Labour

Why they say so: This party says that NZ is one of the few countries in the world without some form of capital gains tax. Much of New Zealand's wealth is held in property rather than enabling economic growth. A capital gains tax would increase New Zealand's productivity and make housing more affordable. Money raised from the tax would be invested in healthcare.

How: This party would introduce a 28% tax on commercial properties and residential investment properties. Family farms, homes, KiwiSaver, shares, business assets, inheritances, gifts, and personal items would be exempt. The tax would only apply to people who own multiple properties or commercial properties, and only to profits made after 1 June 2027.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ has a backlog of construction work. Homes need building, schools need improving and hospitals need fixing. Government investment will get this pipeline underway, helping to reduce high unemployment and opportunities for businesses to win work.

How: This party would provide more social housing - at least 6,000 additional social housing places over four years. As part of this policy, more people will be helped into the trades by expanding the Apprenticeship Boost and Māori Trades Training scheme.

Why they say so: This party says that negligent employers need to be held accountable for workplace deaths. New Zealand has one of the highest workplace death rates in the developed world and yet employers cannot be held accountable for corporate homicide. Making this an offence would serve as a stronger incentive to take workplace safety seriously.

How: This party would hold introducing an offence for corporate homicide to encourage industries and employers to put in place adequate safety systems.

Why they say so: This party says that recent changes to the Equal Pay Act have stripped workers in low-paid female-dominated workforces of the right to pursue pay equity claims. These changes have raised the threshold for workers to prove their work had been historically undervalued, affecting nurses, teachers, carers and others.

How: This party would reverse changes to pay equity laws within the first 100 days of government, with care and support workers the first in the queue.

Why they say so: This party says that care and support workers deserve immediate and practical support for the hardship they have experienced with cancelled pay equity claims. This party says the work of caregivers has been unfairly undervalued because it has predominantly done by women.

How: This party would give an immediate pay rise of $4 an hour to 65,000 care and support workers through its pay parity policy. The change will take effect from the start of 2027.

Why they say so: This party says that monetary policy should be consistent with two objectives: maintaining stable prices over the medium term and maximum sustainable employment. It says keeping inflation in the target band is critical to household budgets, business planning and investment, and prolonged unemployment stops the economy from reaching its full potential.

How: This party would restore the Reserve Bank's dual mandate of price stability and maximum sustainable employment.

Why they say so: This party says that supporting Māori to get into work, retrain or find a better job is good for everyone. This programme was cut by the current government; it would be reintroduced to help Māori gain practical skills and qualifications for real jobs.

How: This party would establish a contestable, Māori-led fund to deliver practical skills training. It's estimated up to 3000 Māori would benefit from the programme, which would include a wide variety of trades and have no age limit. This party estimates that this policy would cost $21m a year.

Why they say so: This party says that graduate nurses are being trained here, but because of a lack of job openings, too many are being forced to look overseas instead of starting their careers in New Zealand. The pressure on the health system from the shortage of nurses spills over into patient healthcare.

How: This party would guarantee a job for every eligible New Zealand-trained nursing graduate, affecting about 2400 nurses. It would also address pressure on primary care because of the nursing shortage by doubling the funding available through the current recruitment subsidy. The current rate for rural nurses would be lifted from $20,000 to $40,000 and it would rise from $15,000 to $30,000 for nurses in urban areas. This party estimates that this policy would cost $525m.

Why they say so: This party says that that last year, 155,000 New Zealanders didn't collect medicine they had been prescribed because they couldn't afford it. Not receiving treatments mean that health problems are exacerbated, and research shows that people who skip medication are more likely to end up in hospital. Making prescriptions free is an upfront cost for the government which removes pressure on the health system.

How: This party would remove the $5 fee for prescriptions of funded medication. This would apply to anyone who is entitled to free healthcare in New Zealand, instead of just people under age 14 and over age 65 and those with Community Services Cards. This would cost $74.5m a year, funded by a capital gains tax. This party estimates that this policy would cost $74.5 m a year.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ has a backlog of construction work. Homes need building, schools need improving and hospitals need fixing. Government investment will get this pipeline underway, helping to reduce high unemployment and opportunities for businesses to win work.

How: This party would tackle long-overdue repairs at hospitals so they are safe, reliable and fit for purpose. As part of this policy, more people will be helped into the trades by expanding the Apprenticeship Boost and Māori Trades Training scheme.

Why they say so: This party says that many New Zealanders have to choose between medical care and other essentials like food. Some general practices charge nearly $100 per visit. Under the "Medicard" policy programme, anyone eligible for funded healthcare could go to the GP for free at least three times a year. This would be paid for by a capital gains tax.

How: This party would cover three visits a year to a doctor or nurse at the GP clinic where people are enrolled. Already free services like immunisations would not count towards the three-visit total. The "Medicard" card and app would link visits to people's National Health Index number. The three free visits are for each year and do not accumulate and roll over into the next year. This party estimates that this policy would cost $393.3 million in 2027/28, rising to around $553 million a year once fully in place.

Why they say so: This party says that that pregnant people should not have to worry about money to know their baby is healthy, with each scan currently costing an average $90. No mum would have to skip a scan because they can't afford it.

How: This party would make every referred maternity scan by a doctor, midwife or specialist free in NZ. All a pregnant person would need is a Medicard. To grow the relevant workforce and ease the pressure on hospitals, 24 paid trainee sonographer positions would also be funded, costing less than $3 million a year. This policy would be funded by the party's targeted capital gains tax. This party estimates that this policy would cost $28.6 million a year.

Why they say so: This party says that that cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers but 85 percent of those diagnosed have never been screened or have missed screenings. Free cervical screening means earlier diagnosis, less pressure on hospitals and more lives saved.

How: This party would implement free cervical screening for everyone aged 25-69 from 1 October 2027. People's eligibility would be automatically loaded onto the Medicard, with screening available at their local doctor or community screening event. This would be funded from existing health budgets and would be in addition to the three free doctor's visits a year. This party estimates that this policy would cost $21.6 million for the first full year.

Why they say so: This party says that doctors cannot always afford to buy their own practice. Yet private family doctors form the bulk of general practitioners in the health system. If more GPs can afford to open a practice in their local community, it will lower waiting times to see doctors and ease the pressure on busy hospitals.

How: This party would introduce a Family Doctor Loan Scheme providing up to 90% of the cost of buying into a practice. This would cap at $500,000 and would be interest-free for the first two years. A 3 percent annual interest rate would apply after that, with 10 years allowed to repay. Up to 50 loans would be available per year for owner-operated general practices. Funding would be supplied through the existing Small Business Cashflow Loan Scheme. This party estimates that this policy would cost $25 million a year if fully subscribed.

Why they say so: This party says that student debt can hang over people for years, making it harder to save for a home, start a family or plan for the future. In launching this policy, this party hopes to encourage students to stay and work in NZ, rather than going overseas.

How: This party would write off 10% of eligible student loan balances. Students already finished and repaying their loan from 1 April 2027, and to current or future students three years after their studies, as long as they spent those years in NZ, would be eligible for the write-off. Eligible people would have to be up-to-date with their payments and have not received the now-defunct Fees Free incentive. Smaller loans of $2000 or less would be fully written off after the three years. This party estimates that this policy would cost nearly $40m a year once fully running in 2031.

Why they say so: This party says that youth unemployment continues to rise, with many New Zealanders choosing to move overseas in search of better job opportunities. It believes that expanding the Apprenticeship Boost will provide tradies and young people with greater support as they learn and build their careers in NZ.

How: This party would extend employer payments from one year to two years at $500 a month from 1 July 2028. It would also provide a $1000 toolbox grant to help new apprentices cover the cost of tools, kit, uniform and course materials from 1 July 2027. Eligibility for the Apprenticeship Boost would also be extended to include five new trades; road construction, water and sanitary engineering, personal services, sales and marketing, and sports and recreation, with a structured mentoring programme piloted, also from July next year. This party estimates that this policy would cost $56.5 million a year over four years.

Why they say so: This party says that NZ has a backlog of construction work. Homes need building, schools need improving and hospitals need fixing. Government investment will get this pipeline underway, helping to reduce high unemployment and create more opportunities for businesses to win work.

How: This party would make improvements at more than 2,000 state schools and integrated schools, aided by expanding the Apprenticeship Boost and Māori Trades Training scheme.

Why they say so: This party says that Kiwisaver is crucial to building a secure future and a key source of investment for the economy. However, more than a million working-age KiwiSaver members are not contributing at all, while 83,400 are on a savings suspension. This party would take the government's proposed Kiwisaver plan and make it more flexible for workers, particularly those under financial pressure.

How: This party would make KiwiSaver more flexible and therefore more attractive for Kiwis to save. It would make employer contributions compulsory and lift them to 6 percent by 2032. It would extend employer contributions to workers over 65, and encompass the self-employed and those on parental leave. The default employee contribution would be set at 4 percent and the minimum contribution would be removed. Employer contributions would continue even when employees reduced or paused their own contributions. Contracts that absorb employer Kiwisaver contributions into total salaries would be banned.

Why they say so: This party says that the cost of living is too high to allow for a GST hike and is calling on the government to confirm that it will not raise GST next year. This is in response to the National Party's pledge not to introduce any new taxes before this election.

How: This party would ensure GST is not increased in 2027 to ensure the price of basic items does not become unaffordable in the current climate.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealanders are paying too much for basic items such as food. It believes a crackdown is needed on big companies who charge excessive prices for essential goods or services. It notes that there is no legal test for excessive or unfair pricing in NZ.

How: This party would adjust legislation to address price gouging and give the Commerce Commission to new powers investigate what dominant companies are charging and take them to court. The legislation would only include industries that supply essentials such as food and groceries, banking and insurance, telecommunications, energy, fuel and investment. The law will apply where a company has enough market power that customers can't realistically switch, suppliers have nowhere else to go, or new competitors struggle to enter a market. Companies found to have overcharged consumers will face penalties and be ordered to make repayments. The policy would only touch big players with significant market powers, not small businesses.

Why they say so: This party says that New Zealanders are not paying a fair price for groceries. The country needs a more competitive supermarket sector, which is currently dominated by two players who favour their own retail stores at the disadvantage of smaller players.

How: This party would would make Woolworths and Foodstuffs run their­­ wholesale supply businesses independently from their retail stores. It would also give Kiwi grocers the right to buy their stock from any wholesaler they choose, and free up small players to void anti-competitive arrangements that keep their prices high. Rebate and data deals would be made more transparent.

Why they say so: This party says that Kiwi consumers are being hit by hidden fees and trapped into contracts and subscriptions which are easy to join but hard to exit. These include gym memberships or phone and internet contracts with unclear pricing, excessive notice periods or auto-renewals.

How: This party would firm up contract rules, banning unfair exit fees on telecom contracts, and ensuring full prices are clear and auto-renewals or excessive notice periods are obvious. It would also address extended warranties on whiteware and electronics at checkouts, and ban "junk care insurances"; and making subscription services and gym memberships easy to cancel.

Why they say so: This party says that the fuel market needs to be opened up further to increase competition and ensure prices are fair.

How: This party would put the wholesale and retail fuel markets under greater scrutiny by the Commerce Commission, which would report weekly on fuel prices and investigate if changes in wholesale fuel prices do not follow through to the pump. Independent petrol stations would also gain greater access to fuel supplies, and NZTA would be required to look at making surplus land available for independent unmanned petrol stations and EV chargers. This party has committed to freezing fuel excise tax for three years.

Why they say so: This party says that a cap on public transport fares will help address the everyday struggles New Zealanders face as a result of a high cost of living.

How: This party would introduce a weekly fare cap of $20 on public transport in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Everywhere else in New Zealand would see a weekly fare cap of $10. This would begin on 1 July 2027. Once the caps are reached, the rest of that week's trips would be free. There would be no sign-up required; transport users would use their public transport card or payment method as usual for public buses and trains and some ferries.

Why they say so: This party says that it opposes the current government’s plan to lift fuel excise taxes by 22 cents a litre over the next term. It argues that while international oil prices and inflation remains high, higher fuel taxes would affect the entire economy. The government has since confirmed it will not go ahead with the first 12c stage of the fuel tax increase in January.

How: This party would not increase fuel excise tax over the next three years to stop price pressure increasing. The fuel excise tax is a key source of transport funding for projects such as the Roads of National Significance programme, some of which have been slowed down in response to the changing economic climate.

Why they say so: This party says the cost of fixing a car is not as competitive as it could be. It argues consumers are not able to use any mechanic because they don't have always access to the tools or information dealers have to make the repair. Similar moves in Australia mean car repairs by independent mechanics are 25% cheaper than dealerships.

How: This party would enable independent mechanics and petrol stations to access manuals, software and tools to fix modern cars. This effectively gives drivers the right of repair. This is part of a wider policy on market competition, which includes giving the Commerce Commission the power to investigate fuel prices, and freezing fuel excise taxes for three years.

Why they say so: This party says that immigration should be planned around what New Zealand needs, in a way that's fair to everyone here and everyone who comes. Migrants bring much-needed energy and skills but they need clear and predictable rules to attract them, and protection from exploitation, while ensuring NZ has the capacity for them.

How: This party would introduce a set of measures including the setting of immigration goals through a Government Policy Statement that reflects the country's workforce, housing and infrastructure needs. The wider policy includes extending the length of time needed for permanent residence, allowing migrants to move more easily between accredited employers, and offering better community support.

Why they say so: This party says that it often falls on Pasifika families in NZ to sponsor a visit from loved ones from the islands, but for cost or other reasons, they may be unable to secure a visa. This party says NZ values its Pacific community and should reduce the barriers for them to connect with family.

How: This party would expand visa-waiver access to citizens from the Pacific Islands Forum nations.