NZ First

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand's birth rate is only 1.53 children per woman, when the replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. If something is not done, this party says New Zealand may become entirely dependent on immigration in the future.

How: This party would offer all new parents (where at least one is a New Zealand citizen) a $5000 grant per year for the first three years of their child's life. This grant would apply to the first, second, and third children which the couple have. The grant would be tax free and not replace any current support. This party estimates that this policy would cost $400 million per three-year-cycle.

Why they say so: This party says that benefit support comes with the rights and responsibilities of being a New Zealander. It wants to prevent the use of benefits by migrants yet to become citizens and to slow down net migration.

How: This party would implement a benefit stand-down period of ten years. This period would be in line with the additional changes to citizenship and permanent residency, where the required period to qualify for citizenship would double from five years to a minimum of ten years and from two years to five years for permanent residency.

Why they say so: This party says that too large a share of NZ health spending goes towards caring for people once they're sick, as opposed to before. The party claims that 59% of health spending is spent treating chronic illness, and only 1.75% on the prevention of such conditions.

How: This party would promote nutrition from primary school to medical school, use health coaches in GP care, and require a full independent review of our dietary guidelines. It would fund research and development to better assess nutritional interventions for preventing and treating mental illness. It would fund development in agricultural tech and cut regulatory barriers to help grow markets for organic food items. It would investigate how the use of vitamins in the delivery of healthcare can prevent people from getting sick again, including intravenous vitamin C pre- and post-surgery for preventing and treating infections.

Why they say so: This party says that too large a share of NZ health spending goes towards caring for people once they're sick, as opposed to before. The party claims that 59% of health spending is spent treating chronic illness, and only 1.75% is spent on the prevention of such conditions. Better education and info can help inform people of how they can best make healthier decisions.

How: This party would launch an independent review that seeks to better understand metabolic health. It would promote nutrition from primary school to medical school. Such a review would look at current dietary guidelines.

Why they say so: This party says that the healthcare system responds to crises without dealing with the underlying causes, such as poor nutrition. It claims the incorporation of health coaches can help educate patients on how to better avoid underlying causes of illness.

How: This party would fund health coaches to be staffed at local general practices.

Why they say so: This party says that ensuring children are enrolled in Kiwisaver would create benefits that compound for decades. Birth enrollment ensures that all New Zealanders can participate, and an up-front government contribution of $1,000 would mean that all citizens will enter adulthood with savings.

How: This party would enrol all New Zealand citizens in Kiwisaver at birth and provide a $1,000 contribution to all these accounts from the Crown. This would complement other Kiwisaver policies, including increasing employee and employer contribution to 8% and 10% and making enrolment compulsory for all people in the workforce.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealanders are paying too much for power, because four large companies generate 90 percent of NZ's power, controlling the supply and selling the power directly to customers. The party says that this situation results in high prices for households and industry, leading to companies closing down and job losses.

How: This party would replace the current system so that generation and retail are not done by the same companies. This would make sure that the most expensive generator would not set the price for the rest of the market.

Why they say so: This party says that prices for electricity are too high in NZ. Because of the structure of the market with four major companies, it is hard for competitors to enter the market. The "gentailer" companies can hold back supply, making electricity more expensive, instead of investing in more power generation.

How: This party would guarantee long-term, fixed-price contractions for building new electricity generation. The companies building this infrastructure would receive guarantees that their power would be the first to be used when needed. This would make it easier for investors to fund electricity generation projects, and increase New Zealand's energy security and resilience.

Why they say so: This party says that food prices are too high in New Zealand, as a result of a supermarket duopoly controlling 80% of the grocery market. Food producers and households do not get a good deal from this system. Creating more competition will drive prices down.

How: This party would introduce legislation to split the Foodstuffs brands into two cooperatives; one for New World and Four Square and the other for Pak'n'Save. This would create more competition with Woolworths and result in lower prices and fairer deals for producers. This would create more certainty for major businesses like McCains and Heinz Watties, which have experienced job losses as a result of a poorly functioning system.

Why they say so: This party says that the current Grocery Commissioner does not have the power to enforce the sector properly. The Commerce Commission cannot apply penalties as high as its counterpoint in Australia, investigations are often slow, and penalties are not enforced.

How: This party would increase the powers assigned to the Commerce Commission and Grocery Commissioner. The Commerce Commission would be able to apply penalties for serious breaches of up to $10 million, three times the gain, or 10 percent of turnover. Investigations would be faster and enforcement stricter. The Grocery Commissioner would have powers to investigate, make binding decisions and apply penalties directly.

Why they say so: This party says that prices for food are too high in NZ, in part because supermarkets limit small food providers' access to customers. The supermarkets control suppliers' access to the market, favouring larger providers.

How: This party would introduce a new industry framework into the Commerce Act 1986 to fix competition issues quickly without waiting for legislative change. This would ensure producers are not pushed off supermarket shelves by larger players.

Why they say so: The party says that New Zealanders who have worked since they were teenagers deserve security in retirement. As superannuation becomes harder to pay for as the population ages, it's unfair for people who have lived and worked in the country for a lot less time to receive the same payments.

How: The party would phase in the demand that one be a citizen to be eligible for superannuation over three years. It would amend the eligibility criteria to remove access to NZ Super for permanent residents.

Why they say so: This party says that student visa holders compete in the competitive graduate job market and can take jobs from New Zealanders. It stays the intent of international education is for overseas economies to give money to NZ by paying for their education, not to provide automatic work rights and residence pathways. The party also cites broader concern with net numbers of migrants entering New Zealand and sees changes to student visas as a way of reducing net migration and its effect on infrastructure.

How: This party would have student visa holders lose their automatic right to work. To be allowed to work, student visa holders would have to fulfil strict conditions to ensure they are not doing work that could be done by NZ citizens. People who have been on student visas and want to transition to another visa would have to leave NZ and reapply for a new visa from overseas.

Why they say so: This party says that the illegal overstaying of visas by migrants is causing public distrust of the immigration system. However, people have built a life here and are discouraged by bans on re-entering the country if caught and deported.

How: This party would provide a 24-month/two-year amnesty whereby, if one chooses to self-deport by leaving the country, they will be eligible to apply to immigrate to NZ legally. Any overstayer caught thereafter will receive a permanent ban from applying. Pacific overstayers will be able to apply for a legal visa right away and stay in NZ.