Kerre Woodham: Let's put an end to the fun and start verifying political promises

I don't know about you, but I want to know how big our Finance Ministers' holes are.  

I think it's really important to know what political parties’ promises are going to cost us. A nine-year battle to get a publicly funded body to cost political parties election promises, starting with the 2026 election, ended at cabinet on Monday after ACT and NZ First put the kibosh on the plan.  

Way back when —2016— the proposal came from the Greens, but over time it's been modified, and Nicola Willis’ plan would have amended the Public Service Act to allow the political parties access to public service resources up to 10 months before an election, so they had the information they needed to cost their policy promises. A unit in the Public Service Commission would have been created to coordinate those requests, funded with $1.2 million. Which is chicken feed in the scheme of things. But with ACT and NZ First nixing it, we remain with the status quo, which as Stephen Joyce explained this morning, means an awful lot of time wasting and running around for the opposition parties. 

“You have to go chasing around OIA’s and parliamentary questions to try and get enough information to build a policy which stands scrutiny when it gets out to the public, and it's a lot of fun for the government of the day to try and withhold all that information and then go, “ah, it’s ridiculously costed policy.”” 

That really ground my gears this morning when I heard that. Oh, it's all a great lark, it's all such fun having opposition parties running around desperately trying to get the information they needed.  

And the clue comes from the Public Services Resources. They're ours! Taxpayer money funds those services, it funds those resources. We have a right to know how much is being spent on what programmes, what funding is available, and we have a right to allow that information to be disseminated to opposition political parties so that they can craft their own policies with that knowledge, with that baseline knowledge that they need. Otherwise, they are going to be promising pie in the sky. This should be public information. It's taxpayer money funding services for taxpayers. It should be easy to access, easy to find, and then the opposition parties will be able to craft their policies accordingly. No more silly buggars. It's in the public interest not to have this time wasted.  

How many staffers are employed by opposition parties chasing after OIAs and chasing after this information, when that work could be better put to spending time with programmes and organisations and departments, and coming to terms with what they need to do the best possible job to deliver for the taxpayer? There is nothing fun about this. There's nothing clever about this. It is expensive time wasting.  

As for ACT’s no because “we already provide a fully costed budget before each election”, stop being so smarmy and teachers’ pets, you can't mark your own homework. Each party should have to pay out of their own party funds —not out of taxpayers dollars— for an economist, not to run the ruler over their own budgets because we've all seen that, they should each pay for an economist and the economist names should go in a ballot. Each party draws out a name, and that economist runs an eye over that party's budget. So ACT pays for an economist. The ACT economist goes into the hat, the Māori Party draw him out, that's who runs an eye over their budget.  

I want to know without having to do the sums myself if what a party is promising is viable, and I don't want them to do their own costings, thanks very much. I do want an independent body to look at it. That information should be freely accessible to all opposition parties. Let's put an end to the fun and the silly buggars, and each party's promises before an election should be independently verified, so we can all cast our vote with the best possible knowledge available. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Morning's podcast from News Talks,
he'd be.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
I don't know about you, but I want to know
how big our Finance minister's holes are. I think it's
really important to know what political parties promises are going
to cost us. A nine year battle to get a
publicly funded body to cost political parties election promises starting

(00:35):
with the twenty twenty six election ended at Cabinet on
Monday after ACT in New Zealand first put the kibosh
on the plan way back when twenty sixteen. The proposal
came from the Greens, but over time it's been modified
and Nikola Willis's plan would have amended the Public Service

(00:57):
Act to allow the political party's access to public service
resources up to ten months before an election they had
the information they needed to cost their policy promises. A
unit in the Public Service Commission would have been created
to coordinate those requests, funded with one point two million,

(01:18):
which is chicken feed in the scheme of things, But
with ACT in New Zealand first nixing it, we remain
with the status quo, which is Steve and Joyce explained
this morning means an awful lot of time wasting and
running around for the opposition parties.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
You have to go chasing around ourias and parliamentary questions
to try and get enough information to build a policy
which stands scrutiny when it gets you out to the public.
And it's a lot of fun for the government of
the day to try and withhold all that information and
then go, ah, but to ridiculously cost the policy.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
That really ground mcgear's this morning when I heard that, Oh,
it's all a great lark. It's all such fun having
opposition parties running around desperately trying to get the information
they need. And the clue comes from the public services,

(02:14):
public service resources. There ours taxpayer money funds those services.
It funds those resources. We have a right to know
how much is being spent on what programs, what funding
is available, and we have a right to allow that

(02:39):
information to be disseminated to opposition political parties so that
they can craft their own policies with that knowledge, with
that baseline knowledge that they need, otherwise they are going
to be promising pie in the sky. But oh no,
it's all just such a lark, having opposition parties requesting

(03:01):
oias and having bureaucrat stonewalling it and oh, you know,
so then have to craft their policy without the best
possible information. And then the government goes, well, that's ridiculous,
this is not fun. This is Yeah, I'm sure Stephen
Joyce didn't mean it like that, but that's an effect.
What's happening. This should be public information. It's taxpayer money,

(03:26):
funding services for taxpayers. It should be easy to access,
easy to find, and then the opposition parties will be
able to craft their policies accordingly. No more silly buggers. No,
it's in the public interest not to have this time wasted.

(03:48):
You know how many staffers are employed by opposition parties
chasing after oias and chasing after this information when that
work could be better put to spending time with programs
and organizations and departments and coming to terms with what
they needed to do the best possible job to deliver
for the taxpayer. There is nothing fun about this, There

(04:12):
is nothing clever about this. It is expensive time wasting.
As for Act Sagon, we said no because we already
provide a fully costed budget before each election. Stop being
so smarmy and teachers petty, You can't mark your own homework.
And when we did a budget. Yeah, well, everybody can

(04:36):
do a budget, but does it stack up and doesn't
make sense. Each party should have to pay out of
their own party funds, not out of taxpayer's dollars, for
an economist, not to run the ruler over their own budgets,
because we've all seen that when you pay for your
own expert, you tend to get the results you want. No,

(04:56):
they should each pay for an economist. The economist names
should go in a ballot. Each party draws out a name,
and that economist runs an eye over that party's budget.
So Act pays for an economist, the ACT economist goes
into the hat. The Maori party draw them out. That's

(05:17):
who runs an eye over their budget. I want to
know without having to do the sums myself, if what
a party is promising is viable, and I don't want
them to do their own costings, thanks very much, I
do want an independent body to look at it. That

(05:38):
information should be freely accessible to all opposition parties. Let's
put an end to the fun and the silly buggers,
and each party's promises before an election should be independently
verified so we can all cast our vote with the

(05:59):
best possible knowledge available.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
For more from carry Wood and Mornings, listen live to
News Talks a B from nine am weeks, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio