Which Party Should I Vote For? Your Guide to the 2026 Election

Election campaigns are very good at telling you that this is the most important election of your lifetime. They are less good at telling you whether your bus fare will go down, whether your rent might be capped, or what happens to your student loan once you graduate.

This guide tries to make that choice a little easier. It breaks down what each of the six parties currently represented in Parliament—National, Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, ACT, and New Zealand First—is actually offering in 2026, with a particular focus on the issues most likely to affect students: study costs, rent, transport, healthcare, work, tax, and climate.

One warning before we begin: the election is not until 7 November, and many of the parties are still writing their policy books. Labour and the Greens have already released relatively comprehensive 2026 platforms; National has been steadily announcing individual election policies; Te Pāti Māori has published a broad manifesto and new tax plan; ACT and New Zealand First are still rolling out major proposals. This guide is therefore a snapshot, not the final word. Keep an eye out for new announcements as the campaign unfolds. For now, here is what the parties are offering students in 2026.

National – Economic Growth First

In a nutshell, National is likely to appeal most to students who prioritise economic growth, lower government spending, and keeping more of their income. Its broader argument is that the government should spend and borrow less, make it easier for businesses to invest and build, and rely on stronger economic growth to create jobs and lift wages. Its 2026 platform pairs that approach with a promise of no new taxes, alongside infrastructure, trade, energy, and building reforms.

For students, National’s most direct proposal comes after graduation. From 1 April 2027, it would reduce the compulsory student-loan repayment rate for New Zealand-based borrowers from 12 percent to 10 percent of income above the repayment threshold. You would still owe the same amount, but repay it more slowly and keep more of each pay packet. National says someone earning $75,000 would retain roughly an extra $1000 a year. For graduates heading overseas, however, the party is proposing tougher enforcement and higher costs for borrowers who fall behind on their repayments.

National would also make KiwiSaver compulsory for workers from July 2028, before gradually increasing default employee and employer contributions to 6 percent each by 2032. That would build larger retirement savings and eventually require employers to contribute more, but would also mean a greater share of your salary being put aside while you work.

On housing, National is focused primarily on building more homes rather than controlling rents. It wants to free up land, streamline planning and consenting, and finance the infrastructure needed for development, on the theory that greater housing supply will improve affordability over time.

The basic trade-off is that National’s student offer is largely long-term rather than immediate. Its policies may leave graduates with more take-home pay and aim to make housing and employment more affordable through economic growth, but they offer fewer direct subsidies or price controls for students struggling with costs such as rent today.

Labour – Cheaper Everyday Essentials

In a nutshell, Labour is likely to appeal most to students who prioritise cheaper public services and more direct cost-of-living support. Its 2026 platform would have the state absorb more of the cost of things people regularly use—particularly healthcare and public transport.

Labour’s headline tax proposal is a 28 percent capital gains tax on gains accruing after 1 July 2027 from residential investment and commercial property. The family home, farms, KiwiSaver, shares, businesses, and inheritances would be exempt. Labour says the revenue would be ring-fenced to help fund its healthcare promises.

For students, one of the most immediate policies is public transport. From July 2027, Labour would cap eligible fares at $20 a week in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and $10 a week elsewhere. Once you reached the cap, further eligible trips that week would be free.

Healthcare is another major part of the package. Labour would introduce a Medicard providing three free GP visits each year, restore universal free prescriptions, make cervical screening free for people aged 25–69, and eventually make referred maternity scans free.

Labour would also expand Apprenticeship Boost, extending employer subsidies, introducing a $1000 toolbox grant, and adding five more eligible trades. It has also promised that eligible New Zealand-trained graduate nurses would be offered jobs in the public health system.

The basic trade-off is that Labour is proposing more collective funding of everyday services in exchange for higher taxation of some property gains. For students regularly paying for buses, GP appointments, or prescriptions, the benefits could be immediate and easy to see. For those who use those services less often, the direct benefit may be smaller.

Green Party – Wealth Redistribution and Climate Action

In a nutshell, the Green Party is likely to appeal most to students who prioritise lower study and living costs, stronger renter protections, and more ambitious climate action. Its 2026 platform goes further than Labour in both redistribution and government intervention, arguing that problems such as student poverty, expensive housing, high power bills, and environmental degradation are connected to how wealth and essential resources are distributed.

That approach is reflected in its tax policy. The Greens would make the first $10,000 of income tax-free, while introducing a 45 percent rate on income above $160,000. It would also introduce a 2.5 percent tax on net assets above $10 million, alongside taxes on large gifts and inheritances and higher taxes on some major corporations. The basic idea is to reduce income tax for most earners, while raising more revenue from wealth and those at the top of the income distribution.

For tertiary students, the Greens currently have one of the most direct policy packages. They want to restore Fees Free, extend the Winter Energy Payment to tertiary students, improve accessibility for disabled students, and work towards what they describe as a fully debt-free tertiary education system.

Housing is another major part of the offer. Rather than relying mainly on private development to bring costs down, the Greens favour more public housing, stronger tenancy protections, and tighter regulation of rents. This would give renters greater protection against rising housing costs, while placing more restrictions on landlords than the approaches proposed by National or ACT.

Energy and climate policy are similarly tied to household costs. The Greens would establish Kiwipower, a new publicly owned electricity company, alongside zero-interest loans for solar and batteries, stronger rights for renters to access solar power, and greater investment in community-owned renewable energy.

The party also takes a different approach to criminal justice from the Coalition parties, placing greater emphasis on prevention, rehabilitation, and addressing the causes of offending, rather than primarily increasing sentences.

The basic trade-off is that the Greens are proposing more direct support for students and renters alongside a substantially larger role for government in taxation, regulation and public ownership. Most students would receive an income-tax reduction and could benefit from expanded tertiary, housing, and energy support, while very wealthy households and some large businesses would pay considerably more tax. Whether that looks like a fairer distribution of costs or too much government intervention is one of the central choices behind the Green platform.

Te Pāti Māori – Redistribution of Wealth and Power

In a nutshell, Te Pāti Māori is likely to appeal most to students who prioritise redistribution, stronger Māori-led public institutions, and a greater role for Te Tiriti in how government is structured. Its 2026 platform connects economic inequality with colonisation, ownership, and political power, arguing that improving material outcomes also requires changing who controls public institutions and resources.

Its Kiwi Tax Plan could have a significant effect on students and other low-to-middle-income earners. Te Pāti Māori proposes making the first $30,000 of income tax-free, while introducing higher rates further up the income scale, including a 48 percent top rate on income above $300,000. It would also introduce a tiered wealth tax beginning on net wealth above $2 million. For many students working part-time, that could mean paying little or no income tax.

Housing is another major part of the platform. Te Pāti Māori wants more public and affordable housing, easier development on Māori and ancestral land, and stronger measures against property speculation and land-banking. Its broader approach places greater emphasis on housing as a social need rather than primarily an investment asset.

Its education policies focus less on direct tertiary subsidies than the Greens’ platform and more on who governs education and what it teaches. Te Pāti Māori proposes stronger Māori-led education institutions, greater recognition of mātauranga Māori, and measures aimed at removing barriers to training and participation. Its current 2026 platform is less specific on university fees, Student Allowance, and student-loan repayment settings.

More broadly, the party supports Māori-led health, education, disability, and justice systems, stronger protection of whenua and wai, and constitutional reform aimed at strengthening hapū and iwi rangatiratanga under Te Tiriti.

The basic trade-off is that Te Pāti Māori is proposing both economic redistribution and significant institutional change. Many ordinary earners could pay substantially less income tax, while higher incomes, wealth, and property would carry more of the tax burden. At the same time, the party would give Māori institutions and communities greater authority over areas currently controlled largely by the Crown.

For voters, the key question is therefore not only how resources should be distributed, but who should hold the power to make those decisions.

ACT – Smaller Government and More Individual Choice

In a nutshell, ACT is likely to appeal most to students who prioritise lower government spending, fewer regulations, and greater individual choice over how their money is spent. Its 2026 platform starts from the view that government has become too large and bureaucratic, and that individuals and businesses should have more freedom to make their own decisions.

That philosophy is reflected in ACT’s proposal to dramatically restructure the public sector, including consolidating 43 government departments into 19 and reducing the number of ministers. The broader aim is to lower government spending and simplify regulation.

For students, ACT has one of the election’s most direct tertiary policies: it would make compulsory Student Services Fees voluntary. Instead of automatically paying for a bundle of campus services, students would be able to choose which services they wanted to fund, with others available on a user-pays basis. ACT estimates this could keep up to around $4,000 off a student’s loan over a three-year degree.

The trade-off is that Student Services Fees currently help fund services that rely on pooled contributions, including VUWSA student advocacy, University Recreation, and Salient. ACT argues students should not be forced to pay for services they may never use or support. Critics argue that making the fees voluntary could weaken services that depend on stable collective funding, and that students may only realise they need some forms of support after opting out.

On housing, ACT favours increasing supply through deregulation, stronger property rights, and easier consenting, rather than measures such as rent controls. Its broader economic approach similarly places greater faith in private investment and competition than in direct government provision.

ACT would also take a less interventionist approach to climate policy. It has proposed abolishing the Climate Change Commission, with necessary monitoring functions transferred elsewhere, arguing that the organisation adds unnecessary bureaucracy and cost. In criminal justice, meanwhile, ACT is proposing tougher sentencing, including a mandatory minimum sentence for a third burglary conviction.

The basic trade-off is that ACT is offering more individual control and a smaller state, but with less guaranteed collective provision. Students could pay less for services they choose not to use, while government regulation and spending would be reduced more broadly. Whether that looks like greater freedom or fewer shared protections depends largely on how much responsibility you think should sit with individuals rather than the state.

New Zealand First – Putting New Zealanders and New Zealand Industries First

In a nutshell, New Zealand First is likely to appeal most to students who prioritise national sovereignty, protecting local jobs and industries, tighter immigration settings, and a more socially conservative political direction. Economically, the party is harder to place on a simple left–right spectrum: it supports significantly more government intervention in some markets than National or ACT, but generally directs that intervention towards protecting New Zealand ownership, employment, and strategic resources.

That approach runs through much of its 2026 platform. NZ First argues that industries, energy resources, infrastructure, and employment policy should primarily serve New Zealanders rather than overseas investors or institutions. It favours protecting domestic manufacturing and jobs, while tying immigration more closely to genuine labour shortages and arguing that infrastructure should keep pace with population growth.

For students, however, NZ First has so far announced comparatively little direct tertiary-finance policy for 2026. Unlike the Greens or ACT, student allowances, university fees, and student-loan reform have not been major parts of its campaign to date.

Energy is one area where the party proposes much stronger state intervention. NZ First wants to separate the large electricity gentailers’ generation and retail businesses, reform electricity-market rules, and develop a national energy strategy. It has also proposed $1 billion for oil and gas exploration and says it would withdraw New Zealand from the Paris Agreement, putting energy security and domestic resource development ahead of existing international climate commitments.

NZ First has also proposed a $5000-a-year Kiwi Kids Grant for each of a citizen parent’s first three children during their first three years, reflecting the party’s concern about New Zealand’s declining birth rate.

Some of its most significant proposals are constitutional. NZ First wants voting in general and local elections restricted to New Zealand citizens, rather than also qualifying permanent residents, and supports a binding referendum on the future of the Māori electorates.

The basic trade-off is that NZ First is proposing more active government intervention where it believes New Zealand’s national interests are at stake, alongside tighter rules around immigration, citizenship, and Māori representation. For students—particularly migrants and international students—those positions may matter at least as much as its tax or cost-of-living policies.

The key question is therefore whether you think government should take a stronger role in protecting New Zealand jobs, resources, and political institutions from overseas influence—even where that means tighter immigration settings, greater market intervention, or stepping away from existing climate commitments.

Still not sure? Start with what you care about most

You probably won’t agree with any party on everything. So instead of comparing six entire manifestos at once, it can help to start with the issue that matters most to you. Here’s how the parties differ on some of the questions students are most likely to care about.

...the cost of being a student right now?

The parties are targeting very different parts of your weekly budget.

The Greens currently have the most explicit programme aimed at tertiary-student support itself: restoring Fees Free, extending energy support, and moving towards debt-free tertiary education.

Labour instead attacks expenses around studying: particularly public transport, GP visits and prescriptions.

ACT would let students opt out of compulsory Student Services Fees, reducing the price of university for those who choose fewer services.

Te Pāti Māori's $30,000 tax-free threshold could benefit students earning taxable income, although its current tertiary-finance policy is less detailed.

National's major student-loan benefit arrives once you are earning enough after study to make compulsory repayments.

NZ First has so far announced comparatively little in 2026 specifically about tertiary student finances.

...rent?

There are basically two competing approaches.

The Greens and Te Pāti Māori place more emphasis on public housing, renter protections, and direct intervention in the housing market.

National and ACT place more emphasis on making it easier to build enough housing so competition and increased supply moderate prices.

Labour sits between those approaches, supporting greater public involvement and renter security while also supporting new housing supply, although its 2026 student-facing headline policies so far are concentrated elsewhere.

The disagreement is not really over whether rents are too expensive. It is over whether government should constrain prices and strengthen renters' bargaining power directly, or concentrate on increasing the number of homes available.

...public transport?

Labour currently has the clearest dollar figure: $20 maximum per week in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch and $10 elsewhere.

The Greens put considerably more emphasis on public and low-emissions transport as part of their wider climate and urban policy.

Te Pāti Māori explicitly includes transport affordability in its cost-of-living platform.

For National, ACT, and NZ First, subsidising student public-transport fares is not currently a defining 2026 election promise.

...what happens when I graduate?

National would lower your compulsory student-loan deduction to 10 percent, giving NZ-based graduates more take-home pay but extending the time it takes to clear the loan.

Labour is focusing on creating and supporting employment through public investment, trades policy, and sector-specific measures such as its graduate-nurse guarantee.

ACT argues deregulation, smaller government, and private-sector growth will produce better jobs and wages.

NZ First puts more emphasis on protecting jobs and industries within New Zealand and limiting migration where it believes New Zealand workers can fill positions.

The Greens and Te Pāti Māori place greater weight on public investment, higher wages/income support, and redistributing more economic resources towards ordinary households.

...climate change?

The Greens propose the most extensive climate and environmental intervention, including public renewable-energy investment and Kiwipower.

Te Pāti Māori connects climate policy with protection of whenua and wai, and Māori environmental authority.

Labour supports continued decarbonisation and policies such as SolarSaver, while generally working within existing market structures.

National emphasises increasing renewable generation, alongside energy security and economic growth.

ACT wants to reduce the climate-policy bureaucracy, including abolishing the Climate Change Commission.

NZ First is proposing increased domestic fossil-fuel exploration and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.

...Te Tiriti and Māori–Crown relations?

Te Pāti Māori proposes the most extensive change, explicitly advocating Te Tiriti-based constitutional transformation and increased rangatiratanga for hapū and iwi.

The Greens also explicitly support stronger Te Tiriti partnership and Māori decision-making.

Labour occupies a more conventional Treaty-partnership position, without proposing constitutional transformation on the scale of Te Pāti Māori.

At the other end, ACT emphasises uniform individual citizenship and “one law for all,” opposing political rights or public institutions differentiated on ethnicity.

NZ First is similarly opposed to separate political representation and is campaigning for a referendum on the Māori seats.

National generally sits between Labour and its Coalition partners ACT/NZ First on the intensity of this debate, while its current 2026 headline policy programme is more focused on the economy, public services, and law and order than constitutional reform.

So, how do I actually choose?

Forget trying to find the party with which you agree on everything. It probably does not exist.

Instead, pick the three issues you would be most annoyed at the next government for getting wrong.

Then ask three things about each party:

1. Would this actually affect me? A tax cut is irrelevant if you do not pay that tax. Free public transport is less useful if you drive everywhere.

2. How is it being paid for? Every policy has an opportunity cost. Higher taxes, lower spending, borrowing, regulation, and user-pays systems all distribute costs differently. “Free” and “tax cut” are both incomplete descriptions unless you know what changes elsewhere.

3. What kind of system does the policy create? Elections are not only about next year's bank balance. Do you want a smaller state or a larger one? More private provision or public ownership? Stronger renter regulation or fewer building rules? More rangatiratanga or uniform citizenship? Faster climate action or fewer environmental constraints on economic activity?

National is offering continuity, fiscal restraint, and private-sector growth.

Labour is offering cheaper universal services and more active public investment.

The Greens are offering redistribution, stronger student and renter support, and much more aggressive climate policy.

Te Pāti Māori is offering economic redistribution alongside a fundamental expansion of rangatiratanga and Māori control.

ACT is offering individual choice, deregulation, and a significantly smaller state.

NZ First is offering economic nationalism, tighter immigration, and a more socially conservative conception of citizenship and national identity.

None of those descriptions tells you which ballot box to tick, but hopefully they make it considerably clearer what you would be ticking it for.