Green

Why they say so: This party says that says that a landlords' tax cut means housing speculators and landlords can spend more on house-buying than first home buyers. This makes it harder for New Zealanders to get onto the property ladder.

How: This party would remove interest deductibility for residential property investment and restore the bright-line test period to 10 years. The bright-line test will require income tax to be paid on gains from selling residential investment property if sold within 10 years of being purchased. The profit from the sale is applied to the seller’s annual personal income and taxed at the marginal income tax rate. The family home would be exempt.

Why they say so: This party says that the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme has already proven its worth, helping hundreds of thousands of households insulate and heat their homes. Expanding the programme would support more low-income people to make their homes warm, dry and energy efficient.

How: This party would expand the capacity of the government's Warmer Kiwi Homes programme to include the replacement of gas heating and gas stoves, installing ventilation and hot water heat pumps at an 80 subsidy. The capacity would expand to provide for 50,000 upgrades over four years. This party estimates that this policy would cost $969.8 million over four years.

Why they say so: This party says that the previous pay equity law better protected care and support workers who look after disabled people, older people and some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand every day. However, this law was changed in 2025, and since then, these workers have been undervalued. This party believes a carer's pay should reflect the skill and responsibility their jobs demand.

How: This party would restore the pay equity law to its pre-previous-government form. The party would also fund the settlement for the approximately 65,000 care and support workers whose claim was stopped after those changes were made to the law by passing legislation to settle the claim. The final settlement would be agreed through bargaining with the workers and their unions. This party estimates that this policy would cost $1.1 billion a year.

Why they say so: This party says that everyone is entitled to secure and meaningful work in innovative, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible workplaces. That includes fair pay, freedom from discrimination and an equitable relationship between employers, union and workers.

How: This party would ensure pay equity, such as requiring pay transparency and pay-parity management, and ensure everyone including marginalised groups get the training and information they need to have equitable employment opportunities. It would support people whose work has been affected by climate change, and progress towards a shorter standard working week It would ensure time in lieu or overtime is provided for work out of contracted hours.

Why they say so: This party says that everyone is entitled to secure and meaningful work in innovative, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible workplaces. That includes fair pay, freedom from discrimination and an equitable relationship between employers, unions, and workers.

How: This party would make union membership an opt-out option when people start a new job. Newly hired employees would be default, be members unless they wish not to be.

Why they say so: This party says that that women deserve to be paid fairly and the same as men for equal work. This party says changes made by the Government to pay equity shifted the goal posts for pay equity claims.

How: This party would undo the current Government's changes to pay equity and resume pay equity claims, pay transparency measures and pay gap reporting.

Why they say so: This party says that that under-investment in health services has led to an understaffed hospital workforce and GP clinics that can't accept new enrollments. They say there are unsafe conditions for health workers and lengthy wait times. This party says everyone should be able to access timely healthcare from a supported workforce

How: This party would ensure all health workers have fair wages. They would fund pay parity for primary care and hauora providers. This party would set safe staffing levels, to improve worker wellbeing and quality of care.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ produces enough food to feed 40 million people, but somehow food prices are too high for many. Dismantling the supermarket duopoly alone is not enough to deliver food security, and demand for community solutions like food banks is immense. This party would offer more support to those building alternative models for food security, processing and distribution.

How: This party would double the cap on food grants at the cost of $94-$100m annually. It would lift funding for regional food distribution hubs and community food providers from up to $8m to $25m a year and set up a $150m a year Fair Food Fund for community-led food security, such as food rescue programmes, marae and social supermarkets.

Why they say so: This party says that that families are struggling to pay rent or mortgages, to feed their children, or to warm their homes, as the cost of living has worsened. This party says that families should be looked after at every stage of life.

How: This party would increase the working for families rate, reduce abatements and extend tax credits to families who are unemployed.

Why they say so: This party says that women and families deserve to be safe and supported. Women deserve to get paid for their work, and compensated for time at home carrying out the essential work of caregiving.

How: This party would increase paid parental leave to 15 months for the primary caregiver, and have additional ring-fenced leave for partners. This party would also increase payments.

Why they say so: This party says that that single mothers are vulnerable to hardship and need more support.

How: This party would fund a one-stop-shop service for new parents, providing pā harakeke wrap-around suppport for whānau during pregnancy, after birth, in early childhood, and throughout parenthood. This is in addition to its policy to extent paid parental leave.

Why they say so: This party says that in New Zealand, disabled people are often denied the same rights as others. They can also be excluded from places and activities that non-disabled people take for granted. All disabled people deserve enough support so that they can participate equally in life and in their communities.

How: This party would provide easily accessible and timely income support to meet all disability-related living and medical costs. This income support would be regardless of relationship status and cause of disability.

Why they say so: This party says that the government's push for automated decision erroneously left tens of thousands of financially vulnerable people without funds. Similar issues overseas have proven why decisions on who receives financial support should not be left to algorithms.

How: This party would not use AI and automated decision making for welfare payment decisions such as cancelling, suspending, or reducing welfare payments, or imposing benefit sanctions.

Why they say so: This party says that everyone has a right to a liveable income that guarantees enough for food, safe housing and good quality of life. This party says the cost of living has got worse, and thousands of children go to bed hungry and families are struggling to pay rent or mortgages.

How: This party would increase benefits to liveable rates and individualise benefit entitlements. This party would also abolish benefit sanctions. The party would reform the Social Security Act to uphold dignity of people seeking support and ensure everyone has a secure income, and implement a high-trust working model at work and income. This party would also overhaul recoverable assistance grants, write off existing debt to MSD and ban attachment orders against beneficiaries.

Why they say so: This party says that the NZ economy currently incentivises the exploitation of the environment for short-term gain. This has resulted in ecosystem loss and degradation. This policy would incentivise environmental protection by providing jobs that focus on that goal.

How: This party would establish a job guarantee programme focused on understanding, protecting, and regenerating ecosystems. It would expand funding for Jobs for Nature – Mahi mō te Taiao.

Why they say so: This party says that both climate change and the necessary actions needed to mitigate and adapt to its negative consequences threaten to worsen socioeconomic inequalities. In moving towards a carbon-negative economy, people who work in high-emission industries may lose their jobs.

How: This party would fund free vocational training and redeployment opportunities for those in high-emission industries to transition to climate-safe work. It would also provide access to redundancy compensation for people working in sectors that are adversely affected by climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.

Why they say so: This party says that people working for a salary or wage pay double the effective tax rate of the very richest people in NZ. It believes this tax cut will help support New Zealanders and ease the high cost of living. This party says 96 percent of New Zealanders would get a tax cut with this policy.

How: This party would create a new tax-free threshold of $10,000.

Why they say so: This party says that says that NZ has low income taxes for people who earn high salaries compared to most other countries. It believes the tax system should be updated so that those who earn the most should contribute more and those who earn less should contribute less.

How: This party would reset NZ's income tax settings, including a 45 percent threshold for income above $160,000. Everyone earning under $160,000 per year will receive a tax cut, with those earning the least benefiting most. It would reduce taxes for lower and middle-income earners by implemening progressive tax brackets between $10,000 and $160,000. For example, people would pay just 10 percent of the income they earn between $10,000 and $19,999, and so on.

Why they say so: This party says that everyone should have reliable access to public healthcare, including during and after civil emergencies. This party says hospitals and GP clinics are stretched and over-capacity, and suffering from under-investment from successive Governments. It says private provider costs in healthcare are preventing people from seeking help early, causing health issues to escalate.

How: This party would work towards free public primary healthcare and dental care, that can be accessed by everyone. They would increase focus on prevention and early screening, early diagnosis and treatment of non-communicable diseases, such as kidney disease, cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. This party would fund the creation of mobile clinics for health care, mental health, diagnostic services and dental vans, for rural communities and during and after civil emergencies, including by-Māori, for-Māori community clinics. This party would also increase funding for data and digital infrastructure and capability in the health sector. This party would also regulate providers of private infrastructure and hold them to high standards of privacy.

Why they say so: This party says that that everyone deserves a livable income if they are unemployed, disabled, sick or a caregiver.

How: This party would extend ACC to cover income support and treatment for injuries, disability and illness, regardless of origin.

Why they say so: This party says that disabled people are often denied the same rights as others. They can also be excluded from places and activities that non-disabled people take for granted. These barriers are often worse for tāngata whaikaha Māori.

How: This party would introduce a disability rights law based on Te Tiriti with enforceable accessibility standards. Policy-makers would need to collaboratively design laws, policies, and systems in ways that work for disabled people.

Why they say so: This party says that our current laws, policies and social norms mean disabled people are often denied the same rights as others. They are often excluded from places and activities non-disabled people take for granted, such as accessing public transport, basic health care and inclusive education. Interactions with public services should effectively support disabled people's wellbeing.

How: This party would remove barriers to accessing the essentials like health care, transport, inclusive education and disability support for all who need it. The party would do this by drawing on the Enabling Good Lives approach as a guide to how government agencies work with disabled people. It would provide public service staff with resourcing and training to meet access needs and counter ableism and operate using a high-trust model that recognises disabled people as experts in their own lives, while making support and services available when needed.

Why they say so: This party says that drug-related harm is significant and increasing in Aotearoa New Zealand, driven mainly by alcohol, methamphetamine, and emerging cocaine use. Dependence on alcohol or other drugs affects a person’s physical and mental health, relationships, employment, and personal finances. It can also affect the family and friends of people who use drugs and the victims of drug-related or drug-funded crime.

How: This party would ramp up funding for harm reduction and addiction support for people who reduce or stop their drug intake, including through kaupapa Māori, rainbow, youth and harm reduction programmes. This would include funding innovative approaches to working with groups where smoking rates are disproportionately high, such as Tagata Moana and Māori. It would provide age-appropriate education about substance use disorders in schools and ensure harm reduction information is easily accessible for everyone.

Why they say so: This party says that all New Zealanders need to live with dignity and safety. Rainbow New Zealanders, in particular, need access to public services and healthcare that meet their needs.

How: This party would work with rainbow communities and organisations to develop strategies for wellbeing, especially for access to health care. Māori and Pasifika services specifically would also be included. Rainbow community organisations would receive dedicated resources for their work and be involved in developing and delivering services.

Why they say so: This party says that everyone must be able to live free from violence and abuse. Aotearoa has among the highest rates of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and child abuse, and this is disproportionately harmful to people in vulnerable professions and families.

How: This party would invest in services to help victims and increase awareness of the drivers of violence and of restorative practices. It would fund a national strategy to eliminate family and sexual violence (Te Aorerekura) and amend the Crimes Act to criminalise coercive control. It would also amend the definition of consent. and restore relationship and sexuality teaching guidelines in all schools. Funding would be lifted for mental health support for victims and others in the justice system.

Why they say so: This party says that seniors have cared for us and many continue to do so during retirement. They should feel valued, connected and able to live with dignity. Seniors should have warm, accessible homes, and the community spaces and marae-based centres that support them should they need assistance. The says that, additionally, there should also be more support for the conditions and pay of aged care workers.

How: This party would launch a long‑term seniors strategy that addresses kaumātua wellbeing, elder abuse, equitable incomes, and the creation of a state‑owned, not‑for‑profit retirement village system. It would boost funding for senior community spaces and activities, expand housing options such as papakāinga and address social housing waitlists for kaumātua. It would support warm, accessible, smaller home designs and back fair pay and conditions for aged care workers.

Why they say so: This party says that people experiencing mental distress deserve access to care, no matter where they are. Social factors like the climate crisis, poverty and unemployment exacerbate the mental health crisis in NZ. Mental health services should be well funded and integrated into the public health system, not fragmented and requiring people to turn to private services which also have long waiting lists. Harmful practices, like seclusion, should be phased out so that care does not cause further harm

How: This party would extend free mental health care to all communities, with more funding for community-specific mental health care. This includes youth services like Piki, Mana Ake and Youth One Stop Shops throughout Aotearoa. It also includes Asian Family Services and dedicated support for postnatal mental health. Mental health facilities would be further resourced so that the practice of seclusion could be phased out, replaced by community care models. Specific kaupapa Māori mental health and addiction programmes, including programmes focused on youth, would be funded as well.

Why they say so: This party says that all people in distress should be able to access support, especially as social factors like poverty, unemployment and climate change worsen mental health outcomes. Caring for those in distress and ensuring mental health workers are funded and resourced to avoid burnout will lead to better outcomes.

How: This party would implement all the recommendations in Every Life Matters – He Tapu te Oranga o ia Tangata Suicide Prevention Strategy. It would also commit to further actions identified as part of a kaupapa Māori suicide prevention strategy, especially those aimed at reducing suicide among people younger than 24.

Why they say so: This party says that everyone deserves to access quality mental health care in the community where they live. Services should be culturally relevant and focused on the area of greatest need. With demand high and mental health workers burned out, making referral to secondary services clear, fast and consistent will lead to good outcomes.

How: This party would link primary health and secondary mental health services with clear referral pathways in every health region. The focus would be on areas that have disproportionate need.

Why they say so: This party says that Hauora Māori and social service providers of healthcare are underfunded and restricted by contracts that are overly prescriptive. This party says Māori are underserved by the health system, and that progress to provide equitable healthcare has been undone. This party says kaupapa Māori health services should be supported to end health inequalities.

How: This party would stop overly prescriptive Hauora service contracts. This party would simplify and improve funding arrangements for providers of health services for whānau, hapū iwi and hapori. They would commit to working with Iwi Māori partnership boards and Hauora Māori to do this.

Why they say so: This party says that that Pharmac should invest in new health care devices and medicines so that treatment and quality of life for patients improves.

How: This party would increase sustained funding for Pharmac.

Why they say so: This party says that that pharmacists should help treat common health issues and should be encouraged to give appropriate medical advice. This party says they should be compensated fairly to do so.

How: This party would Expand the Minor Health Conditions Service to help pharmacies treat common health issues, and update the Integrated community pharmacy services agreement to compensate pharmacists fairly.

Why they say so: This party says that says it is important to take an evidenced, harm-reduction approach to alcohol and drugs.

How: This party would would phase out all alcohol advertising and sponsorship, including at sporting and cultural events, and use funding from the alcohol levy to establish a national harm-reduction campaign.

Why they say so: This party says that that funding for addiction services should be increased, and NZ should take a harm-reduction approach to alcohol and drugs. This party believes young people should be protected from nicotine by stronger regulations for retailers.

How: This party would phase out nicotine availability and fund culturally responsive vaping and smoking cessation services. This party would also implement stronger regulation and enforcement for nicotine retailers.

Why they say so: This party says that that gender-based violence is increasing, and front-line organisations should be resourced to end family and and sexual violence in NZ.

How: This party would will resource kaupapa Māori and community-led solutions to family and sexual violence. These solutions would be developed by groups that are disproportionately impacted by family and sexual violence, including women, Pasifika, rainbow and disabled communities.

Why they say so: This party says that overseas New Zealanders deserve to remain connected to NZ, and have an interest in the future of the country. Nearly 15% of New Zealanders live in other countries and many have moved overseas recently. The government should take a compassionate approach to New Zealanders who have lived or are living overseas. People with student loans should not face harsh consequences or border arrests.

How: This party would reduce student loan interest rates for New Zealanders in other countries. It would cease the practice or arresting people at the NZ border for not repaying their student loans and extend the repayment holiday for people living overseas.

Why they say so: This party says that children learn best when they are not hungry. Every child deserves healthy and nutritious food that helps them succeed at school.

How: This party would keep and expand the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme in schools. It would extend the programme to approximately 400 more schools and fund the programme permanently so schools and families have long-term certainty.

Why they say so: This party says that our education system should be lifelong and accessible to everyone. But currently students struggle to pay for and stay in tertiary education - including vocational and community adult education - and providers are struggling to provide courses and attract and retain talent..

How: This party would provide fees-free tertiary education, reduce student loan repayments, and work towards a write-off of student loan debt. It would also introduce a universal student allowance for tertiary students to cover their needs, and training allowances for those doing compulsory work placements.

Why they say so: This party says that education should be lifelong and accessible to all. In reality, tertiary education is cost-prohibitive to many, and the institutions themselves struggle with funding to keep courses open and attract and retain good teachers and researchers. Polytechnics are underfunded and don't always meet community needs and more apprenticeship programmes are needed.

How: This party would ensure polytechnics have adequate funding and strong local control to meet workforce and community needs, and protect staff and courses. Tertiary organisations would receive a funding formula that prioritises teaching, pastoral care, and research, with a focus on collaboration rather than competition between providers. Apprenticeship programmes would be expanded and all tertiary education would be fees-free.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ deserves a tertiary education system that is affordable, equitable and which gives students the support they need to succeed. This system would recognise te Tiriti and deliver equitable outcomes for tauira Māori (Māori students).

How: This party would expand the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training programme and ensure all tertiary institutes uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi and deliver equitable outcomes for tauira Māori (Māori students). It would fully resource Whare Wānanga to increase opportunities for kaupapa Māori education.

Why they say so: This party says that that early childhood education costs are a stress and barrier for many families, and that education should be a public good. This party says the competitive market in education has reduced trust, creativity and maintained exclusion.

How: This party would first cap charges at $10 per day per child, on top of the 20 hour per week entitlement that is currently funded. This party would raise the funded entitlement to 35 hours a week by 2029.

Why they say so: This party says that children learn better when they are well-fed and every child deserves healthy, delicious and locally prepared food.

How: This party would restore Ka Ora, Ka Ako, the healthy school lunch programme, so lunches are provided by schools and local providers. Expand the school lunch programme to 400 more schools, providing lunches to 150,000 more schoolchildren. It would permanently fund the school lunch programme.

Why they say so: This party says that the current government's reforms to curriculums and assessments are rushed and ideological. This party believes education should foster curiosity, creativity and confidence, be grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and decisions should centre educators voices and expertise. This party says decisions are driven by standardisation and ranking reduces trust and creativity and re-enforces exclusion in education.

How: This party would reset the current reforms and revert to the original direction of Te Mātaiaho, the New Zealand curriculum, and ensure reforms to qualifications follows reforms to the curriculum.

Why they say so: This party says that people with disabilities and diverse learners should be fully supported to learn, belong and thrive.

How: This party would expand the criteria for access to learning support and establish a single agency for specialist supports for learners with health and disability needs. It would implement all actions in the Ministry for Educations 'Framework for Action: A Quality Education for All' strategy.

Why they say so: This party says that education is vital for social cohesion and democracy and should be planned and funded to deliver this.

How: This party would support the workforce to get fair wages and reach staffing levels that support quality teaching, and co-develop a long-term workforce plan with the sector.

Why they say so: This party says that this policy would help make household power bills more affordable so people would not have to choose between heating or eating. This party says that since 2021, 100,000 more households cannot afford to heat their home and 76,000 could not pay their bills on time. The easiest way to lower household power is to help people generate and store solar power but most people are barred from this due to the expensive upfront cost of equipment purchase.

How: This party would establish a government-backed loan scheme to enable zero-interest clean energy loans for up to 90% of homeowners. Homeowners can use these loans for rooftop solar, batteries and making energy efficiency upgrades. Some borrowers will have the option to defer repayments until property sale, while loans will be paid off over time via a separate levy. Central government would be a 20 percent shareholder, with participating councils and the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) splitting the remaining 80 percent. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) would implement the scheme.

Why they say so: This party says that households and businesses with rooftop solar should receive a fair price for the electricity they export back to the grid.

How: This party would regulate energy pricing to ensure that households and businesses with rooftop solar receive a fair price for the electricity they export back to the grid.

Why they say so: This party says that two supermarket companies control what almost everyone in New Zealand eats and are taking about $1m a day in profit. This party says that in a cost of living crisis, there should be greater competition in the grocery sector so everyone can afford healthy and nutritious food.

How: This party would break up the supermarket duopoly by requiring at least 120 stores and distribution centre capacity to be sold into public ownership. These would be folded into KiwiMart, a publicly owned supermarket chain with a mandate to prioritise affordability. It would also ban price gouging through legislation and introduce a pricing accuracy system which would compensate shoppers if overcharged. This is part of a wider policy which would establish a National Food Strategy, a beefed up Commerce Commission, more money for community-led food security and food grants, and a restored and expanded school lunch programme. The cost of setting up KiwiMart would be $2.8bn.

Why they say so: This party says that access to nourishing food is essential for people’s health, well-being, and ability to participate fully in society. A food system therefore should support communities by reducing food insecurity, strengthenen local connections, and ensuring that healthy choices are available to everyone.

How: This party would support community food hubs, distribution programmes, and local food initiatives that improve access to fresh and nutritious foods. It would address unfair practices within the grocery sector through stronger legislation that promotes competition and fairness. Actions would also focus on making nourishing foods and drinks more affordable and accessible.

Why they say so: This party says that our current laws, policies and social norms mean disabled people are often denied the same rights as others. They are often excluded from places and activities non-disabled people take for granted, such as accessing public transport and travelling around their communities.

How: This party would make getting around accessible through continuing to fund the 75% subsidy for the Total Mobility taxi scheme, making it easier to use and increasing the number of mobility vehicles to meet demand.

Why they say so: This party says our rail system has fallen into disarray, and our spread-out communities are poorly served by bus networks. Young people, non-car owners, families and minority groups all benefit from better transport options, as does the environment.

How: This party would extend the Community Connect programme to provide free fares for young people, disabled and community service card holders. It would also work towards more bike lanes, and e-bike sharing.

Why they say so: This party says that overseas New Zealanders deserve to remain connected to NZ, and have a interest in the future of the country. Nearly 15 percent of New Zealanders live in other countries. The government should take a compassionate approach to New Zealanders who have lived or are living overseas.

How: This party would restore the 10-year period of being based in NZ for superannuation eligibility.

Why they say so: This party says that overseas New Zealanders deserve to remain connected to NZ, and have a interest in the future of the country. Nearly 15% of New Zealanders live in other countries. The government should take a compassionate approach to New Zealanders who have lived or are living overseas. These people, and visitors from other countries to New Zealand, should be able to access public services like healthcare wherever they are.

How: This party would seek further reciprocal arrangements with other countries where New Zealanders might live. These would include access to public healthcare, welfare support or benefits and visa waivers. In return, the citizens of those countries would be offered the same services in New Zealand. Existing arrangements, as already exist in some form with the UK and Australia, could be widened to include temporary visitors as well as people working.

Why they say so: This party says that that people coming to NZ for work should have fair and achievable pathways to residence. The party says that migrant workers are not disposable, yet they face exploitation, are denied basic rights and are unfairly targeted by immigration compliance officers.

How: This party would create new residency pathways for migrants who have settled in NZ long-term, including those whose visas have expired. This party would also allow migrant work visa holders to switch employers and would end the 12-month stand-down period requiring workers to leave the country between visas.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand is relatively wealthy but currently ranks poorly against other countries for its climate change policies. This party says we need to do better to help our vulnerable neighbours, like Pacific Island nations and lead with an Indigenous approach.

How: This party would integrate New Zealand's commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and co-governance into international climate negotiations. It would also support global indigenous-led networks to combat climate change and help Pacific nations mitigate and adapt by providing ongoing, responsive financial support. The NZ public would lead the Government's stance on global climate action.

Why they say so: This party says that Pacific peoples are an important part of building NZ's sustainable and flourishing future. Pacific communities are some of the youngest and fastest-growing in NZ. However, it can be hard for their family from Pacific Island countries to visit NZ, and workers under the RSE (Recognised Seasonal Employer) scheme can be mistreated.

How: This party would extend visa-free travel to NZ for citizens of Pacific countries. It would also replace the current RSE scheme with an alternative that guarantees housing and fair wages, and create an open work system where it is easier for these workers to change employers if they are not being treated well. Workers under the new scheme would have a clearer path to NZ residency.