NZ Elections 2026

• The page is probably incomplete, and may be added to from time to time.
• Below, we compared the policies of the major parties, but we have not done a detailed costing of the proposals.
• Seventeen political parties have registered for the 2026 election.
  • All 17 of these registered parties have submitted formal party lists and are actively competing for the party vote.
  • There are 65 electorate candidates standing either as independent candidates or representing unregistered political parties. Within this group, 48 candidates are running strictly as pure independents.
  • We do not have information on the policies of all registered parties, but have attempted to cover those parties that have previously had members elected to parliament, or have promoted Basic Income.
• This page looks at the election and the policies of the main political parties from a human rights and Basic Income perspective.
  • We compare the Basic Income, tax changes, changes to universal basic services, the universality of payments, and the equitable distribution of wealth policies of the various parties, with particular emphasis on Basic Income payments, universal services, and equitable taxation changes.
• We do not consider all aspects of any party’s policies.
  • People intending to vote in the election are asked to undertake their own investigations, consider all aspects and policies and make their own decisions based on their knowledge and understanding.
  • People are asked to consider the possibility that a small tax cut for themselves could make them better off in the short term, but that a loss of government services might make them worse off overall, or that they or others might find themselves in poverty as a result of the tax cuts.
• Basic Income and Universal Basic Services, such as free public education, free medical care, and other universal services provided by the government, are regarded as complementary, not mutually exclusive.
  • Boosting universal services, such as providing free or subsidised dental care for adults, may give both individuals and families more financial relief than changes to taxation, and provide better targeting of government resources to those in need, boosting the overall well-being of the nation.
  • Similarly, a Basic Income paid to all provides better targeting of government resources to those who need them the most, and better targeting than tax cuts that invariably provide larger tax cuts for the wealthy than for those on low incomes.
• Tax cuts provide short-term relief to some individuals, but tax cuts that are not carefully targeted toward those who need them the most give a short-term benefit, as prices will quickly rise to eliminate any gains.
  • Broad tax cuts always provide more benefit to those on higher incomes, lead to reduced government income and are more often than not followed by cuts in government expenditure.
  • Cuts in government expenditure lead directly to reduced taxation revenue for governments and calls for further expenditure cuts. This can result in a downward spiral.
• Cuts to government and universal services result in people being worse off.
  • Cuts in government expenditure are invariably followed by general economic downturns, which negatively impact the well-being of most citizens.
  • When people have less money to spend, businesses suffer, and there is less money available to pay those on higher incomes.
  • A Basic Income provides a better solution as it broadly targets benefits to those on lower incomes who need them the most and ensures that everyone has at least a minimum amount of money to spend to keep the economy moving.
  • Increasing money in the hands of those with low overall incomes leads to more expenditure and economic growth. People who need money to live tend to spend it repidly on necessities. This increases the rate at which money moves (the velocity of money), which boost overall well being, boosts the economy, increases government tax revenue, and leads to what is knwon as a multiplier effect as the economy expands.
  • Conversly, more money in the hands of those who have high incomes and wealth tends to more slowly, if at all, may simply accumulate in bank accounts or may be spent oversease. GST and other governent revenues fall as a result and the overall economy tends to contract.

The primary purpose of government is to ensure and enhance the well-being of all a nation’s people, not some at the expense of others. To achieve this, governments will act to ensure:

• law and order, justice, and protection against harm
• protection against invasion by malevolent forces from outside the country
• good quality education and health,
• an adequate albeit basic standard of living for all citizens and
• an equitable distribution of wealth.

Many of the requirements for a government to achieve these objectives are outlined on our United Nations page.

To maximise well-being, governments should ensure efficient management of government resources. This includes the management of the distribution of funds.

Further discussion on the purpose of government is provided on our New Zealand Elections page.

.

New Zealand has a unicameral parliament with a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system and a three year parliamentary period. While there are two larger parties, Labour, centre-left, and National, centre-right, most elections under the MMP system require a coalition between a larger parties and one or more smaller parties to form a government. This can lead to minor parties having a disproportionate influence in government.

.

Past attempts to reform New Zealand’s economy have led to a growing disparity between rich and poor. Gross domestic product grew by 35% between 1982 and 2011.

However, almost half of the increase went to a small group who were already the wealthiest in the country. The average income of the top 10% of earners (those earning more than $72,000) went from $56,300 to $100,200, almost doubling, while the average income of the poorest tenth went from $9,700 to $11,000, an increase of just 13%!

The top 1% of the population now own some 16% of the country’s wealth and the richest 5% owns 38%.

In contrast, 50% of the population, including beneficiaries and pensioners, earn less than $24,000.

Those on the lowest incomes struggle to make sufficient income to pay for food and accommodation. Households often have two adults working long hours just to ensure that they can meet basic requirements.

From this, we can see that there is a need for the government to enhance the well-being of those on the lowest incomes and that there really is no need for any government to enhance the incomes of the wealthiest sectors of the population.

While there are many in the top 50% of the population who feel that life is financially difficult, the major reason for this is the shortage of housing, a result of a long-standing failure to increase the housing supply to match population increase. This shortage has led to increased house prices and rental rates. Increasing the housing supply is the best way to ease both house and rental prices. Simply providing more money to people with incomes in the middle range without increasing the housing supply will lead to corresponding increases in both house prices and rental charges, leaving people no better off.

Looking at the policies of the various parties, we looked for:

• Any proposed Basic Income policy or alternatives
• Appropriate taxation to accompany a Basic Income
• Goods and Service Tax proposals
• Wealth tax or capital gains proposals
• Universal Basic Services
• Free dental care
• Free or subsidised medical prescriptions
• Proposed changes to New Zealand Superannuation

261101