ACT

Why they say so: This party says that higher minimum wages can decrease the demand from businesses for workers to employ. The subsequent unemployment disproportionately burdens young people.

How: This party would freeze the minimum wage at its current rate for three years. This would cause the minimum wage to lose value due to inflation, allowing more headroom in budgets for employers to bring on more staff, including younger people.

Why they say so: This party says that the minimum wage can increase wage costs at the expense of employing someone new. Young people are less experienced and more likely to struggle to find a job. Younger workers have less experience, need more training and are more costly to hire.

How: This party would establish a training wage at 60 per cent of the adult minimum wage for workers under 20, available for their first 12 months with an employer. Standard protections would still apply with the new lower wage rate.

Why they say so: This party says that employers can worry about discussing the end of an employment relationship. The party also says that once a 90-day period has passed, employers should be able to move on without fear of personal grievances being taken up against them for workers they have stopped employing.

How: This party would allow protected employment exit negotiations. It would limit the time to take a personal grievance to the Employment Relations Authority to 90 days after it is raised, while retaining the existing rules for sexual-harassment grievances.

Why they say so: This party says that that the relationship between a union and its members is a private association between them and does not concern the employer. It is unreasonable to expect union fees to be collected through payroll deductions administered by the employer.

How: This party would ensure that employers were not made by law to facilitate the financial relationship between unions and members. Unions would have the ability to set up their own financial capacity through online banking instead.

Why they say so: This party says that many people need to get away from sickness benefits and into work. It claims that the country doesn't want to miss out on their potential.

How: This party would make all health and disability benefits subject to approval from an MSD-approved pool of designated doctors. The party would have assessments be made against clear, objective criteria, rather than leaving major long-term benefit decisions to discretion. Reassessment would begin with mental-health-related grants made after the pandemic. Other reassessments would be phased in with the new criteria for existing Jobseeker Support, health conditions or disabilities and Supported Living Payment.

Why they say so: This party says that there is a need for greater fairness in the welfare system. Some beneficiaries spend money in ways that do not prepare them for work, such as gambling, alcohol and tobacco. The party argues that taxpayers should not fund the purchasing of products that set people back from potentially finding employment.

How: This party would require that people on a jobseeker benefit for 4 months be automatically shifted onto an electronic money management card system. Such a system would block expenses related to smoking, drinking, and gambling. Carve-outs and modified arrangements where money management would risk safety or block access to necessities.

Why they say so: This party says that that it is unfair for New Zealanders to fund benefits for people who've only recently committed to living and working in NZ. The party claims its change will prevent any encouragement of welfare dependency among new arrivals.

How: The party would have residence-class visa holders made ineligible for all welfare benefits for the first five years. The party claims it would do so by changing the eligibility criteria that presently permit residence-class visa holders to access welfare benefits.

Why they say so: This party says that pharmacists have capacity that GPs and other health services may not. Increasing the number of conditions that pharmacists can prescribe or provide care for without needing approval from a doctor or nurse will make it easier for people managing long-term conditions or those with straightforward sicknesses with clear diagnosis. This would reduce wait times for GPs and provide quicker care.

How: This party would list more sicknesses and ailments pharmacists are allowed to treat, including sore throats, tonsillitis, gout and period pain. There would be a protocol for when pharmacists should refer back to a doctor for treatment. Consultation fees would remain capped at $20 for most and $5 for Community Service Card holders.

Why they say so: This party says that removing the rule that prevents a single person or entity from owning more than five pharmacies would make it easier to open new pharmacies. Changing other rules about pharmacy locations, licenses and qualifications for pharmacists would make it easier to open and staff pharmacies anywhere in the country.

How: The party would change regulatory settings to implement the reforms. Online prescription e-lockers can be used to help those in rural areas access medication when pharmacies may have limited opening hours.

Why they say so: This party says that many medications for conditions like cancer are publicly funded in Australia but not in NZ. The public drug funding system Pharmac, is not receiving enough funding to keep up. Paying for medication can reduce pressure elsewhere in the health system by helping people manage their health conditions effectively.

How: This party would increase funding for Pharmac by 1 percent per year until 2033, from the current base of 4.9 percent of the health budget. More medications on Pharmac's "options for investment" list would become available to New Zealanders. A sustainable funding option would mean Pharmac can spend money on drugs for more health conditions. This party estimates that this policy would cost over $4bn over 7 years.

Why they say so: The party says the only criterion for a person receiving publicly funded services should be need, rather than equity across different groups.

How: The party would create a clear statutory duty that public services are delivered based on need, without group-based equity considerations changing the Public Service Act. Agencies would be required to comply with the principle as a matter of law, and decisions that breach it could be subject to judicial review.

Why they say so: This party says that cancer is an issue that affects so many families. Cancer is New Zealand’s biggest killer. More than 30,000 New Zealanders are diagnosed each year; by 2044, that number is expected to exceed 45,000.

How: This party would build two centres, built in Christchurch and Auckland. These would be financed through public-private partnerships, charitable donations, existing Crown health investment and other private capital. The investment would be accompanied by a government-run independent philanthropic foundation to help secure additional investment. This party estimates that this policy would cost 2 billion in baseline capital expenditure.

Why they say so: This party says that in 2025, 38,000 WINZ hardship loans were issued to help families cover the cost of school uniforms, and in some cases the combined cost for school uniforms is over $1,000. Limiting state schools to just three branded school items will make uniforms more affordable for New Zealanders. Generic items such as socks would be available from low-cost retailers like The Warehouse or KMart. School uniforms can promote school culture but expensive uniforms don't improve educational outcomes, and similar policies in parts of Australia and the UK have been successful.

How: This party would limit state schools to three mandatory branded items as part of a uniform. Alternative, generic options for clothes like skirts, shirts, trousers and socks could be selected from low-cost retail stores. This policy would only apply to everyday items worn to school, not to more special items like branded clothing for sports teams.

Why they say so: This party says that previous policy directions have required that public agencies should allocate services based on individual need and value, rather than race. Universities should be included in this directive too, as universities are independent but largely funded by the taxpayer. Grants or donations from private money would be exempt from this requirement.

How: This party would amend the Education and Training Act, adding language preventing benefits or support being offered on the basis of race of ethnicity. This would include scholarships, accommodation support, designated spaces in tertiary institutions and any other types of support. Universities would still be able to confer scholarships based on academic merit, need, geographic location, economic circumstances or disability.

Why they say so: This party says that voluntary student membership of student associations at universities has been undermined by compulsory 'service fees.' The party says these fees add costs for students that should be paid as they use the services. Instead, the party argues that service fees force students to fund union campaigns and media services that not all students support.

How: This party would change regulations so that services are offered as a menu. Students would then select what services they wish to use. This would prohibit compulsory service fees used to fund services traditionally funded by student unions/associations.

Why they say so: This party says that disruptive students can be a risk to the safety of other students and teaching staff, distracting others from learning during valuable teaching time.

How: This party would amend legislation so that teachers have an explicit legal power to direct a seriously or persistently disruptive student to leave and go to a staffed, supervised space. A refusal would be escalated to a dean or senior leader. If the student refused again after escalation, staff would be able to use reasonable force to remove them. The current Act would be clarified to allow reasonable and proportionate intervention to prevent harm or the destruction of property. Parents could be fined and authorities involved if they do not attend meetings with their child.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealanders deserve to keep more of their money for their own retirement. The party argues that the tax made from KiwiSaver is used to top up those with low incomes who have small savings. The party says that people's savings will increase without having to put additional money away for their retirement.

How: This party would remove the government contribution to KiwiSaver to fund the exemption of KiwiSaver from taxation. The party claims they will put rules in place to avoid people using KiwiSaver as a tax shelter. This party estimates that this policy would cost just under $2.4 billion over four years.

Why they say so: This party says that revenue from the emissions trading scheme is just another means by which the government raises revenue, and damages business competitiveness. The party seeks instead to refund the revenue generated to New Zealanders. The party additionally seeks to support businesses most affected by competitiveness concerns. The party is also concerned with the construction of carbon forests as an inefficient use of land.

How: The party would refund revenue derived from ETS auctions to citizens. Industrial carbon assistance would be raised to 90 percent and 60 percent rates where businesses face carbon-cost disadvantages. The party would remove mandates for carbon forests, with the intention to use that land for farming instead.

Why they say so: This party says that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) acts as a "carbon tax", with a minimum price for carbon credits set by the government. This means the auctions do not work properly and raises the price of goods and services. The supply of carbon credits should be increased and the profit returned as a refund to New Zealanders.

How: This party would remove the price floor from the Emissions Trading Scheme to place downward pressure on the carbon price. 100 percent of the money from the carbon auction would be returned to New Zealanders as a tax refund. If the amount became so low that the refund was impractical to deliver, it would mean prices had fallen so that people had lower prices for goods and services and would no longer need the tax refund. Conversions of farmland to permanent forest for creating carbon credits would be discouraged.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ has often had political leadership blame companies for their prices. This creates greater bureaucracy in response, such as the recent appointment of a grocery commissioner.

How: This party would establish a one-stop body for consenting new entrants to the supermarket sector. The objective would be to reduce the consenting process from years to months. The party would additionally allow all products approved under the regulations of the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia to be automatically allowed in NZ, so it is easier for grocers to obtain various products.

Why they say so: This party says that there's a lack of competition in the energy sector. However, independent analysis commissioned by the government found no material competition problem requiring the break-up of the major generator-retailers. Instead, the party says regulatory barriers are the key driver of the cost of power. Encouraging people to sell excess power would reward people who invest their own money in generation and storage.

How: This party would allow people with excess power, often from solar installed on their house, to sell their excess power. The selling of excess power would be done by businesses and community energy schemes, subject to appropriate metering, network charging and consumer protections.

Why they say so: This party says that regulations for used cars being imported into NZ can push up costs for people and families needing to buy a car. Import passenger registrations have fallen from around 165,000 in 2017 to 85,000 as people increasingly keep their current car for longer, putting off upgrading to newer, safer models.

How: This party would introduce an affordability test for imported cars. This test would flag a regulation if it is seen to reduce supply, thus increasing the prices of used cars.

Why they say so: This party says that school transport rules are based on the nearest school. Parents who choose different schools for reasons like siblings being close together may not be able to use a school bus service. This is particularly difficult for families in rural areas. Allowing children to ride any school bus with space would make it easier for families.

How: This party would introduce a rule where a child living along an existing school bus route could use any available seat. If a bus route became full, another one would be provided by the Ministry of Education. Any extra funding would come from the education budget by cutting other spending.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealanders should be encouraged to donate to charity. Charities across New Zealand help people. The $33,333 cap on tax benefits for money spent on charitable donations should be removed so that people donate more money to charity. This would encourage the philanthropic sector to partner with the government to deliver services, such as a proposal to create cancer treatment centres in Auckland and Christchurch.

How: This party would remove the $33,333 cap on tax rebates for money spent on charitable donations.