Opportunity

Why they say so: This party says that the current tax system is outdated and does not address the cost-of-living crisis, unaffordable housing, and the increasing pressure of the superannuation system. Under its tax plan, this party says incomes will increase for 70 percent of New Zealanders, and another 20% will see no change.

How: An annual land value tax of 1.75 percent on urban land - and 0.5% on rural land - would be part of a wider tax reset aimed at incomes, house prices and retirement savings. The land value tax would lower house prices an estimated 10-15 percent and discourage land-banking and large property portfolios. There would be potential exemptions for farmers, retirees and other "land rich, cash poor" land owners. This tax would fund a universal citizen's income, with an extra $4bn for other uses. The tax system would also be simplified, with the number of tax brackets reduced to three - 28 percent, 34 percent and 39 percent

Why they say so: This party says that house prices in NZ are too high - on average, 7.3 times the median wage, when 3 times is considered affordable. There's also still a shortage of 80,000 houses. This party says the solution is unpopular: NZ has to build more and house prices have to drop.

How: This party would simplify zoning, creting a smaller, consistent set of zones for productive farmland, civic spaces and heritage buildings. Medium density housing, mixed-used and extensions to public and retail spaces would be encouraged, and the party would streamline the processes for building tiny homes, sleepouts and extensions. These measures, along with a 1.75% tax on land values and more support for the construction sector, would help increase house supply, bring down house prices, and make landbanking less attractive.

Why they say so: This party says the current tax system is outdated and does not address the cost-of-living crisis, unaffordable housing, or the increasing pressure of the superannuation system. By taxing land, redistributing the revenue and raising retirement savings, household incomes could rise for 70% of New Zealanders, and another 20% would see no change.

How: This party would gradually introduce a universal citizen's income of up to $370 a week for almost all adults. This would replace most benefits, with top-up support available for retirees, parents and others. The Citizen’s Income would lift incomes but is not enough to live on. This retains the incentive to work and reduces barriers for beneficiaries wanting to earn more. The Citizens Income would be funded by a 1.75 percent annual tax on urban land values and 0.5 percent on rural land. Tax brackets would also be simplified to 28 percent, 34 percent and 39 percent.

Why they say so: This party says that our health system is under immense pressure because it changes whenever governments change, sacrificing long-term progress. Success in health would be more equitable access to healthcare, a less pressured workforce and fewer people getting sick.

How: This party would seek a 10-year cross-party plan that would allow time to develop the workforce needed and to invest in infrastructure and systems. This would include a lift in health funding from the current 7.4% of GDP to 9% over the next ten years, with a greater focus on primary, community and preventative care.

Why they say so: This party says that our health system is under immense pressure because it changes whenever governments change, sacrificing long-term progress. People are finding it difficult to access care and the medical profession needs stability. Filling the gaps in primary care, Māori wellbeing, workforce, mental health, and elective treatment would cost at about $1.3b a year, or an additional 1.5 per cent of annual GDP.

How: This party would lift health funding from the current 7.4 per cent to 9 percent of GDP over the next 10 years. This would work in tandem with a 10-year cross-party health plan to provide certainty. Funding for GPs and other primary care providers would also be increased to help catch illness early or even prevent it. This would rise gradually from 5.7 to 10 percent of Health NZ's spending. By setting health funding as a share of GDP, it will grow consistently with the economy, rather than having to be found each Budget.

Why they say so: This party says that tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food account for roughly a quarter of all the healthy years New Zealanders lose to death and disability. Prevention receives a small fraction of health spending relative to the share of health loss these risks cause.

How: This party would work to reduce the harm from tobacco, as well as alcohol and unhealthy food, as part of a 10-year health plan. This would include a renewed Smoke-free New Zealand programme, with fewer places selling tobacco, and mandated de-nicotinisation of smoked tobacco. Quit programmes and regulated alternatives for adult smokers would be better funded, and there would be stronger protections against youth access to vapes.

Why they say so: This party says our economy needs new ideas and science, technology and innovation are traditional sources for fresh thinking. The country needs young talented Kiwis who are currently offshore to bring their experience and skills back to help drive the economy.

How: This party would roll back the student loan interest of returning Kiwis on up to 3 years spent overseas. This would apply to both newly graduates and those currently overseas. The rollback would be applied at the end of their loan repayment, and conditional on being resident in New Zealand when the loan is repaid. This policy would cost an estimated $95m.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand's education system is capable of excellence, but it has since become politicised and student results have fallen. Schools need more funding, and teachers face high workloads, poor pay and workforce planning issues. A plan is needed where curriculum and assessment design is not set by politicians, and students are better prepared to learn in new ways.

How: This party would create a 10-year cross-party education plan. It would include an independent council to oversee curriculum and assessment design, including a review of the government’s replacement of NCEA with NZCE/NZACE. It would also promote the purposeful use of technology and expand access to te reo Māori learning. The costs would be spread over 10 years, and many parts of the plan would not require extra funding.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand's education system is capable of excellence, but has become politicised and student performance has fallen. There is a need for more independent and longer-term planning, starting with early education which is over-stretched and under-resourced.

How: This party would introduce a 10-year education plan with cross-party support. The plan would include modernising early childhood education, by providing ensuring better staff-to-child ratios, better spaces and more core funding for community-owned services like playcentres, kōhanga reo, and kindergartens. It would also encourage the inclusion of early childhood-trained teachers in primary schools, to ease the transition for children. The cost would be spread over the 10 years of the plan and in many cases, would require no direct increase in funding.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand's education system is capable of excellence, but it has become politicised and student performance has fallen. The education system needs to prepare students better for a more complex world and foster lifelong learning for adults.

How: This party would restore adult and community education. This is part of its push for cross-party agreement on a 10-year plan for the wider education sector. This long-term plan would focus on stability for students, support for teachers and modernising learning for the future.

Why they say so: This party says that unhealthy food account for roughly a quarter of all the healthy years New Zealanders lose to death and disability. Prevention receives a small fraction of health spending relative to the share of health loss these risks cause.

How: This party would roll out several measures to encourage healthier eating, including restoring the original lunches in schools programme. Nutrition would be an overall health priority. It would extend the nutritional standards used in hospitals to other sectors like aged care, prisons and schools. A national nutritional study would also be commissioned to better inform policymakers. The party's 10-year health plan will lift health funding to 9% of GDP, with a greater focus on prevention and primary care.

Why they say so: This party says that every Kiwi should be able to retire with dignity. However, retirement savings are increasingly putting pressure on the government's finances. Instead of cutting services or raising taxes on young people, this party argues that the tax system needs a reset which includes retirement savings.

How: This party would bring in a compulsory retirement savings scheme. Over eight years, employee and employer contribution rates would rise to 6%, bringing the total contribution to 12%. This would build a trillion-dollar capital pool to fund infrastructure and national development.

Why they say so: This party says New Zealand has solar, wind, hydro and geothermal resources but continues to rely too heavily on fossil fuels. It says increasing renewable energy and promoting the electrification household and industry electrification would have many benefits such as increased GDP, lower carbon emissions, smaller power bills and 5,000 new jobs over the next 30 years.

How: This party would incentivise the electrification of industries and housing. Low-interest loans and funding would be made available for households, community energy projects and public transport. This would include an expansion of EECA’s Warmer Kiwi Homes subsidies ($80m annually) for household solar and electricity initiatives, and low-interest electrification loans via the national Ratepayer Assistance Scheme.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealand has solar, wind, hydro and geothermal resources but continues to rely too heavily on fossil fuels. It says increasing renewable energy and promoting electrification would have many benefits such as increased GDP, lower carbon emissions, smaller power bills and 5,000 new jobs over the next 30 years.

How: This party would consolidate the energy industry, merging the four energy regulatory agencies into one, and shrink the number of energy distributors from 29 to no more than 8. It believes this policy would help make electricity more affordable. The party's full energy plan would be funded from about $500m in dividends from government stakes in electricity gentailers.

Why they say so: This party says consumers are paying too much because of a lack of market competition in sectors such as the supermarkets and banking. It says small business also need more business support to be competitive and keep up with technology.

How: This party would give the Commerce Commission greater powers to investigate, intervene and force structural separation of anti-competitive businesses across the economy. It would also boost R&D tax credits for small businesses and offer budgeting help. It would also ensure fairness for small businesses in the ACC and retail payment systems. This is part of a wider innovation plan which would cost an additional $1.33bn but create $4 billion revenue annually.

Why they say so: This party says that the numbers stack up on universal free-to-ride public transport. This would provide immediate relief in terms of fuel demand and the cost of living, less traffic and increased productivity. More people taking public transport would ease congestion on our roads.

How: This party would make public transport universally free. It notes that the government already funds 90 percent of the cost of public transport from taxes and rates - fares only cover about 10 percent of operating costs. By scrapping ticketing systems, free public transport has an estimated net cost of about $150m per year.

Why they say so: This party says that that the $100,000 cap introduced on charitable donations in Budget 2026 will limit donations to the charitable sector and put crucial giving at risk. The cap wills cost the public more through increased demand on public services. A comprehensive review and reform of the charitable sector is needed to mitigate concerns about donor-controlled charities and people receiving tax benefits without providing meaningful charitable services.

How: This party would remove the $100,000 cap on charitable donations and instruct the Law Commission to carry out a review of regulations in the charity sector in NZ.