Election 2026: Opportunity comes under fire in leaders’ debate as Qiulae Wong, Chlöe Swarbrick lock horns
The Opportunity Party’s tax plan came under scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle early in TVNZ’s multi-party debate last night, with leader Qiulae Wong saying her party hasn’t abandoned its tax ambitions despite them not being a bottom line.
Te Pāti Māori’s Rawiri Waititi suggested he preferred targeted assistance over universal benefits, like that proposed by Opportunity, while New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said Wong’s land tax would lead people to move into caravan parks.
Elsewhere in the debate, there was focus on Act’s proposal for a cancer hospital, Te Pāti Māori’s position that the current health system has failed Māori, the various energy policies of the parties represented and NZ First’s immigration ideas.
Opportunity emerged as the kingmaker in the 1News-Verian poll released before the debate, needed by the left and the right blocs to form Government.
In the spotlight at the start of the leaders’ debate on Tuesday night, Wong was asked about her party’s universal basic income policy.
Opportunity is proposing a Citizen’s Income, a form of universal basic income, of $19,400 annually to every New Zealand citizen and resident aged 18 and over. This would replace main benefits and be balanced out by new tax thresholds and a land value tax.
“At the moment, too many low-income families are struggling to put food on the table and we also have a housing affordability crisis where the next generation of Kiwis cannot afford to buy their own home,” Wong said in the debate.
“This is bold economic tax policy and we recognise that, but if we don’t start thinking about how we can do things differently, we are simply pushing that problem on to the next generation.”
Asked why a millionaire deserved the payout, Wong said that person would also likely own land and therefore pay “their fair share” through the land tax, which would be applied annually at 1.75% on urban land and 0.5% on rural land.
Waititi said he believed assistance should be targeted “to those who need it the most and not those who don’t need it”, promoting his party’s tax plan that Te Pāti Māori argues would benefit the vast majority of Kiwis.
“We need to make sure that we have targeted policies that ensure they keep more money in their pockets and they’re given the hand up, not those who don’t need the hand up. We don’t need millionaires or billionaires getting any extra money from the Government.”
Wong said Opportunity’s tax plan will result in 70% of people being better off.
Peters jumped in to say no country had tried the policy Opportunity proposed.
“The country would go totally broke. But as for the land tax, well then, every senior person will be heading off to the community tending place or the caravan place because they won’t be able to occupy their house, they’ll be taxed out of their existence,” he said.
Wong said Ireland had a Citizen’s Income-style policy for artists.
The Opportunity leader was asked about her party’s estimate that the land value tax would cause a 10-15% reduction in property prices.
Wong said she owned property in Mt Albert and the “thought of losing equity in that home is not a great one for me”.
“But I also have young kids and I want them to be able to afford to buy a house here, to afford to build their life here,” she said.
“We have to stop over-investing in property and locking all of our wealth up in housing. We need to invest that in the productive economy, in the businesses, the shares and the infrastructure that we so desperately need.”
Act’s David Seymour said that meant rural land values may also come down by a comparable amount.
“There’s a reason why Opportunity have actually abandoned this policy already. They know it’s not serious because it would decimate rural New Zealand,” he said.
While it is not one of Opportunity’s so-called bottom lines, the land value tax remains part of its overall policy platform.
“We have not abandoned those policies,” Wong said. “Our bottom lines are the minimum non-negotiables that we must see in any agreement to support a Government. All of our policies are still on the table.”
Moderator Tova O’Brien suggested it was a recognition that smaller parties may struggle to get major tax reform across the line, leading her to ask Green co-leader Swarbrick if she would get her party’s tax policies through.
Swarbrick said the Green Party would unlock tax cuts for most New Zealanders “not by cutting public services as this Government did, but by unlocking the resources that will also allow investment in our public infrastructure to lower the cost of living for all New Zealanders”.
“Big things do need to change if we are going to actually tackle the crises of inequality and climate.”
Later in the debate, O’Brien asked Swarbrick what differentiated the Greens and Opportunity.
She said the Green Party wanted to change the Government.
“We are not interested in reinstalling Christopher Luxon as Prime Minister, a Government that has continued to perpetuate massive attacks on Te Tiriti o Waitangi to divide people, resulting in the largest march that we have ever seen on our Parliament.”
Wong soon interjected: “Imagine how many of those most egregious things that have happened in the last three years the Greens could have stopped if they were willing to work with National.
“That is what we need, a more pragmatic environmental party that can work across the political spectrum to make progress and keep the extreme ideas out of Cabinet.”
Swarbrick responded: “And allow the vulnerable to be punched down upon.”
Wong appeared to begin pushing back on that as the debate moved on.
Jamie Ensor is the NZ Herald’s chief political reporter, based in the press gallery at Parliament. He was previously a TV reporter and digital producer in the Newshub press gallery office. He was a finalist in 2025 for Political Journalist of the Year at the Voyager Media Awards.