Common Ground

The flip side of Flashpoints. These are issues where most parties actually want the same thing - and where, despite the agreement, it still hasn't been delivered. Same goal, different words, stuck all the same.

It's easy to assume parties disagree on everything. Often they don't - they share a goal and simply describe it in different words. What keeps these changes from happening is rarely the "what". It's the "how", the question of who pays, and the electoral-year incentive not to hand an opponent a win. This page shows the agreement - and names the blocker.

Cheaper power through more solar and renewablesLetting low- and middle-earners keep more of their payBreaking the supermarket duopolyA long-term, bipartisan infrastructure pipelineFunding more medicines through PharmacFixing the Resource Management ActReducing child povertyProtecting native species (Predator Free 2050)Investing in mental healthTraining more doctors and nursesMaking data centres fund their own power

Cheaper power through more solar and renewables

Left, right and centre all want more sun and wind on the grid - they just can't agree on who builds it or who pays.

6 of 7 parties agree86%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

Greyed parties have no clear stated position on this goal.

The goal they share

Get more cheap, clean, home-grown electricity generation - especially solar - onto the grid to bring power bills down and reduce reliance on gas.

The context

New Zealand already runs on roughly 88% renewable electricity, but demand is rising and dry-year risk keeps wholesale prices volatile. Solar has become the cheapest new generation to build, and rooftop solar lets households and businesses cut their own bills. Across the spectrum, parties have converged on the same headline idea: build more renewable generation, faster. They differ almost entirely on the mechanism - subsidise it, deregulate it, or restructure the market that sells it.

Same goal, different words

NationalDeregulate and double renewables

Cut consenting red tape so solar and wind farms can be built faster, and remove barriers to connecting new generation - the 'Electrify NZ' approach of letting more supply get built.

Electrify NZ
ACTLet the market build it

Strip back RMA and planning barriers so private investors can build generation wherever it stacks up, without needing subsidies or a government programme.

ACT infrastructure policy
LabourSolar on public buildings

Put solar on state houses, schools and public buildings and back community-scale renewable projects so the benefits reach lower-income households.

Labour climate & environment policy
Green PartyRebates for rooftop solar

Direct support - rebates and low-interest finance - to help households and marae install rooftop solar and batteries, plus a push for community-owned energy.

Green energy policy
NZ FirstRegional energy resilience

Back a mix that keeps the regions supplied and prices stable, including renewables alongside firming generation, with an emphasis on energy security.

NZ First policies
Te Pati MaoriMāori and community-owned energy

Support iwi- and community-owned generation as a route to energy sovereignty and lower bills for whānau.

Te Pāti Māori policy

Why it's still stuck

Every party wants more solar on the grid, but they are split between two philosophies that cancel each other out. The right wants to get out of the way (deregulate, let the market build), while the left wants to lean in (rebates, public build, help for low-income households). Neither side will vote for the other's version, so the subsidy bills and the deregulation bills each stall. On top of that, the market itself is dominated by a handful of gentailers who both generate and retail power - and no party has been willing to take on that structure. The result: broad agreement on the goal, gridlock on the method, and power bills that keep climbing.

  • •Subsidy-vs-deregulation stalemate - neither bloc will pass the other's mechanism
  • •The gentailer market structure that sets prices goes largely untouched by anyone
  • •Grid connection and lines-company delays sit outside the political fight entirely
  • •Short electoral cycles vs the multi-year lead time to build and connect generation

What would break the deadlock

A narrow, mechanism-neutral bill that everyone can live with - for example, standardising and speeding up grid connection for rooftop and community solar - would let the parties bank the thing they already agree on without forcing anyone to swallow the other side's ideology.

Current status: Broad rhetorical agreement across six parties; no cross-party package. Solar keeps getting built by the market while the policy fight over how to accelerate it stays unresolved heading into the 2026 election.

Letting low- and middle-earners keep more of their pay

Almost every party says people on modest incomes should pay less tax. They just fundamentally disagree on who makes up the difference.

7 of 7 parties agree100%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

The goal they share

Reduce the tax burden on low- and middle-income earners so working people keep more of what they earn.

The context

Tax brackets went largely untouched from 2010 until National's 2024 adjustments, so years of wage inflation quietly pushed people into higher brackets ('bracket creep'). The shared instinct across the spectrum is striking: nearly every party agrees that someone on a modest wage is taxed too much. The disagreement isn't about whether to cut tax at the bottom - it's about how to pay for it. The right funds relief by cutting spending; the left funds it by taxing wealth, land or top incomes. Those two answers are irreconcilable, which is why a change everyone claims to want never becomes a durable, cross-party settlement.

Same goal, different words

NationalAdjust and index the brackets

Delivered bracket adjustments in 2024 and favours keeping more of what you earn by stopping bracket creep - relief funded by trimming government spending.

Back Pocket Boost
ACTFlatter, lower rates

Simplify to fewer, lower rates so middle earners face a lower marginal rate - paid for by cutting the size of government.

ACT economy & cost of living
NZ FirstRelief on the basics

Supports targeted tax relief and taking tax off essentials, with particular focus on seniors and the cost of everyday basics.

NZ First tax reforms
LabourTargeted relief for low incomes

Favours relief aimed at low- and middle-income households (and has proposed taking GST off fruit and vegetables), funded by asking higher earners and wealth to contribute more.

Labour tax policy
Green PartyA tax-free threshold

No income tax on the first slice of earnings for everyone, funded by a wealth tax on the very richest - so low earners pay nothing on the first band.

Tax System for All
Te Pati MaoriBig tax-free band, shift to the top

A substantial tax-free threshold with the burden shifted onto high incomes and wealth.

Te Pāti Māori tax policy
TOPA tax switch

Cut income tax (including a tax-free threshold) and make up the revenue with a land-value tax rather than taxing work.

Tax Reset

Why it's still stuck

This is the clearest case on the site of everyone wanting the same destination and refusing to share a car. All seven parties agree low earners should keep more - but relief costs revenue, and the parties are split down the middle on where that revenue comes from. The left won't cut the spending the right wants to cut; the right won't pass the wealth, land or top-income taxes the left wants to levy. So each side's version of low-earner relief is dead on arrival with the other, and the one thing they unanimously support becomes a bargaining chip nobody will concede in an election year.

  • •Unanimous on the goal, irreconcilable on funding (spending cuts vs new wealth/land taxes)
  • •Tax relief is a marquee campaign promise - conceding it to an opponent is politically costly
  • •Any durable settlement would need to survive a change of government, and neither side trusts the other's design
  • •Every option has visible losers (public services, or wealth/property owners) who mobilise against it

What would break the deadlock

A modest, revenue-neutral step both blocs could accept - such as automatically indexing tax brackets to inflation so bracket creep stops silently raising taxes - would deliver the shared goal without either side having to endorse the other's funding mechanism.

Current status: Universal agreement in principle; no cross-party mechanism. Each party heads into 2026 with its own incompatible version of tax relief for the same voters.

Breaking the supermarket duopoly

Everyone from ACT to the Greens agrees two chains shouldn't control the groceries. Years of agreeing later, there are still two chains.

6 of 7 parties agree86%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

Greyed parties have no clear stated position on this goal.

The goal they share

Inject real competition into a grocery market dominated by two players so food prices come down for households.

The context

New Zealand's grocery sector is effectively a duopoly - Foodstuffs and Woolworths - and the Commerce Commission's 2022 market study found competition was not working well for consumers, estimating excess profits in the order of a million dollars a day. Since then, a Grocery Commissioner has been appointed and wholesale-access rules introduced. What's remarkable is how little daylight there is between the parties on the diagnosis: right, left and centre all say two chains is too few and shoppers are paying for it. The gap is on the cure - and on whether anyone is willing to do something as drastic as forcing the incumbents to break up.

Same goal, different words

NationalForce the issue on competition

Has openly floated stronger intervention - up to compelling the majors to divest stores or open the market - if competition doesn't improve.

Cost of living relief
ACTRemove barriers to new entrants

Focus on planning and regulatory barriers that stop a third competitor (including overseas chains) from entering, rather than punishing the incumbents.

ACT economy & cost of living
LabourRegulate and watch closely

Set up the Grocery Commissioner and mandatory wholesale supply, and supports tougher oversight to force fairer pricing.

Labour cost of living policy
Green PartyA public or community option

Backs structural change and is open to non-market options - including community or public grocery models - to guarantee affordable food.

Green food policy
NZ FirstStand up for consumers and suppliers

Supports intervention that protects shoppers and domestic suppliers from being squeezed by the two big chains.

NZ First cost-of-living policy
Te Pati MaoriAffordable kai for whānau

Supports breaking the duopoly's grip and community-led food supply so basic groceries are affordable.

Te Pāti Māori cost of living

Why it's still stuck

Six parties agree the duopoly is a problem - yet the duopoly remains, because the only fix big enough to matter is also the one nobody quite dares to pull the trigger on. Forcing an established company to sell off stores is legally fraught, invites years of court action, and risks disruption a government would own at the next election. The softer measures everyone can agree on - a Commissioner, wholesale rules - haven't moved prices much. So the parties are left agreeing loudly on the problem while the structural change that would actually break it keeps being deferred to 'if things don't improve'.

  • •Structural separation (forced divestment) is radical, slow and legally risky - easy to endorse, hard to pull off
  • •The measures that command consensus (Commissioner, wholesale access) are too weak to shift prices
  • •A well-resourced incumbent lobby fights every serious intervention
  • •Any disruption to grocery supply lands on whoever is in government at the time

What would break the deadlock

A credible, pre-committed trigger - a clear competition benchmark that, if unmet by a set date, automatically forces divestment - would turn universal rhetorical agreement into a change that actually happens, and take the political risk out of any one party acting alone.

Current status: Broad agreement the duopoly harms consumers; a Grocery Commissioner and wholesale rules in place, but no structural break-up. Prices remain a top cost-of-living grievance into 2026.

A long-term, bipartisan infrastructure pipeline

Every party says it wants 30-year certainty on infrastructure. Every party also cancels the last lot's projects.

5 of 7 parties agree71%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

Greyed parties have no clear stated position on this goal.

The goal they share

Agree a stable, long-term pipeline of infrastructure projects that survives changes of government, so big builds aren't started and scrapped each cycle.

The context

New Zealand faces an infrastructure deficit estimated in the tens of billions, and the Infrastructure Commission (Te Waihanga) has spent years making the same point every party accepts: the problem isn't just money, it's stop-start. Projects get announced by one government and cancelled by the next - Auckland light rail, Three Waters, the Lake Onslow pumped-hydro scheme, inter-island ferries. The 30-year National Infrastructure Plan and repeated calls for a cross-party accord all rest on a consensus that genuinely exists: everyone says they want long-term certainty and bipartisan agreement. It's arguably the purest example of parties wanting the same thing and structurally preventing it.

Same goal, different words

NationalA national pipeline and fast-track

Backs a long-term National Infrastructure Plan and fast-track consenting to give investors certainty on a stable list of projects.

Infrastructure for the Future
LabourIndependent, enduring planning

Established the Infrastructure Commission and supports an independent pipeline that outlasts the electoral cycle.

Labour infrastructure policy
ACTCertainty and better cost-benefit

Wants a predictable pipeline chosen on rigorous cost-benefit grounds rather than political announcements.

ACT infrastructure policy
Green PartyLong-term, low-carbon investment

Supports long-horizon infrastructure planning weighted toward climate-resilient and public transport investment.

Green transport policy
NZ FirstRegional certainty

Backs a durable pipeline that guarantees the regions their share of long-term investment.

NZ First infrastructure policy

Why it's still stuck

This is agreement that eats itself. Every party endorses a bipartisan pipeline - and then, in office, cancels the previous government's flagship projects, which is exactly what destroys the certainty they all say they want. Because nobody trusts a project to survive the next election, incoming governments feel free to scrap what they inherited, and businesses price in that risk rather than committing. The consensus on the concept is total; the behaviour that would deliver it - actually leaving an opponent's project alone - never follows, because the short-term political win of scrapping a rival's scheme always beats the long-term shared prize of certainty.

  • •Each incoming government cancels the last one's flagship projects - the very thing that kills certainty
  • •No binding mechanism forces continuity across a change of government
  • •Scrapping a rival's scheme is an immediate political win; certainty is a slow, shared one
  • •Three-year terms are far shorter than the 10-30 year horizon of major builds

What would break the deadlock

A genuinely independent, statutory pipeline - projects locked in by a cross-party body with a high bar to cancel, similar to how monetary policy was taken out of politicians' hands - would let each side bind its own future hands and finally deliver the certainty every party claims to want.

Current status: Universal agreement on the need for a durable pipeline; no mechanism to enforce it. Major projects continue to be cancelled and restarted across electoral cycles.

Funding more medicines through Pharmac

No party will say New Zealanders should get fewer medicines. So why does the funding fight never end?

7 of 7 parties agree100%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

The goal they share

Fund more modern medicines - especially cancer treatments - so New Zealanders can access drugs that are routine in comparable countries.

The context

Pharmac buys medicines within a fixed budget, and for years patients and clinicians have pointed out that treatments funded in Australia and elsewhere aren't available here. In 2024 the government added a substantial boost to the cancer-drugs budget, and no party campaigns on funding fewer medicines - the direction of travel is one everyone endorses. The shared goal is real: more people should get the drugs they need. What no one has resolved is how much more to spend, where the money comes from, and whether the Pharmac model itself should change - which keeps a broadly agreed aim in permanent 'not quite enough' territory.

Same goal, different words

NationalBoost the drug budget

Delivered a significant increase to the cancer- and medicines-funding budget and supports lifting Pharmac's spend.

Helping More Kiwis Fight Cancer
LabourSustained funding increases

Supports steadily increasing Pharmac's budget and points to funding growth delivered while in government.

Labour: free prescriptions
ACTBenchmark to a share of health spending

In July 2026 set a concrete target to lift the share of the health budget spent on medicines from around 4.9% to 12% by 2033, funded from health-budget growth; also backs more transparency about how Pharmac ranks and chooses what to fund.

RNZ: ACT on lifting Pharmac's budget
Green PartyFund on need

Supports increasing the budget so access is driven by clinical need rather than a constrained envelope.

Green health policy
NZ FirstAccess, wherever you live

Supports more medicines funding with attention to equitable access across the regions.

NZ First health policy
Te Pati MaoriEquitable access for Māori

Backs greater funding aimed at closing Māori health gaps and unequal access to treatments.

Te Pāti Māori health policy
TOPEvidence-led investment

Supports lifting the medicines budget guided by cost-effectiveness evidence.

TOP health policy

Why it's still stuck

Everyone wants more funded medicines, which makes this feel less like a disagreement and more like a treadmill. Because health is effectively bottomless - there is always another effective drug to fund - 'more' never resolves into 'enough', and each budget round reopens the same fight over how much and at whose expense. The parties agree on direction but not on the size of the cheque or where it's drawn from, and none has been willing to reopen the harder question of whether Pharmac's fixed-budget model should change. So a goal with unanimous support stays permanently unfinished.

  • •'More medicines' has unanimous support but no agreed dollar figure or funding source
  • •Health demand is effectively unlimited - each boost is immediately overtaken by the next unfunded drug
  • •Reforming the fixed-budget Pharmac model is politically risky and largely untouched
  • •Every extra dollar for medicines competes with hospitals, workforce and other health priorities

What would break the deadlock

A cross-party commitment to a transparent funding path - for example, benchmarking the medicines budget to a share of health spending or to comparable countries - would convert open-ended agreement into a predictable, defensible trajectory rather than an annual brawl.

Current status: Unanimous support for more funded medicines; a 2024 cancer-drugs boost delivered, but no settled long-term funding path. Access gaps versus comparable countries remain a live issue into 2026.

Fixing the Resource Management Act

They once agreed on denser housing rules - and passed them together. Then it fell apart, which tells you everything.

5 of 7 parties agree71%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

Greyed parties have no clear stated position on this goal.

The goal they share

Replace or overhaul the Resource Management Act so it's faster and cheaper to consent housing and infrastructure.

The context

For decades there has been near-universal agreement that the Resource Management Act makes building too slow and too expensive. The most striking proof that consensus exists came in 2021, when National and Labour jointly passed the Medium Density Residential Standards - a rare bipartisan deal to allow up to three homes on most urban sites. It was hailed as a model of cross-party problem-solving. Then it came apart: National walked back its support before the 2023 election, councils were allowed to opt out, and the parties returned to competing RMA overhauls. It's the cleanest example on the site of parties proving they can agree - and then failing to hold the agreement together.

Same goal, different words

NationalReplace the RMA entirely

Repealing and replacing the RMA with new legislation built around property rights and faster consenting.

Going for Housing Growth
ACTProperty rights first

Wants a system centred on property rights that makes it far easier to build, with minimal planning obstruction.

ACT infrastructure & RMA policy
LabourReform, and enable density

Co-authored the 2021 density rules and pursued its own RMA replacement in government, aiming for faster consenting with environmental safeguards.

Labour housing policy
Green PartyFaster, but well-planned

Supports enabling denser, climate-friendly housing and quicker good-quality development, while keeping environmental protections.

Green housing policy
NZ FirstPractical, regionally sensible rules

Backs cutting consenting delays with rules that work for the regions and local communities.

NZ First housing policy

Why it's still stuck

This one is almost tragic, because they've already shown it can be done. In 2021 National and Labour actually agreed and legislated together - and the deal still collapsed the moment the electoral incentives shifted. That's the real lesson: the barrier isn't that parties can't find common ground on the RMA, it's that any government that inherits an opponent's reform would rather rip it up and pass its own than share the credit. Every side agrees the RMA is broken; every side wants to be the one that fixed it. So the country cycles through replacement after replacement, and the certainty that builders and councils actually need never arrives.

  • •A rare bipartisan deal (2021 density rules) collapsed once the politics changed - proof the agreement won't hold
  • •Each party wants to own the fix, so inherited reforms get repealed rather than kept
  • •Constant replacement creates the very uncertainty that reform is meant to remove
  • •Environmental protections vs speed remains a genuine live disagreement at the edges

What would break the deadlock

Treating planning rules like a long-term settlement rather than a campaign trophy - locking core consenting standards through a cross-party process with a high bar to reverse - would stop each government spending its term undoing the last one's law and let the shared goal actually stick.

Current status: Agreement that the RMA is broken is universal; the 2021 bipartisan density deal was unwound, and parties now field competing replacement plans into 2026.

Reducing child poverty

Parliament almost unanimously voted to reduce child poverty. Years on, they still argue over how - while the numbers barely move.

7 of 7 parties agree100%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

The goal they share

Lift children out of material hardship and reduce the number of Kiwi kids growing up in poverty.

The context

This is one of the clearest examples of shared intent in modern New Zealand politics: the Child Poverty Reduction Act 2018, which set legislated poverty-reduction targets, passed almost unanimously - only ACT voted against it, and even ACT frames its welfare approach as a route out of hardship. Every party says fewer children should grow up poor. Yet the measures that would move the numbers - the level of benefits and Working for Families, the cost of housing and food, whether support is universal or work-tested - are exactly where the parties split. So a goal with near-total agreement produces sharply different, and largely incompatible, policies.

Same goal, different words

NationalWork and targeted family support

Sees paid work as the main route out of poverty, backed by targeted help such as the FamilyBoost childcare rebate for working families.

FamilyBoost
ACTLift incomes through growth

Argues hardship falls fastest when the economy grows and work pays; sceptical of legislated targets, which is why it opposed the 2018 Act.

ACT economy & cost of living
LabourIncome support and Working for Families

Backs lifting incomes for low-income families through benefits and Working for Families, and points to the 2018 targets it legislated.

Labour cost of living policy
Green PartyGuaranteed minimum income

Wants a guaranteed income floor so no child grows up in poverty, funded through a fairer tax system.

Green children policy
NZ FirstSupport families and seniors

Backs cost-of-living relief and family support to ease pressure on households raising children.

NZ First cost-of-living policy
Te Pati MaoriInvest in mokopuna

Wants direct investment in tamariki and whānau and a Māori-led approach to lifting children out of hardship.

Te Pāti Māori: mokopuna Māori
TOPUnconditional support for kids

Supports a simple, unconditional payment for children to guarantee a basic income floor from birth.

TOP welfare policy

Why it's still stuck

Everyone signed up to the destination - the 2018 targets passed with all but one vote - and then split completely on the map. The left wants to raise incomes directly through benefits and a fairer tax base; the right wants poverty to fall as a by-product of work and growth, and is wary of 'just topping up benefits'. Because those two theories of change point in opposite directions, each government's child-poverty strategy is unwound or reshaped by the next, and the legislated targets keep being missed by whoever holds the numbers. Unanimous agreement on the goal, permanent disagreement on the lever.

  • •Near-unanimous on the goal, opposed on the lever (income support vs work-and-growth)
  • •Legislated targets exist but carry no cross-party agreement on how to hit them
  • •The biggest drivers - housing and food costs - sit in other, equally contested policy fights
  • •Each government reshapes the last one's child-poverty package, so measures rarely run long enough to compound

What would break the deadlock

Agreeing a small core of measures both sides accept move the needle - for example, indexing key child payments so they don't erode with inflation - would let the shared target survive a change of government instead of resetting every three years.

Current status: The 2018 targets remain law with near-universal support; progress has stalled and parties field opposing strategies to reach the same goal into 2026.

Protecting native species (Predator Free 2050)

Saving the kiwi and the kākā is about as close to a national consensus as it gets. Funding it at the scale required is where it stalls.

5 of 7 parties agree71%
NationalLabourGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriACTTOP

Greyed parties have no clear stated position on this goal.

The goal they share

Protect and restore New Zealand's native birds, plants and ecosystems - including the goal of a predator-free New Zealand by 2050.

The context

Few causes unite New Zealanders like protecting native wildlife. The Predator Free 2050 goal - eradicating rats, stoats and possums to save native species - was launched by a National government in 2016 and has enjoyed broad support across the political spectrum ever since, sitting alongside wider agreement on conservation and biodiversity. The disagreement isn't about whether to protect native species; it's about how much to spend, how fast, and which pest-control methods (including the use of 1080) are acceptable. The consensus on the aim is real - the follow-through at the required scale is not.

Same goal, different words

NationalBack the 2050 target

Supports the Predator Free 2050 goal and targeted conservation funding as part of its environment plan.

Blueprint for a Better Environment
Green PartyFund restoration properly

Wants far larger investment in biodiversity and ecosystem restoration, and support for community and iwi-led conservation.

Biodiversity & Environmental Regeneration
LabourSustained conservation funding

Backs continued funding for predator control and native-species recovery through the Department of Conservation.

Labour environment policy
NZ FirstPractical pest control

Supports protecting native species with a practical approach to pest control that works for rural communities.

NZ First environment policy
Te Pati MaoriKaitiakitanga

Frames protecting native species as kaitiakitanga, with iwi and hapū leading restoration of their rohe.

Te Pāti Māori environment policy

Why it's still stuck

Almost nobody campaigns against saving the kiwi, which makes this feel less like a fight and more like a promise the country keeps half-making. The 2050 goal is popular and broadly endorsed, but eradicating predators across an entire nation is a multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar undertaking, and conservation funding competes with health, education and everything else at every budget. Add a genuine dispute over methods - especially aerial 1080 - and a target everyone supports drifts along underfunded, reliant on volunteers and short-term grants rather than the sustained investment the science says it needs.

  • •Broad support for the goal, but the 2050 scale needs sustained multi-decade funding no budget locks in
  • •Conservation competes with health, education and infrastructure for every dollar
  • •Real disagreement over pest-control methods, especially aerial 1080
  • •Much of the work leans on volunteers and short-term grants rather than a durable funding stream

What would break the deadlock

A long-term, cross-party conservation funding commitment - ring-fenced the way some infrastructure or research funding is - would match the 30-year ambition with 30-year money, instead of asking a generational goal to survive on annual budget scraps.

Current status: The Predator Free 2050 goal retains broad support; progress is real but well behind the pace needed, constrained by funding and method disputes into 2026.

Investing in mental health

No party will tell you mental health deserves less. So why does the system still feel starved?

7 of 7 parties agree100%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

The goal they share

Improve access to mental health and addiction support so people can get help when they need it.

The context

Mental health has become one of the most universally endorsed priorities in New Zealand politics. The 2018 He Ara Oranga inquiry laid out the scale of the problem, a record funding package followed in 2019, and since then no party campaigns on spending less. Every party has a mental-health commitment. Yet frontline access - especially for young people and in the 'missing middle' between a GP and acute care - remains stretched, waitlists persist, and workforce shortages bite. The agreement on direction is total; the sense that the system is under-resourced is shared across the spectrum. What's missing is a settled, funded plan that survives more than one electoral cycle.

Same goal, different words

NationalFund what works

Backs a Mental Health Innovation Fund and targeted services aimed at getting more people faster access to support.

Mental Health Innovation Fund
LabourBuild on the 2019 investment

Points to the record 2019 mental-health package and supports continuing to expand frontline and community services.

Labour health policy
ACTOutcomes and accountability

Supports more mental-health support with a focus on measuring outcomes and getting results for the money spent.

ACT health policy
Green PartyFree, universal access

Wants free mental-health care available to everyone, with a big lift in community and youth services.

Green health policy
NZ FirstSupport in every region

Backs better mental-health and addiction services with attention to rural and regional access.

NZ First health policy
Te Pati MaoriKaupapa Māori services

Wants kaupapa Māori mental-health and addiction services designed and delivered by Māori for whānau.

Te Pāti Māori health policy
TOPFund the missing middle

Supports investing in early and community-level support to close the gap between GP care and acute services.

TOP health policy

Why it's still stuck

Mental health is the rare issue where every party agrees on the direction and even agrees the system is under-resourced - and yet it still underdelivers. Big one-off funding announcements grab headlines but take years to reach the frontline as buildings, and above all as trained people, that can't be conjured quickly. Like Pharmac, demand is effectively bottomless, so 'more' never feels like enough. And because each government restructures the last one's health system, mental-health initiatives are repeatedly reorganised before they mature. Unanimous goodwill, a persistent delivery gap.

  • •Unanimous on priority, but funding announcements take years to become actual frontline services
  • •A severe workforce shortage - you can't fund a psychologist who doesn't exist yet
  • •Constant health-system restructures reset initiatives before they bed in
  • •Demand keeps outpacing supply, so extra investment is quickly absorbed

What would break the deadlock

A cross-party, multi-year mental-health workforce and funding plan - protected from each restructure - would let services grow and compound instead of being announced, reorganised and re-announced every cycle.

Current status: Universal support for better mental-health care; record funding committed since 2019 but access gaps and workforce shortages persist into 2026.

Training more doctors and nurses

Every party wants more doctors and nurses. The one thing you can't fast-track is the years it takes to train them.

7 of 7 parties agree100%
NationalLabourACTGreen PartyNZ FirstTe Pati MaoriTOP

The goal they share

Grow New Zealand's health workforce - more doctors, nurses and midwives - so patients can actually get seen.

The context

Behind almost every health complaint - ED waits, the GP shortage, surgical backlogs - sits the same root cause: not enough trained health workers, especially outside the main centres. On this, the parties are strikingly aligned. National has campaigned on training more doctors and delivering more nurses and midwives; Labour set up a family-doctor loan scheme; every party has a workforce commitment. The goal of a bigger, better-distributed health workforce is about as close to consensus as health policy gets. The gap is in how fast it can happen, how it's paid for, and how you keep trained staff from leaving for Australia.

Same goal, different words

NationalTrain more doctors here

Backs more medical training places and delivering more nurses and midwives to grow the domestic workforce.

Training More Doctors
LabourIncentives to stay

Backs schemes such as a family-doctor loan to draw graduates into general practice and keep them in New Zealand.

Family Doctor Loan Scheme
ACTMore places, less bottleneck

Supports expanding training capacity and removing barriers that cap how many health professionals qualify.

ACT health policy
Green PartyInvest in the workforce

Wants sustained investment in training and fair pay and conditions to grow and retain health workers.

Green health policy
NZ FirstStaff for the regions

Backs training and incentives to get doctors and nurses into rural and regional communities.

NZ First health policy
Te Pati MaoriGrow the Māori workforce

Wants investment in growing the Māori health workforce to improve care and access for whānau.

Te Pāti Māori health policy
TOPFix the training pipeline

Supports expanding training capacity and better workforce planning to end the chronic shortages.

TOP health policy

Why it's still stuck

This is agreement defeated mostly by the calendar. Every party wants more doctors and nurses, but a doctor takes well over a decade to train, so today's decisions don't relieve today's shortage - and no government gets the political credit within its own term. That weak short-term payoff means workforce planning is chronically under-done, while trained staff keep being poached by higher Australian salaries. The parties differ at the edges - how many places, how much pay, how much to rely on overseas recruitment - but the real blocker is that the fix is slow, expensive and pays off long after the next election.

  • •Training a doctor takes 10+ years - the payoff lands well beyond any electoral term
  • •Australia keeps poaching trained staff with higher pay and conditions
  • •Training places are capped by clinical placements and senior staff to supervise, not just funding
  • •Slow, long-horizon fixes get less attention than quick, visible announcements

What would break the deadlock

A stable, cross-party workforce plan with committed training numbers and retention measures locked in for a decade or more would let the pipeline actually fill - the shared goal only works if it outlives the government that starts it.

Current status: Universal support for a bigger health workforce; shortages persist across the system into 2026, with training timelines and retention the binding constraints.

Making data centres fund their own power

National, Labour and the Greens all agree hyperscale data centres must bring new power, not drain what's already there. They just can't agree on how to make them do it.

3 of 7 parties agree43%
NationalLabourGreen PartyACTNZ FirstTe Pati Maori

Greyed parties have no clear stated position on this goal.

The goal they share

Ensure hyperscale data centres contribute new electricity generation rather than consuming existing grid supply that households and businesses rely on.

The context

The arrival of hyperscale AI data centres in New Zealand - led by the $3 billion Datagrid project in Southland, which could use roughly 6% of the country's electricity - has forced every major party to answer the same question: how do you capture the economic upside without pushing up power prices or straining the grid? The principle of 'additionality' - that big data centres must fund new generation rather than compete with existing users - has become a rare point of genuine cross-party agreement. But the mechanism divides them sharply: the government wants a voluntary compact, Labour wants Australia-style legal obligations, and the Greens want to pause consenting entirely until the rules are written.

Same goal, different words

NationalA compact, not a freeze

PM Luxon announced a 'compact' for hyperscale operators requiring them to demonstrate additionality - funding new generation capacity rather than drawing from the existing grid. Energy Minister Simeon Brown reinforced that data centres should underwrite new renewable investment. The framework is being developed by DPMC and MBIE.

1News: Govt wants 'common-sense' rules around big data centres – PM
LabourRegulate like Australia

Labour wants data centres legally obligated to enter power purchase agreements that stimulate new generation. Hipkins said Labour's AI policy would have 'a lot of similarities with Australia', whose framework requires large-scale data centres to underwrite new power supply and share grid connection costs.

Interest.co.nz: Major NZ parties eye up Australia's data centre rules
Green PartyPause until the rules exist

The Greens want a one-year moratorium on consenting new hyperscale AI data centres while national rules are developed to govern energy use, water use, and renewable generation requirements. The party gathered 4,900+ signatures for the moratorium petition.

Green Party: Call for one-year pause on consenting new AI data centres

Why it's still stuck

The parties agree that big data centres should bring new power onto the grid rather than cannibalising existing supply. But the mechanism splits them: National prefers a voluntary compact with industry, Labour wants binding legal obligations modelled on Australia's framework, and the Greens say consenting should stop altogether until the rules are written. Behind the disagreement sits a classic trade-off: move too slowly and the projects lock in without conditions; move too fast with a moratorium and you scare off investment that could bring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. With no national rules currently in place - consenting sits with local councils, often non-notified - the window to act is closing fast.

  • •No national rules exist yet - consenting is done by local councils, often without public notification
  • •Government and industry disagree on whether a compact should be voluntary or legally binding
  • •The Greens' moratorium risks deterring investment that all parties say they want
  • •Projects like Datagrid are already consented, so new rules may only apply to future entrants
  • •Electricity demand is rising while the rules are still being drafted

What would break the deadlock

Binding national rules - not a voluntary compact - requiring hyperscale data centres to underwrite new generation through power purchase agreements before consenting. All three parties could agree on this if the mechanism were enforceable but did not include a blanket freeze on investment.

Current status: All three major parties support the principle of additionality but disagree on enforcement mechanism. No binding national rules exist as of August 2026; the government's compact framework is under development by DPMC and MBIE.