.”
Stillwagon also criticises the FAA for shutting down its centralised incapacitation database in 2022 and failing to track vaccine history. “We track jet oil to a tenth of a degree but not cardiac risk in pilots,” he says.
The claims are strongly disputed by medical experts and the aviation industry, which has not acknowledged any causal link between vaccination and rising incidents.
Sasha Latypova and Jim Ferguson on the ‘vaccine’ trial that could trigger ‘Nuremburg 2.0’
We host independent researcher Sasha Latypova and Jim Ferguson of Freedom Train International to discuss the pivotal Netherlands court case going up against the biggest purveyors of the covid con including Bill Gates.
Here, we explore the case’s significance and the suppression of expert testimonies. The conversation uncovers motives behind population control, the role of central banking and of the Department of Defense, plus strategies for personal resistance against the Agenda 2030 assault on the Western World.
Trump appears to be pushing his luck with Putin, who’s open to compromises, not concessions, let alone significant security ones. If this approach doesn’t change, then a serious escalation is expected.
Western security guarantees for Ukraine are one of the main issues delaying a political resolution to the conflict. Russia launched its specialoperation (SMO) primarily in response to NATO-emanating threats from Ukraine. It would therefore be a significant concession for Russia to agree to some level of those threats, perhaps even in some more intense forms than pre-SMO, remaining after the conflict ends. As it turns out, however, that’s precisely what Trump envisages per his own statements and recent reports:
The corresponding takeaways are that: 1) Ukraine wants Trump to continue his new policy of indirectly arming it via new arms sales to NATO; 2) although Ukraine is no longer allowed by the US to strike universally recognized Russian territory, 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition air-launched missiles were just approved per the aforesaid policy; 3) such deals represent his new approach to the conflict; 4) he’s reluctant to get any more deeply involved; but 5) the US could still aid EU forces in Ukraine.
From Russia’s official perspective, which might speculatively not reflect its actual one behind closed doors: 1) the continued flow of any NATO arms into Ukraine is unacceptable; 2) it’s even worse if they’re modern offensive ones (the Javelins and Stingers from pre-SMO were already bad enough); 3) Trump’s pride in his new policy makes it unlikely that he’ll change course; 4) it’s praiseworthy though that he doesn’t want to get more deeply involved; but 5) any Western forces in Ukraine remain unacceptable.
Accordingly, the apples of discord are the continued flow of modern offensive arms to Ukraine and the US’ flirtation with backing EU troops there, which the earlier cited report claimed could deploy some distance from the front behind NATO-trained Ukrainian troops and neutral countries’ peacekeepers. US backing could reportedly take the form of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; command and control; more air defenses; and aircraft, logistics, and radar supporting an EU-enforced no-fly zone.
The abovementioned scenario would intensify NATO-emanating threats from Ukraine. It would be a more formidable adversary than in the pre-SMO era and this time have the direct backing of some NATO countries’ troops on its territory even if the US doesn’t officially provide Article 5 protection to them. The risk of a hot NATO-Russian war breaking out either by the bloc’s design or Ukraine manipulating them into it through future provocations would thus be unprecedentedly high and remain an enduring threat.
Russia is therefore unlikely to agree to this even if the West coerces Ukraine into ceding all of the disputed regions, which is unlikely in any case, since that would amount to the nature of NATO-emanating threats in Ukraine being much worse than pre-SMO. At most, Russia might agree to modern offensive arms flowing into Ukraine and maybe Western troops west of the Dnieper, but only if everything east of the river is demilitarized and the US significantly decreases its forces in Europe.
The demilitarization proposal was first put forth in January here and would also entail this “Trans-Dnieper” region (TDR) being controlled by non-Western peacekeepers with only a token Ukraine presence such as local police forces. This arrangement aligns with the spirit of what’s now being considered per the previously cited report with regard to neutral countries’ peacekeepers patrolling the front, NATO-trained Ukrainian troops behind them, and then Western ones some distance back.
The differences though are that the TDR wouldn’t be demilitarized due to the presence of NATO-trained Ukrainian troops there and the EU would enforce a no-fly zone, whether over all of Ukraine or just west of the TDR. Russia might accept NATO-trained Ukrainian troops in the TDR if Kiev cedes all of the disputed regions, but a no-fly zone over there would likely remain unacceptable. A significant decrease in US forces in Europe, however, might make one west of the Dnieper more palatable for Russia.
To summarize, Trump’s interest in continuing his new policy of indirectly arming Ukraine via NATO and even aiding some of the bloc’s forces there could in theory be approved by Russia as part of a political solution, but only under very specific conditions. These are territorial cessions and a demilitarized TDR controlled by non-Western peacekeepers, while an EU-enforced no-fly zone west of the river might – in the highly unlikely scenario that it’s agreed to – require a significant decrease in US forces in Europe.
The problem though is that Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against Russia after the recent White House Summit on security guarantees with Zelensky and a handful of European leaders. This includes counterfactually slamming Biden for not authorizing Ukrainian attacks inside Russia’s universally recognized territory and threatening economic war with Russia if Putin doesn’t compromise. Trump might thus try to make Putin’s worst-case scenario a fait accompli as explained in this analytical series:
The EU, Zelensky, and US warmongers like Lindsey Graham would prefer Trump to either make unacceptable demands of Putin that sabotage the peace process, which can then be spun to justify Western escalation, or dangerously force him into this fait accompli. Judging from Trump’s words thus far and recent reports, he’s pushing his luck with Putin; who’s open to compromises, not concessions, let alone significant security ones. If this approach doesn’t change, then a serious escalation is expected.
