National leader Christopher Luxon is ruling out working with the Opportunity Party, saying a vote for the party is a vote for Labour and the Greens.
In a post-Cabinet press conference on Monday, Luxon said; "when you want to spend more, tax more, borrow more - we ain't doing business with you."
He repeated National's stance on Tuesday, saying this had been discussed with the party's caucus and the board for several months.
Opportunity was a party that wants "extreme policy" on taxes, Luxon said.
"We're a party of low taxes. It's not a surprise we don't want to work with them ... It's not a surprise in the sense that we've talked about a vote for TOP is a vote for Labour and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori."
Part of Opportunity's platform is built on being able to be in the 'Kingmaker' position, saying it could work with both the left and right bloc.
Recently, Opportunity has increased its support in political opinion polling, nearing the 5% Parliamentary threshold line in the June 1News Verian Poll (4.6%), the July RNZ Reid Research (4.7%) and the post recent Talbot Mills Poll (4.7%). The July Taxpayer's Union-Curia Poll had the party sitting on 3.3%.
Asked if Opportunity were willing to drop its tax plan, if National would then be willing to work with them, Luxon said he had only seen three policies from TOP. "They want tax, tax, tax ... That's why they're going to be with Labour and the Greens."
Luxon previously said he had made it clear when he set the election date that National could work with ACT and NZ First, and they would not be working with Labour, the Greens or Te Pāti Māori.
'They are not a centrist party,' National's campaign chair says
On Tuesday, National Party campaign chairman Simeon Brown said his party had been "very clear" about not working with Opportunity.
"The Prime Minister has been saying for a long time that we're not going to work with parties which want to increase taxes on hardworking New Zealanders.
"To think that this party is some sort of neutral sit-in the middle type of party when sitting at the heart of their policy is a land tax, and then to make every single New Zealander a beneficiary, they sit very much to the left."
"They are not a centrist party," Brown said.
Even if Opportunity ruled out implementing a land tax and universal basic income, Brown said their other policies were "pretty radical".
"Like they want to lift the age of criminal responsibility to the age of 25. They are very weak when it comes to law and order. That is a radical policy, and that is not something the National Party supports."
Opportunity's 'smart on crime' policy states it wants to "raise the age of the youth court jurisdiction, in line with developmental science".
'If we draw a bright line, we will stick with it'
Labour leader Chris Hipkins told reporters National's call to not work with Opportunity seemed "pretty rushed and haphazard" and he thought Luxon "got caught on the hoof and just made it up as he went along" during Monday's post-Cabinet press conference.
Asked if he thought Opportunity was more left wing or right wing, Hipkins said it was hard to tell what Opportunity's main priorities are.
"They've got some policies that sort of seem quite far left and they've got some policies that are sort of more far right ... We don't support the introduction of a land tax. We don't support the introduction of a wealth tax. We've been very clear on that. That position is not going to change after the election."
"What we're going to do before Parliament finishes for the election campaign is set out which parties we could and couldn't find common ground with after the election. But there's still a bit of water to flow under the bridge over the next period of time before the election formally begins," Hipkins said.
"It's an absolute reality that no party under MMP who hasn't already been represented in Parliament has crossed the 5% threshold, so there's always a first for everything, but it's still pretty unlikely they're going to achieve it."
Hipkins said he "absolutely" thought Luxon would contact Opportunity if they got over 5% and if it came to the crunch on election day.
When pressed about it himself, Hipkins said: "We'll set that out ourselves before Parliament's finished for the election campaign ... If we draw a bright line, we will stick with it."
'Old-fashioned tribalism'
Following Luxon's comments on Monday, Opportunity Party leader Qiulae Wong called Luxon's stance "old-fashioned tribalism that we have to get beyond."
"Kiwis expect our political parties to leave ideology at the door, and work constructively together to make progress on the big issues," Wong said.
"We are ready and willing to work with parties across the political spectrum. We will maintain that position, and we're here to talk whenever National is ready."
Additional reporting by Mandy Te
58 Comments
I seriously think that National and Labour should form a coalition, their policies are not that far apart, and their majority would help the government make decisions, which is desperately needed.
Because of preconceived ideas that they have to be in opposition, this is sadly not going to happen though.
This is what ended up happening in Germany as the multiple extreme edge parties made coalitions untenable. Cant see this happening here but you never know.
A grand coalition between National and Labour would, quite rightly, result in the deaths of both parties and the flight of their past supporters to left and right.
We don't want to do business with parties that want to increase taxes
We don't want to do business with parties that want to fund health,education or infrastructure.
The goverment gets enough tax. Just that a lot of it is wasted.
Why would would you want political parties any where near education, health and infra? The ever expanding self serving pool of state bureaucrats injecting their mitts in these areas is a conflict of interest and is producing woeful results with unborn childrens money.
https://www.amazon.com/Life-After-State-Dont-Government/dp/1908717890
'"We don't want to do business with parties who want to increase taxes," he said.' Quote Luxon True? No they already have plus a massive increase in Crown debt.
Contrast this statement with some information source Google Gemini AI
'Here is an overview of how New Zealand's national debt and tax structure have changed over the last 10 years (2016–2026):
1. National Debt Trends
Over the last decade, New Zealand's government debt shifted from historically low post-crisis levels to significant growth driven primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic response and subsequent economic conditions.
-
2016–2019 (Low Debt & Surpluses):
-
Before the pandemic, New Zealand maintained low net debt levels (net core Crown debt was hovering around 5%–9% of GDP under updated Treasury definitions). Fiscal policy was focused on debt reduction and running operating surpluses.
-
-
2020–2022 (Pandemic Surge):
-
To cushion the economic impact of COVID-19 lockdowns, the government deployed massive emergency spending (e.g., Wage Subsidy Scheme, Resurgence Support Payments, healthcare funding).
-
As a result, borrowing expanded rapidly, pushing net core Crown debt up significantly to over 16%–17% of GDP.
-
-
2023–2026 (Continued Expansion & Post-Pandemic Deficits):
-
Slower economic growth, higher debt-servicing costs (driven by global interest rate hikes), and persistent operating deficits (OBEGAL deficits) pushed total net core Crown debt past $180+ billion (over 40% of GDP under broader fiscal measures).
-
2. Key Tax Policy Changes
New Zealand’s tax landscape experienced notable changes, including new top tax brackets, property tax reforms, and threshold adjustments.
Personal Income Tax & Brackets
-
39% Top Rate Introduced (April 2021): The Labour government introduced a new 39% top personal income tax bracket on earnings over $180,000. Previously, the top marginal rate was 33% for all income over $70,000.
-
Bracket Threshold Adjustments (July 2024): To combat decades of "bracket creep" (where inflation pushes regular earners into higher tax brackets), the Coalition government expanded tax thresholds across all tiers:
-
10.5%: $0 – $15,600 (previously $0 – $14,000)
-
17.5%: $15,601 – $53,500 (previously $14,001 – $48,000)
-
30%: $53,501 – $78,100 (previously $48,001 – $70,000)
-
33%: $78,101 – $180,000 (previously $70,001 – $180,000)
-
39%: $180,001+
-
Trust & Corporate Taxes
-
Trustee Tax Rate Alignment (April 2024): The trustee tax rate was increased from 33% to 39% to match the top personal tax bracket, reducing the ability to use trusts for income splitting or tax shelter purposes.
-
Company Tax Rate: Maintained at 28% throughout the decade.
Property & Housing Tax Changes
-
Bright-Line Test:
-
Expanded from 2 years to 5 years in 2018, and then to 10 years for non-new builds in 2021.
-
Reduced back down to a uniform 2 years starting July 2024.
-
-
Landlord Interest Deductibility:
-
Phased out starting in 2021 under the Labour government (preventing residential property investors from deducting mortgage interest as an expense).
-
Reinstated progressively by the Coalition government starting in 2024, reaching full 100% deductibility restored by 2025/2026.
-
Another miss by Luxon. They are not increasing tax, they are changing its source to a model that will stand up to our changing demographics, workforce and the arrival of AI. National as the property hording party (see Register of Pecuniary Interests) are naturally against this. Interestingly it was a Labour Govt that abolished our original Land tax in 1990 because it became inefficient, costly to run, and collected very little money due to wide exemptions
.
Accordingly a simple policy like TOPs with no exemptions would be effective.
TOP themselves state that their policies would increase NZs tax take by $4B (1%). Others claim 5%.
On top of the current ~$2B pa all parties steal by stealth via bracket creep since income thresholds were fully reset.
And, who pays tax? Tax Inequality: Who really pays their fair share? - Taxpayers' Union
- The top 20 percent pay nearly two-thirds of all personal income tax.
- The top 10 percent pay more than the bottom 80 percent combined.
- And the top 1 percent contribute more than the entire bottom half of taxpayers.
Yes, isn't it terrible how high income tax rates penalise hard work? Time to broaden the tax base and reduce this poor incentive.
I've never had a shining view of those who don't produce anything at all or otherwise contribute to society, and instead rely on capital accumulation or handouts or both. I would want the next govt to disincentivise that behaviour.
Income means you've found a way to add value and somebody has been willing to pay you for it. Why would we want to disincentivise that through tax when there's wider ways to fund services?
Progressive income tax regimes are inherently unfair to those who work harder & based on the usual Marxist theory of other people's money.
I recall ~50years ago when on a base 40hr wage of ~$60/wk working 7d/~60hrs/wk & paying 50c in the dollar tax on income over $100/wk (& that wasn't the highest rate).
Proportional / Flat tax would provide the incentive you seek.
Progressive income tax regimes are inherently fairer by taxing those who use the most of the nations resources.
You gonna hog the resources you gonna pay tax.
Sadly it seems you only wish to see workers taxed while ignoring any other forms of monetary gain.
"...those who use the most of the nations resources."
Evidence for your assertion / reckons?
... people with more money fund their own Healthcare via medical insurance for a start
Not if the money they got was soaked via rentier-ing.
That means their tenants are paying, when you trace it through.
Like all spinners, you start the clock when it suits you.
Just like the prime Muppet.
Didn't another commenter on here recently point out that the Taxevader's Union stats only show wages/salaries and does not include those who make money off high priced assets.
Strawman (the clue as stated above is "personal income tax"). Meanwhile TOP are taxing family homes.
Yea so?
Other parties implemented and increased tax on basic food purchases.
Your point?
Another strawman.
TOP is looking at taxing land not housing. Big difference. Amazing how you have benefitted from a time of high taxation in your youth, and now wish not to consider taxation increasing to afford the public utilities and infrastructure for all.
No difference. And I definitely haven't benefited anytime from high taxation.
You still benefit today from our national electricity hydro lakes.
...and the government controls what you can do with the land and already taxes it.
Previous public utilities and infrastructure benefited from a 8:1 dependency ratio - now we are at four and dropping to two. You are not going to tax your way out of the demographic change.
"when I was born in 1949 there were about eight people of working age (25–64 years) for every person over the age of 65 years. ...By 2100 CE, when the children born in the first third of this century are elderly, and with a low TFR for the rest of this century, this ratio is expected to have dropped to about 2. In other words, when my grandchildren are elderly, the world will have only about two people alive aged between 25 and 64 years for every person alive over the age of 65 years."
https://insightplus.mja.com.au/2024/8/health-care-in-for-a-roller-coast…
The less the better.
And tax isn't anything.
Resources are.
And per-head is the pertinent ratio.
There is no other.
The honest conversation missing is (as always) the purpose of taxation....until the understanding is agreed then it remains little more than a fictitious bogeyman.
This is a cultural issue, and widespread. Tax is viewed by many as something to minimise and avoid as much as possible for personal wealth enrichment, which detracts from the purpose of taxation to cancel out govt expenditure on essential supports and services. How does NZ fund it's growing pension + healthcare spend and infrastructure deficit if not via taxation, when there isn't a possible way we can decimate the public service enough to 'save' the funds needed to do so. Add in a more complex society that requires additional police resources to combat growing drug infiltration into NZ, higher teenage crime, and the allure of AUS poaching many of our finest.
It has become very, very clear now that National are doing everything they can to appeal to the older demographic to ride the votes until their numbers drop off, and appease those who already own more than one property. The cost of this, is paid by the rest, and the middle incomer earners will continue to be squeezed until addressed.
What good is paying less tax if it takes you years to get a vital operation for the likes of your hip or spine as the system is so stretched that the prioritisation requires one to be in unmanageable pain after years of suffering just top be considered for something semi-soon?
While a cultural issue, mainly because of the misrepresentation, it is more importantly a foundational factor in how money functions....we are all decrying inflation and the increased cost of living while nixing the primary tool for its control.
Because if you pay less tax you have more wealth to afford private health care, which you have to do.
What good is paying more tax if prioritisation is to increase equity for marginialised groups suffering from the burdens of post-colonial stress in a net zero optimised climate impacted setting of gender affirming wellness embracing sphere of mātauranga defined criteria?
That is one (strange) way of expressing it....the more accurate would be to acknowledge that money is destroyed in only two ways....debt payment and taxation.
If credit creates money (it does) then unless that money created is destroyed you must have inflation....all money is debt.
The Magic Money Tree doesn't exist and taxation does not destroy money.
Care to explain your position?...such as what happens with tax paid, what happens when a debt is repaid, where does a government get the funds it spends, where does the money that banks lend come from?
Classical/Keynesian economics explainer - how long do we have?
TOP = Tax Old People
Your comments usually show a better grasp of the details KKNZ2025
I reckon he's about on par
The definition of insanity, keep doing exactly what has previously failed expecting a different outcome. Time for some reality. We had the watershed in the 80s, now it’s the Opportunity for root and branch change.
I've been saying for a while, if the generations currently in power don't make some common sense changes to reduce entitlements (e.g. stop paying benefits to millionaires after they pass a certain birthday), the next generation will end up making much harsher cuts on their behalf when they have the balance of power.
Guess who's net income taxes fund over half NZ households benefits, including their own.
The top 10% of working age people?
Define "top" & "working age" (I'm still working at 71)
Why? Haven't you got to 'enough' yet?
Maybe missed a prior step, in not defining same?
Everyone still upright is working...just not necessarily measured
TOPHH = Tax Old People Housing Hoarder's.
Arrogant decision considering they don't exactly have a comfortable buffer in the polls.
I'd wait and see how many micro-seconds Luxon's refusal to work with TOP lasts after the election.
If National wants to ensure the Left again take the govt benches saying "we cant work with you" is a sure way to acheive that. Meanwhile no one else has a clear lucid logical tax policy that will address the future NZ is entering, so driving them Left where this policy has more chance of being reality seems nuts.
Must say its really interesting reading the polarising view on a universal land tax. Why are all the land banker tax avoider types so vitrolic at paying tax on their accidental (yeah right) gains, after all it pays for all the services they use daily?
There's family homes on that land that people worked their lives to provide for themselves & their families.
Personally it p****s me off when a major party tells the NZ population that it will not consider working with a specific party. And infrrs that if one votes for them it will be a wasted vote. Pure self interested arrogance in my opinion.
Each party should present their policies clearly then let the electorate vote and see where that lands. Then commence coalition negotiations if needed.
Personally, I would like to see the balance between electorate seats and party seats change to 40%:60% and the need for a party to win an electorate seat dropped. With the threshold to gain a seat dropped to 3%.
That way, new minor parties get some chance to demonstrate their capabilities within the House. Whereas, currently, they have to overcome a pretty big hurdle.
This requires maturity, and treating the populace as educated and informed. What this then infers, is that the politicians therefore look at the nations populace as sheep able to be hoarded via snippy one-liners and pushing tribalism. This may have worked in the past for a generation, but there has never been a time in history such as now to have the most information available at our fingertips, and at such speed, that more and more are seeing through this silly facade. Who wishes to voted for such a party that considers it's supporters as herdable, dumb sheep?
Solid decision by Luxon.
You missed a letter - it goes between the 's' and the 'o'.
Here, have one of mine:
t
If TOP ever form a coalition with Labour and the Greens and their land tax policy gets implemented, QV will take a decade from all the objections to re-assess their questionable land values.
Lawyers dont come cheap....how many do you think will spend 10s of thousands to challenge a valuation?
Only if you have to progress past the Land Valuation Tribunal and if that fails need to go to the District Court and even there you can represent yourself. The LVT has a $69 filing fee and may cost about $1500 if costs are awarded. The few cases I've examined had no costs awarded. They try for a mutually agreed settlement. I've filed but my paperwork is not in order. So far it's cost $69 and a lot of time and effort in correspondence with QV and NPDC. So unless you know of residential cases that have cost 10s of thousand of dollars, you are misinformed.
You assume the laws will remain unaltered with a new regime....if a tax on land valuation is implemented you can be confident that the possibility of valuation disputes will be anticipated. As with matters tax the presumption is the IRD are correct until proven otherwise.
I very much doubt the TOP front person and their behind the scenes policy makers, ex Labour and associated persons and ex-Green MPs will have thought of that let alone mention it. In fact the more they keep quiet about valuations the fewer valuation challenges they are likely to have. QV have questionable methodology in land valuations and I'd suggest the majority do not question their valuations. In any event it'll be like local council rates. If the land value goes down, they'll put the rate up to obtain the same amount of revenue to pay for their socialist dream, one of which is UBI. I also object to the land tax unless I can do more on my land without having to get permission from the council if they even give it and pay a lot for it in the process. It's like most political ideas that sound nice in theory but the devil is in the detail for which all parties cannot do themselves but need to civil service to provide the detail.
It wont be for any party to announce fully formed policy, the writing of which will require select committees etc and it would negligent for Parliament to form policy in such a way as to overwhelm the courts and make the policy itself unworkable....as stated IF such a tax was to be implemented it could be expected it will operate under similar provisions as the IRD operates the current tax regime....the onus being on the objector to prove otherwise.
to obtain the same amount of revenue to pay for their socialist dream, one of which is UBI.
Such as working taxpayers funding a universal UBI for those who have reached 65? Or universal healthcare? Better quit any form of socialism and self fund everything then, but you may be shocked at the cost if you need any serious medical treatment...
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.