And while everyone shakes down each others’ money trees, the one expense they’re silent on is the generous MP allowances and remuneration packages that help them grow their personal property portfolios. Every dollar matters - until it doesn’t.

At Opportunity we don’t believe politicians should be able to use their accommodation and office allowances to pay rent on property they already own, nor should they be able to direct private superannuation funds to invest in property that they’ll ultimately own.

That’s why we’ve made a clear statement that, if elected, we will not use these allowances in this way. Opportunity MPs will be able to use relevant allowances to meet actual and reasonable accommodation costs and office expenses, but not to feather their own nest.

The case for an independent referee

Thankfully come Thursday we saw a very sensible shift to the topic of an independent costings unit.

Opportunity called on National and Labour to come together on this back in July 2025.

The case for it today is exactly as it was back then. Bring greater trust and integrity to our election debates. Stop the mudslinging over phantom ‘fiscal holes’ and actually have a serious conversation about what’s affordable, what’s fair, and what trade-offs are involved.

This isn’t a radical idea. Democracies around the world already do it. A practical, independent costing unit that focuses on transparency and credibility would be a significant improvement on what we have today.

Both National and Labour think it’s a good idea, albeit with some differences in opinion over exactly how it should work. But the biggest handbrakes here are ACT and NZ First.

If Opportunity were a coalition partner for either a National or Labour-led government, we would be urging them to find common ground, instead of dragging them further away from consensus.

The same applies to infrastructure

Another encouraging development this week was the growing cross-party consensus around the need for a long-term national infrastructure plan.

Infrastructure projects take decades to plan and build while political cycles last three years.

Every government promises certainty. Every opposition promises to review projects. Every election creates the possibility that priorities change again.

The result is higher costs, lower productivity, and less confidence from the private sector.

Presumably, the report showing that $11.8 billion has been wasted from infrastructure flip flopping over the past 25 years has played a role in getting our political leaders to the table on this.

The risk, however, is that when things get tough someone reneges on the position, just like we’ve seen with the Zero Carbon Act.

That’s why Opportunity will push for stronger independent institutions like the Infrastructure Commission and clearer decision-making frameworks to ensure these commitments survive.

If we want infrastructure decisions to last longer than election cycles, we need structures that sit above day-to-day politics.

What we’re not costing: nature’s balance sheet

Meanwhile, there’s one gaping balance sheet hole that isn’t getting much attention at all.

We’ve been blowing the budget on nature for decades.

The Conservation Amendment Bill looks to make up to 60% of public conservation land available for disposal, exchange, or development.

In many cases, the changes seem aimed at making it easier to deal with small, low-value parcels of land that happen to sit within the conservation estate - old quarries, village halls, access strips. These might be legitimate cases for DOC to dispose of the land, but the public needs to be assured that land with actual ecological, heritage or cultural value is suitably protected and not disposed of.

If Opportunity were in government, we would support strong and transparent disposal tests. We would also start from the principle that conservation land should remain owned by New Zealanders wherever possible. There may be circumstances where exchanges or disposals make sense, but the burden of proof should be high and the public benefit clear.

At the same time, we shouldn’t assume that every hectare of land administered by DOC must remain permanently locked into its current classification. Good stewardship requires evidence-based judgement, not ideology.

The bigger issue this raises is that New Zealand still struggles to account for natural capital in the same way we account for financial capital.

When a road, factory or housing development generates economic activity, we can estimate the value fairly easily. When a wetland filters water, a forest stores carbon, or a landscape supports biodiversity and tourism, those benefits are often treated as free.

Imagine running a business that carefully tracked revenue while ignoring the deterioration of its machinery, buildings, and equipment.

Eventually the bill arrives.

We are consuming environmental assets that underpin our economy while often failing to account for their long-term value. If we’re serious about proper costing, then nature needs to be part of the conversation too.

The same principle applies to climate policy.

This week ACT suggested once again that New Zealand should leave the Paris Agreement.

Whether or not you believe New Zealand’s emissions reductions make a difference on the world’s stage (I would argue they do - because of our leadership role and the fact that a third of global emissions come from small countries like ours), the reality is our exporters must compete in an international economy that is moving toward lower-carbon products and services.

Our farmers, manufacturers, and tech businesses don’t compete solely on price anymore. International customers increasingly expect evidence that products are produced sustainably.

That trend is unlikely to reverse and ignoring that transition doesn’t eliminate the cost. It simply pushes it onto future governments, future businesses, and future New Zealanders.

Opportunity in Government would mean we don’t flip flop on something as significant as the shift to a low-emissions future which takes decades of planning, cooperation, and commitment. We can’t afford for it to be a political football.

Expect better budget conversations

New Zealanders deserve to have honest conversations about our country’s balance sheet, whether that’s fiscal deficits or nature-based ones. Those conversations need to be had respectfully and openly.

We’ll be pushing hard for MPs to listen to the advice of experts and the creation of strong, independent institutions that the public can trust.

Photo by Valiant Lambda on Unsplash

One of the reasons people are losing faith in politics is that too often it feels like decisions about our future are happening somewhere else.

Not in Parliament, not in public, not in conversations that ordinary New Zealanders can see or participate in.

Instead, decisions appear to emerge from closed-door meetings, unofficial papers, or redacted advice.

This is dwindling away trust in New Zealand to the extent that 45% of New Zealanders trust our government and a mere 19% believe the next generation will be better off (Edelman, 2025).

I’d also argue that the enormous growth in OIA requests we’ve seen in recent years is evidence that more and more Kiwis are questioning the decisions made by officials. They do not trust they’ve been made in their best interests.

It’s time to turn the page on this. We can do better in New Zealand. We should expect better. We must ensure that we not only have good policy, we must ensure that people trust the systems that create them.

Three stories this week highlight why that matters.

The future of tech

The debate over AI and automated decision-making at MSD this week sparked important conversation about the appropriate use of the technology.

However, underlying it all is a great sense of mistrust that the government has either the capability or the political will to manage it well.

As with the announcement of public service cuts, what was missing was any credible plan to use AI responsibly for the benefit of New Zealanders.

We know that any technology is a tool which can be used for good or bad. Social media platforms have proven this. The government should be prioritising a robust AI framework that gives New Zealanders confidence that this technology will be harnessed to benefit our communities, not harm them. “Just trust us” is not good enough.

AI will shape the future of the world whether we engage with it or not. Right now, we have a window to set our own path and dictate how we harness it in New Zealand - in an ethical way, that supports productivity but also protects jobs and communities - but that requires an intentional and transparent plan.

If we fail to front-foot this appropriately we will simply be a recipient of the technology from the rest of the world, putting more of our sovereignty at risk and further eroding trust in our political leaders to protect New Zealand interests.

The future of energy

The contentious LNG terminal received another blow last week. Economics consultancy Sapere published a comprehensive report on behalf of Rewiring Aotearoa stating that it was not needed for dry year risk - neither in the short nor long term.

Download the report here

This comes after Meridian CEO Mike Roan declared his stance that he also believed it unnecessary, and widespread pushback from energy experts and the general public.

The entire LNG terminal fiasco is yet another example of decision-making that appears to defy the evidence.

And similarly to the AI example, in the absence of any long-term energy strategy, why should the public trust that it’s taking us in the right direction?

The Energy Debate at Electrify Queenstown - at which the current Minister for Energy didn’t put up his hand in favour of an energy strategy…

The future of lobbying

The third story of last week was the continued unfolding of details around the Government’s decision to legislate against citizen court cases against climate polluters - putting an end to the significant Smith v Fonterra case which fought for the right of citizens to be free from a worsening climate due to heavy emissions.

Regardless of where you think that case should land, the fact that legislation could stop it in its tracks - and more importantly - that it appears information was provided to the Prime Minister’s senior policy advisor in an undisclosed manner (to a private email) of course raises the eyebrows of New Zealanders.

In a healthy democracy, businesses should be able to make their case. Environmental groups should be able to make their case. Unions should be able to make their case. Community organisations should be able to make their case.

The problem isn’t lobbying.

The problem is when lobbying happens in ways that the public cannot see.

New Zealand consistently ranks as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. That’s something we should be proud of.

But we’re surprisingly weak when it comes to transparency.

We still don’t have a comprehensive lobbying register. Ministerial meetings are not routinely disclosed in a consistent and accessible way. Too much influence remains invisible until a controversy emerges.

That needs to change. If someone is trying to influence public policy, New Zealanders should be able to see it.

The future isn’t about choosing between technology and people.

It’s not about choosing between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

It’s not about choosing between business and activists.

It’s about creating systems that are transparent, accountable and focused on long-term outcomes. That’s what moving beyond the pendulum means - building the foundations for a country that is confident and cohesive enough to embrace the future.

On Budget day, the Minister of Finance opened her speech by telling us what she values.

“We want this to be a country our kids choose to live in when they grow up.. a place where their dreams can be realised” she said.

Nice words. But Budget 2026 tells a very different story.

A time for transformation, not tweaks.

The core issue with Budget 2026, is that it’s designed for a different era. It is a collection of system tweaks that might have worked fine in 2006. But today, New Zealanders need new foundations to build our lives on.

Economic growth is a good example. The bright spots in the growth-aligned budget lines - like increased infrastructure spending, a capital raise for Genesis Energy or support for training tradespeople - cannot make up for the significant reductions to our main engine for long-term growth. Core science.

Our future prosperity requires us to transition to a productive, affordable and resilient economy. This is a future where our science, research and technology sectors create high-value businesses that pay high-wage jobs. In Budget 2026, the Government has fully abandoned its 2% of GDP target for R&D spending. For all the talk about building a technology-driven, high-value economy for our kids - this Budget says otherwise.

In response, Opportunity will shortly release our policy to restore public and private sector science funding to at least 2% of GDP.

Similarly on services like health, the Government’s bright spots - like funding to maintain service standards or expanding ambulance services - are sticking plasters on a system that requires structural reform. When it comes to health, justice or education, we need to ‘invest to save’ - funding preventative actions at scale that will reduce long-term pressures on our core systems.

The Government has also opted for tweaks on the revenue side of the ledger. A small levy on banks and tightening tax rules for shareholder loans falls far short of the transformative tax changes we need now. Our recently released tax policy is an example of what real reform to broaden the tax base for long-term fiscal and social resilience looks like.

On housing, $400 million in council incentives and RMA reform are great. But without major changes to redirect the enormous amounts of wealth sitting in property into work and innovation instead, it’s mostly window-dressing.

A budget built on wishful thinking

There is no lolly scramble in this budget. But there is a fair amount of fairy dust sprinkled across the GDP growth forecasts and public service cuts that underpin it.

In relying on 3.2% growth by 2028, the Government is underpinning its numbers on wishful thinking. In a time of rising geopolitical instability and domestic cost pressures (and without major reforms to actual power this growth), the RBNZ and multiple economists are right to cast doubt on this over-confident forecast.

The recently announced cuts to the public service that balance Budget 2026 are reckless, unplanned and arbitrary. Opportunity supports government efficiency. But without a funded, long-term, bipartisan plan to embed AI into government, these cuts risk our critical services failing - incurring greater costs in money and trust down the line.

Taken together, this is a budget that prays for stability so growth can happen, while delaying the structural changes that could actually deliver growth in an unstable world.

Maybe that will work. But ‘pray and delay’ isn’t a strategy. It’s a bet. And Kiwis should expect better from their Government.

The Opportunity this election

If we want our kids and grandkids to choose to realise their dreams in New Zealand, then the greatest value we need to demonstrate through our national budget is courage.

Courage to tackle the major issues of our time instead of kicking them down the road.

Courage to invest in their future, so they have the confidence to build a life here.

This is why it’s time to send Opportunity to Parliament.

We are a party that refuses to kick the can down the road, even if reform is politically challenging.

We stand in stark opposition to the established parties’ reliance on wishful thinking, arbitrary cuts, broad-spending sprees and tweaks.

If you want to vote for political courage and a real plan this November - vote Opportunity.