Last week the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union was launched, with a purpose as challenging as its name.

Claiming the term ‘union’ is a smart move strategically. While there are many unions in society lobbying the government to spend on their pet areas, there is a significant proportion of taxpayers who would urge the government to be scrupulous with taxpayer money.  

But a ‘union’ implies a common interest. So what exactly unifies this group apart from their obligation to pay tax?

With the aim of scrutinising and publicising examples of excessive or wasteful government spending, its purpose certainly seems broad enough to attract a large membership.

However, getting a large group to agree on what counts as excessive and wasteful spending may prove difficult. After all, one taxpayer’s waste is another taxpayer’s policy win (or America’s Cup, Wearable Arts competition, corporate subsidy etc.).

The Taxpayers’ Union has said it will focus on inappropriate spending (such as personal use of taxpayer money); excessive spending (disproportionate spending even if the cause is appropriate); and misdirected spending (the Taxpayers’ Union use the example of interest-free student loans and the SuperGold transport subsidy).

While we can all recall examples of inappropriate spending (leather satchels, decadent boozy lunches and that time an MP ordered a movie at a hotel), surely there is a difference between this kind of expenditure and the assessment of policy.

Is it possible to get a unified response on what policy expenditure constitutes waste?

One’s conception of waste will at least in part be informed by what one believes the role of government should be, and what government policy should seek to achieve.

Obviously, scrutinising both types of expenditure is important. However, the distinction must occur not because one kind is more worthy of coverage than the other, but what kind will attract the strongest response from the public.

After all, size matters. The influence of the Taxpayers’ Union relies on enough people declaring government expenditure problematic, and pressuring the government of the day accordingly.

If the Taxpayers’ Union truly wants to be New Zealand’s largest union, then focussing on only the most unanimously inappropriate examples of spending may be the least divisive option.

This, in itself, will be an important first step in increasing public interest in their tax money. It will send the message that political parties across the spectrum will be held accountable for poor decisions.

Perhaps with this change in mentality, there will eventually be a growing consensus that unjustifiable expenditure of tax money is unacceptable across the board, from administration to perks to ineffective and inefficient policy.

Until then, good luck to the Taxpayers’ Union in distinguishing the trash from the treasure.