By John McDonald (CityWatch NZ Editor and Hamilton East Ward/Mayoral Candidate)
Were over 83% of Hamilton’s 2025 mayoral candidates hostile to Hamilton ratepayers?
…or is it more likely that the Taxpayers’ Union was being false and misleading?
Voters looking to the Taxpayers’ Union for guidance on who to vote for Hamilton’s mayor were confronted with a sea of red crosses.
Only two Mayoral candidates in Hamilton received positive green ticks from the Taxpayers’ Union; Jack Gielen and Rudy Du Plooy.
The rest of the mayoral candidates (including myself) received angry red cross from the Taxpayers’ Union, implying that we all want higher rates increase, all support unelected appointees on council committees, and all oppose transparency measures. In many cases those implications were false and misleading.
How was this table created and how did we get to this situation?
The Taxpayers’ Union emailed local election candidates in August 2025 and asked for their signatures on the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” certificate from the Taxpayers’ Union.
Candidates for mayor or councillor roles get many emails during election season. These emails usually consist of invitations to debates and “meet the candidates” events. Occasionally candidates get emails for concerned residents asking for our positions on various issues or complaints about unwanted fliers in letterboxes.
Questionnaires and surveys from media organisations, lobby groups, and activists often arrive in candidates email inboxes as well.
However, the emails from the Taxpayers’ Union (TPU) and their supporters were different.
Instead of the typical request for answers to questions, the TPU instead demanded our signatures on a “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” certificate. Many candidates then received multiple emails from TPU supporters. Sometimes this was from figures with nationwide profiles and other times it was local voters. Each email encouraged, nagged, or pressured the candidates to sign the pledge.
Asking candidates to sign a pledge was unusual. This appears to been an imported tactic from the USA (where a “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” has had many decades of use) and was unusual for a New Zealand local election. I campaigned on better transparency regarding council spending and limiting rates increases, though I did not sign the pledge. I also campaigned on resisting pressure from various organisations based in Wellington or Auckland.
The TPU website heavily implied that the red crosses represents the actual public positions of candidates or their responses to the Taxpayers’ Union. The following quotes on the https://ratepayer.vote website demonstrate how the TPU was creating that impression.
“
“The candidates below have signed the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. Here’s where they stand on issues that matter to you…
…The Ratepayer Protection Pledge highlights which candidates are standing with ratepayers this year, and which candidates are not”
“Who stands with ratepayers?”
Ratepayer Voting Guide website, Promoted by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union
The TPU presented non-responses from candidates and candidates not signing the Pledge as those candidate actively opposing the ratepayers interests on the various issues mentioned in the pledge. Rather than the TPU simply not listing or not endorsing the candidates who did not sign the pledge, the TPU attempted to smear many candidates by misrepresenting their views and policy positions.
Early emails from the TPU to candidates stated that signing the pledge would result in the candidate receiving TPU endorsement and promotion. If TPU had just listed the candidates who signed the pledge in their emails and websites, that would have been more appropriate and accurate.
“Can we promote you in our ‘how to vote’ guide?
To be endorsed and included in our promotion, we ask that you sign / scan and return the attached pledge to us no later than midday Monday 1 September 2025.
Feel free to print the pledge in large format and have your picture or video taken signing – send us the material and we will likely promote on our social media pages, share with our supporters in your area, and/or local media.”
Excerpt from the ‘Dear Local Body Candidate’ email from Sam Warren, Local Government Campaigns Manager (New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union | Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance)
Was the signing the TPU pledge helpful in getting candidates elected in 2025?
The election results indicate that the TPU pledge made little difference in determining who won seats in the 2025 election.
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown was re-elected after giving the TPU a rude and prominently-reported two word response instead of signing the pledge.
Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has told a prominent lobby group supporter to “f*** off” after a request for him to sign its “Ratepayer Protection Pledge”.
The pledge is an initiative of the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance (ARA), a group set up by the Taxpayers’ Union.
A spokesperson for Brown’s re-election campaign has called the request a “PR stunt”.
The ARA asked its supporters to write to Brown demanding he sign the pledge, which it claims “hundreds of incumbent and prospective mayors around New Zealand have done”.
Brown received an ARA email with the headline, “Is Wayne Brown planning a rates blow-out?”
He responded with a two-word reply: “F*** off”.
Simon Wilson, Mayor Wayne Brown to Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance: ‘F*** off’, NZ Herald, 02 October 2025
Tim Macindoe comfortably won the Hamilton mayoralty with his “Stop the Waste” signage and repeated mentioning of “rates capping” on the campaign trail. He won despite the TPU website putting three angry red crosses next to his name.
Signing the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” was far from a clear path to victory for candidates standing for a seat on Hamilton City Council or Waikato Regional Council. Candidates who signed the pledge were more likely to get a seat than the average candidate on the East Ward and for Regional Council. West Ward and Mayoral candidates who signed the pledge were less likely to get any seat when compared to candidates who signed the pledge.
https://web.archive.org/web/20250911215242/https://ratepayer.vote/voting-guid/?address=Earls+Court%2C+Hillcrest%2C+Hamilton+3216%2C+New+Zealand&lat=-37.8035638&lng=175.3276412 https://web.archive.org/web/20251029194521/https://ratepayer.vote/voting-guid/?address=Dinsdale+Road%2C+Dinsdale%2C+Hamilton+3204%2C+New+Zealand&lat=-37.7936463&lng=175.2411574
TPU Pledge status was probably of little benefit towards winning a seat, other factors were more important. This is not a criticism of candidates who signed the pledge, I largely agree with the main points on the pledge.
Who was the “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” campaign actually helping?
It was not accurately informing voters about candidates actual policy positions on important issues.
Signing the Pledge was not really helping candidates to win seats in councils.
ACT Local was singled out for special and public praise on the TPU website for having all their 2025 candidates signing the Pledge. However, ACT Local only got about 20% of their candidates elected nationwide. No ACT Local candidates were elected in Hamilton City.
“Every ACT Local candidate standing for council has committed to all three policy items in the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, that includes opposing unelected appointees. It’s a massive win for ratepayers as they begin to vote, seeing a range of candidates wearing their policies on their sleeves. Candidates who have signed the pledge, and those who have not, can be found at Ratepayer.vote.”
New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union Media, Taxpayers’ Union Welcomes ACT Local’s Strong Stance On Unelected Appointees In Local Government, 11 September 2025
After the local election, The Spinoff boasted about how candidates affiliated with the Labour and Green parties preformed much better than ACT candidates. However, such statistics need to be treated with caution as many local council candidates did not officially declaring their allegiance to major political parties.
The Taxpayers’ Union has done some good work in the past. The ratepayersreport.nz website is a valuable resource and I respect the amount of research, design work, planning, and official information (LGOIMA) requests to needed to create that website.
The “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” campaign may have been a sincere attempt to inform the public, increase engagement in local elections, and make elected representatives more accountable. However, the campaign became a cause of confusion and frustration among both voters and candidates.
I am not angry with TPU over their Pledge campaign… just disappointed.
If you are an activist group trying to make a good impression on local government politics, then the 2025 “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” campaign provides an important example of what not to do.
[Edit 03/11/2025 Minor corrections: Missing word and missing link added]
[The content of any Opinion pieces represents the views of the author and the accuracy of any content in a post labelled Opinion is the responsibility of the author. Posting of this Opinion content on the CityWatch NZ website does not necessarily constitute endorsement of those views by CityWatch NZ or its editors. CityWatch NZ functions to provide information and a range of different perspectives on New Zealand’s cities and local councils. If you disagree with or dispute the content, CityWatch NZ can pass that feedback on to the author. Send an email to feedback@citywatchnz.org and clearly identify the content and the issue.]
Further reading on this issue:
LGNZ holds annual conference and engages in propaganda war with Taxpayers’ Union
