National

Why they say so: This party says that in contexts like apartments or for renters it isn't possible to install traditional solar panels, but small solar set-ups on balconies are an option. After a review found that these systems are safe, this party says that making the regulations for small solar set-ups in NZ simpler will improve reliability and affordability for people. Countries like Germany already have similar rules, which this party says is proof they will work in New Zealand.

How: This party would follow the recommendations in the solar regulatory review, to reduce the number of approvals needed for new solar set-ups. It would allow more installers to carry out inspections and making approval times for lines companies shorter, and estimates that the net benefits would be between $28 million and $50 million over 10 years. This party estimates that this policy would cost $28 million and $50 million over 10 years.

Why they say so: This party says that median increases of rate around the country have been as much as 14.2 percent in the last year. Paying for rates adds financial pressure to households and limiting the amount that rates can increase by would mean that councils prioritise roads, water systems, rubbish and parks rather than other services.

How: This party would limit council rate rises to between 2 and 4 percent per year. Every 6 years, this target range would be reviewed and adapted if necessary. In exceptional circumstances, councils could apply for an exemption by demonstrating their financial management or to recover from an unpredictable event like a natural disaster. An independent regulator would monitor and advise councils and the government on the rates target. The caps would take effect from 1 July 2029.

Why they say so: This party says that parents need more flexibility for taking leave, including taking paid leave at the same time as their partner, so they can receive more support if needed. Current arrangements create financial penalties for people who take time off work to care for their children. Both parents should have the opportunity to access parental leave if they choose.

How: This party would increase parental leave to 27 weeks in the 2027 budget, with further increases in 2028 and 2029. This leave could be split between parents or shared in overlapping periods. After returning to work, pay for annual leave would be calculated based on yearly salaries, rather than average pay for parents who have earned less due to taking parental leave. This party would also continue contributing to a parent's Kiwisaver while they take paid parental leave. Eventually, this party would aim to increase paid parental leave to 40 weeks.

Why they say so: This party says that Jobseeker benefits are not meant as long-term support. The current "invest to save" programme should be continued and extended, with work support targeted to people who have been receiving a benefit for a longer period of time. More intense case management and employment programmes should be used to target the problems preventing people from being employed, and younger people should particularly receive more help. This will help to balance the welfare system more effectively.

How: This party would target extra case management and employment programmes to people receiving Jobseeker benefits for over 12 months, who are deemed "job-ready". At least 5,000 of these places would be reserved for young people. An additional $12m would be given to youth work programme He Poutama Rangatahi above existing baselines. It is estimated that this programme would save $9m by 2031.

Why they say so: This party says that welfare support should always be temporary, and after a long time receiving a benefit it is hard for people to find work. While the welfare system should provide a safety net, it should not prevent people from seeking work. Decreasing payments for people who have been receiving benefits for more than two years will incentivise these people to seek work. Parents with dependent children would have their payments decreased less than those without children.

How: This party would reduce payments for people who have been receiving Jobseeker benefits for 2 of the last 3 years, even if these periods of support were not consecutive. From April 2028, this party would reduce the rate for single people to the rate for 20-24 year olds; reduce the rate for couples without children, and reduce the Jobseeker rate for parents with dependent children half as much as for those without. The exact reductions would be based on benefit rates in 2028, as the rate changes with inflation. The Supported Living payment would not change. This party estimates this would save $572m over 4 years.

Why they say so: This party says that the intention of Jobseeker benefits is to help people find work, not to provide long-term support. Many types of work require drug tests for workers, so people receiving Jobseeker benefits should also be tested for drugs, to show that they are ready to work. If drug use is a barrier to employment, it should be addressed.

How: This party would institute random drug tests for people on Jobseeker benefits, as part of MSD's broader employment programme. If drugs are detected, a person will be tested again; if drugs are detected again, MSD will conduct a mandatory assessment to see whether drug use is a barrier to employment and whether it should be addressed. If drug use if not addressed, it could result in benefit sanctions, so that payments are reduced or stopped. It is expected that this policy would cost $1.5m per year.

Why they say so: This party says that benefits are intended as temporary support until someone is employed again. If someone chooses to leave a job, the current stand-down period of 13 weeks means they cannot receive a benefit for job hunting until this time has passed. In line with the UK's benefit sanctions system, people who repeatedly leave jobs should have a longer stand-down period.

How: This party would increase the current non-entitlement period for people who leave a job from 13 weeks to 26 weeks. Someone who has left a job more than once would not receive a benefit until this time, about 6 months, had passed.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ's welfare system is funded by taxpayers to provide a safety net. Currently, NZ residents are entitled to benefits after 2 years of living in the country. However, this party says that new migrants to NZ should be expected to provide for themselves and their families by working rather than receiving benefits. This is in line with approaches to new residents in Australia and the UK.

How: This party would extend the minimum residency requirements for receiving benefits to 5 years, from the current minimum of 2 years. This would begin in 2028, and new legislation might be needed to enact the change. Refugees and other protected persons would be exempt from this requirement and MSD could still issue hardship grants to residents in emergencies. This party estimates that this would save $49m over 4 years.

Why they say so: This party says that that it is focused on growing the economy and do not want to introduce new taxes. It does not want to make commitments that would involving adding or increasing taxes for any New Zealanders. It says it can invest in government services without changing any parameters on the tax system.

How: This party would not introduce any new taxes, including an accomodation levy or "bed tax" for councils receiving a lot of tourists. It would not introduce any specific tax on banks either.

Why they say so: This party says that this funding boost will expand access to new cancer and other life-saving medicines so Kiwis can access world-class treatment here in New Zealand.

How: This party would deliver a further $604 million uplift in Pharmac’s medicines budget. This will be funded by reducing foreign aid spent outside the Pacific.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand's rate of bowel cancer is among the highest in the world, with more than 3300 people diagnosed every year and 1200 losing their lives to it. Early detection is the difference between survival and death. Those treated at an early stage have a 90 percent chance of long-term survival.

How: This party would extend free bowel screening by lowering the age by two years every year to reach 50 in the next term of Government, so bowel cancer is found earlier when it is most treatable. It would continue the roll out of free bowel cancer tests for people of any age with symptoms, so cancer is found sooner no matter how old a patient is. Lastly, it would deliver additional colonoscopies to increase system capacity and work with Bowel Cancer New Zealand to determine how the CHALLENGE exercise programme could be made available for bowel cancer patients.

Why they say so: This party says that breast cancer is New Zealand’s most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, with nearly 3900 new cases a year, and the risk grows with age. Free mammograms currently stop at 69, leaving older women to pay for screening themselves or go without.

How: This party would complete the free breast screening extension to age 74 by 2029, ensuring older women have access to early detection and life-saving care.

Why they say so: This party says that prostate cancer is the most common cancer among New Zealand men, with more than 4,000 diagnosed and more than 700 deaths each year, making it the second biggest cause of cancer death for men after lung cancer. Found early, more than 90 per cent of men survive at least five years, but that falls below 40 per cent once the cancer has spread. However, there is currently no organised screening programme for prostate cancer.

How: This party would launch a prostate cancer screening pilot in two high-demand districts, offering men aged 50 to 70 regular screening to evaluate what works for a potential nationwide programme. It would also gather evidence for a potential nationwide programme, based on a proposal from the Prostate Cancer Foundation.

Why they say so: This party says that cervical cancer is among the most preventable cancers, because nearly every case is caused by HPV, a common virus that the screening test picks up well before any cancer develops. When it is caught early, around 91 percent of women survive, but that falls to around 19 percent once it has spread. Successive Parliamentary Reviews since 2018 have recommended making cervical screening free for every woman.

How: This party would deliver free cervical screening for all women aged 25 to 69 from March 2027.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand is facing a chronic disease epidemic. The number of Kiwis with type 2 diabetes is set to nearly double by 2040, yet most cases are preventable with a healthy diet and exercise.

How: This party would establish the Healthy Kiwis Programme to deliver active prescriptions, with a target to double the number of people receiving them by 2030, helping more Kiwis get active, eat well, and avoid chronic diseases like diabetes.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealanders should keep more money, rather than paying taxes, to save money for their own future. Taking home more pay and repaying a student loan over a longer period will give graduates more options for how to spend their money. People who have been educated in New Zealand and are staying to work here should have more money available while starting their careers.

How: This party would reduce the annual repayment rate for student loans to 10 percent, from the current rate of 12 percent. Student loans for people in NZ would remain interest-free. People could continue to make additional repayments if they wished. Currently, there are $16.8bn of student loans owed to the government. Because of a slower rate of repayment, this party would write off $283m of student loans in the 2026/27 financial year to make up the loss in value from the interest-free loans.

Why they say so: This party says that teachers arrive in schools without classroom experience, impacting learning. The current government has created the Schools Onsite Training Programme so teachers can receive a stipend to spend three days a week in classrooms while training.

How: This party would increase the number of places in the Schools Onsite Training Programme to 704 each year by 2028, focusing on subjects and areas with teacher shortages. It would also add 50 places to the Teacher Bonding Scheme, bringing the total to 235, which is aimed at helping schools with staffing challenges to attract more staff.

Why they say so: This party says children need to be ready for school, and parents and teachers need to be aware of developmental milestones. Skills like toilet training, holding pencils and scissors, and eating independently are important for kids to thrive as they start school. A checklist of expectations for starting school will help teachers and parents know when a child might need extra support to be prepared for being at school all day. This would formalise a process many ECE centres already have.

How: This party would create a "School Start Check" for use by ECE centres and parents. The expectations for transitioning to primary school would be clear, and kids struggling to meet these expectations would be given extra support. The checklist would not be a "pass/fail" test, and not completing the checklist would not prevent a child from starting school.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ's growth and prosperity depends on the knowledge and skills of young people. However, some employers have been struggling to find the skills they need.

How: This party would double the number of Trades Academy places so that 20,000 places are offered by 2030. It would also roll out 9 new vocational education pathways designed by industry.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ's achievement in maths, reading and writing has decreased. Structured literacy and maths and a simple grading system and regular assessment is a way to create better outcomes. A new curriculum should be used at all year levels.

How: This party would replace the NCEA system with grades and regular exams. Grades would range from A+ to E, rather than the NCEA system. New curriculums would be fully embedded at all levels.

Why they say so: This party says that Kiwisaver is a way for people to build up money for themselves during retirement, and everyone who is working should be part of it. The money in Kiwisaver is also important for providing capital for investments in New Zealand's future, like major projects or infrastructure. Contributions from the government for babies who are automatically enrolled will help the investment grow over time.

How: This party would make Kiwisaver compulsory from July 2028 and life combined contribution rates (individuals and employers) to 12% by 2032. For babies, it would contribute a $1500 "Baby Boost" payment to all New Zealanders at birth, automatically enrolling them in Kiwisaver. It would also make other changes to Kiwisaver, including government contributions through paid parental leave and requiring employers to maintain payments for people over the age of 65 who are still working.

Why they say so: This party says that a home is an essential way for New Zealanders to build wealth. The First Home Loan scheme has operated since 2003, allowing people to purchase their first homes with a 5% deposit, instead of a standard 20% deposit. However, some people who are struggling to afford the deposit on their first home fall above the income cap of $95,000 for a person buying alone and $150,000 for two people buying together (both with no dependents). Raising the eligibility criteria will mean more people can buy homes with low deposits. Raising and simplifying the eligibility will allow more people to buy houses.

How: This party would raise the eligibility so anyone earning less than $300,000 per year, whether single or a couple, could access the 5% deposit of the First Home Loan scheme. These lower deposits would only apply to people purchasing their first property. The loans would be approved by banks, as already happens, meaning no-one would be issued with a loan they cannot afford. The fiscal impact of this policy is expected to be between $4m-$6m.

Why they say so: This party says that home energy tools like solar power and batteries lower household power bills and provide resilience in the energy system. Electrification and renewable energy is a good investment, and a government backed fund will make it easier for people to add these developments to their homes or businesses. With a high cost of living, this would help people finding it hard to pay power bills.

How: This party would launch the Home Energy Fund, jointly owned by central government and participating councils. The fund would pay a approved installer to add batteries or solar panels to a home and then property owner would repay the fund at low interest rates over a ten-year period. The loans would be secured against the value of the property, and available to ratepayers with at least 20% equity in their property. The loans could be used for solar installation, batteries, heat pumps, insulation and other developments to make homes more efficient.

Why they say so: This party says that Foodstuffs owns three grocery brands, limiting competition on prices in NZ. Previous attempts to reform the sector have suggested targeting both Woolworths and Foodstuffs, but a cost-benefit analysis says only focusing on Foodstuffs is the better option. Instead of Foodstuffs being divided into North and South Island branches, the company should be divided into New World and Four Square and Pak 'n' Save, creating greater competition.

How: This party would amend the Grocery Industry Competition Act in its first 100 days in government, asking the Commerce Commission to develop an implementation plan for separating the businesses in a way that is good for consumers. Owner-operators of supermarkets would retain their roles, but with a different overarching company structure to get support from. Restructuring Foodstuffs is a faster way to reach three competitors in the New Zealand market, rather than the time it would take for another player to develop operations around the country.

Why they say so: This party says that secure energy is important for NZ to grow its economy. More power supply, competition and choice, as well as regulating the right areas, can make power cheaper for New Zealanders.

How: This party would change the law so that "affordability" is a key objective for the Electricity Authority in its role as the sector regulator. Affordability would be balanced with its other objectives of competition, reliability and efficiency.

Why they say so: This party says that the current rules in the electricity sector assumes that power comes from big generators. However, as more people put solar panels on their homes or businesses, the power sometimes flows the other way. Currently, those with solar panels are locked into selling any excess power to the grid to the same company they have an electricity contract with. If these rules were more flexible, people could get a better price for power they generate.

How: This party would give every household and. business the right to sell power to whichever retailer they choose. This would be achieved through a Government Policy Statement, and specific legislation if needed. Lines companies would be required to base any power export limits on the true capacity of their network, and not restrict exports beyond any genuine network constraint.

Why they say so: This party says that fuel excise tax was going to be increased in 2027, after a pause due to high cost of living and fuel. The tax, which has been frozen since 2020, is important for funding road infrastructure. With the conflict in Iran making fuel more expensive, fuel tax and road user charge increases can be delayed a year, until 2028.

How: This party would cancel the planned 12c increase to the fuel excise tax in 2027. Instead, the party would increase the fuel excise tax in 2028, rising by 5c at 6 month intervals until 2030. At that point, annual 5c increases would resume. Because the excise tax goes into the National Land Transport Fund for road maintenance and creation, it would make up the shortfall with money from other parts of the government.

Why they say so: This party says that many New Zealanders receive a heavily subsidised education, but do not use their skills in NZ. To support people to stay in New Zealand, overseas-based student loan holders who are not making repayments need to be penalised. The Inland Revenue Department (IRD) already has some tools, like charging interest to overseas-based loan holders and monitoring the border for people who have not paid their student loans. More penalties and limits for people who are not paying their student loans would recover more money.

How: This party would add another 1 percent of interest for overseas student loan holders. For overseas-based New Zealanders withdrawing their Kiwisaver under the "permanent migration" category, money from Kiwisaver would clear the remaining student loan debt first. IRD would receive $10m of additional funding for student loan recovery and be allowed to register a charge for recovery in another country without getting a court order. As is already the case in Australia, this party would set up an information-sharing agreement to share details of student loan holders with the UK. If elected, this party would also lower the threshold for issuing an arrest order for not repaying a student loan. It estimates that the $10m of enforcement funding would result in at least $15m of recovered money per year.