sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Opportunity announces five non-negotiable policy conditions the party plans to stand by if it makes it into Parliament in November's general election

Public Policy / news
Opportunity announces five non-negotiable policy conditions the party plans to stand by if it makes it into Parliament in November's general election
Opportunity Party leader Qiulae Wong.
The Opportunity Party leader Qiulae Wong. Image source: Supplied

Giving the Commerce Commission stronger powers and re-establishing New Zealand’s commitment to the Paris Agreement are among five things the Opportunity Party is setting out for inclusion in any coalition or confidence and supply agreement it could enter after the November 7 election.

Monday's 1News Verian poll had Opportunity, who have been above the 5% threshold in most recent polls, at 6%.

In Auckland on Tuesday, Opportunity Party Leader Qiulae Wong laid out the five non-negotiable policy conditions the party plans to stand by if Opportunity makes it into Parliament. Wong said they were designed to deliver change that could last beyond a single term of government.

The party's high profile tax reset policy is not among the five.

The five bottom lines are:

  • Bring prices down: Give the Commerce Commission stronger powers and greater independence to tackle excessive market power in supermarkets and other uncompetitive sectors
  • Clean up politics: Regulate lobbying and cap political donations
  • Fix the health system: Develop a 10-year health plan alongside health professionals, with clear commitments on funding, workforce and infrastructure
  • Revive ocean health: Immediately begin phasing out bottom trawling
  • Restore climate credibility: Recommit to NZ's Paris Agreement obligations and protect the independence of the Climate Change Commission

Wong said all of Opportunity’s policies were important to the party, but these five bottom line policies were the “minimum commitments” Opportunity will require from the next government in return for the party’s support.

“The stronger the position voters give us, the more we can negotiate for,” she said.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon has ruled out working with the Opportunity Party. Labour leader Chris Hipkins has not.

A competition problem

Tackling weak competition in New Zealand is top of Opportunity’s bottom line list. Wong said there is broad agreement the country has a competition problem and New Zealanders are “paying the price” for it through their everyday bills.

“Opportunity’s bottom line is that the next government actually does something about it by giving the Commerce Commission the independence and tools it needs to take on excessive market power and bring prices down,” she said.

Climate-focused policies make up two of Opportunity’s bottom lines. The party believes NZ needs a durable climate policy that survives changes of government, gives businesses certainty and helps build a cleaner, more resilient and more prosperous economy, according to Wong.

“We will not support a government that walks away from our international obligations or undermines the independent Climate Change Commission,” she said. This means recommitting to NZ's Paris Agreement obligations.

Under the Paris Agreement, every country sets out its own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) - this is to show the contributions countries will make towards delivering on the 2015 Paris Agreement climate goals. The obligations are to limit global warming to “well below 2 °C” and attempt to keep it to 1.5 °C.

Luxon has made it clear staying in the Paris Agreement would be a bottom line for National in any post-election coalition negotiations, National's coalition partner NZ First wants to pull NZ out of the agreement while ACT leader David Seymour has previously said: “Paris needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave.”

Wong described NZ's prosperity and identity as “inseparable” from the health of its oceans and Opportunity will require the next government to phase out bottom trawling as well if the party gets into government.

Ten year health plan

The party has also said the next government will need to develop a 10-year health plan in order to receive Opportunity’s support.

“Our health system is in crisis yet again and we can’t keep lurching from one three-year political cycle to the next,” Wong said, adding that a 10-year plan would give the health system a stable direction for its workforce, infrastructure and funding.

Opportunity will also require “real reform” on lobbying and political donations.

“New Zealanders deserve to know who is trying to influence their government, and no one should be able to buy disproportionate political influence,” Wong said.

On TVNZ’s Q&A in August, Wong defended Opportunity accepting more than $400,000 in political donations this year when the party has been campaigning for reform on lobbying and political donations. She told Q&A host Jack Tames that the party has to “play the game with everyone else” to get into Parliament.

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.

43 Comments

What's with the hard line "non-negotiable" demands from TOP or also from National saying "we won't work with TOP".  It's just dumb and a plain misunderstanding of what MMP (and I would suggest life) is all about.

Read a few books about negotiating skills to get ahead.

Up
1

It's pretty simple. 3 confidential buckets: must have, tradeable nice to have, wont have. 

Up
3

I guess the problem is, if your party is so flexible it'll compromise on anything, why does it exist in the first place? What could your election slogan be? "We commit to policies that are the same as everyone else"

Up
4

Sorry KKNZ & Palmtree, you don't get it either.  I've been married for 34 years, it's because compromising (a form of negotiation) with my wife.   Being "non-negotiable leads to misery.

Up
5

I wasnt saying non negotiable, quite the opposite its really about tactics.

Negotiation in business / politics is not the same as marriage. You don't put all your cards on the table up front because you will end up with next to nothing.

Having been married for 40+ years (2 wives, currently wooing a potential 3rd), I agree with your sentiment on open trust in a domestic / intimate relationship.

Up
1

May I suggest that "Having been married for 40+ years (2 wives, currently wooing a potential 3rd)" is not the same as being married with the same and only wife for 34 years.

Up
3

You may, which is also why I disclosed it

Up
3

There is no way you do not have non-negotiables in your marriage. I can only congratulate you on a great marriage that has enabled you to forget they are there. But try to imagine being married to someone else - think of someone you dislike - and I think you'll realise you do have some red lines. 

That's how MMP works. Parties that dislike each other have to work together, and they will have both red lines and areas they are willing to compromise on. 

Up
6

Interesting that National refused to work with them based on a tax policy that isn't in their non-negotiable list. 

Chris strikes again...

Up
11

I think we all knew the likelihood was that such ambitious and major tax reform would have never gotten through even if they got 10% of the vote. The idea being that it could be approached with more open minds next election once they have their foot in the door.

Up
7

Exactly 

Up
6

Yes, agree. But I somehow think that if they do get in with a good showing and are part of a coalition government, that conversation will likely start relatively quickly.  Our current account deficit needs addressing pretty soon - as our int'l lenders need to see some kind of action;

https://www.interest.co.nz/charts/economy/balance-payments

 

 

Up
6

Yeah I don't think Luxon looks very good without a nose

Up
1

Everyone is making an incorrect assumption about them getting over 5% on election day. When it comes to the crunch people won't want to risk wasting their vote

Up
3

And your traditionalist thinking is on show once again. It is precisely this way of thinking that prevents any positive change in NZ and keeps us stuck in the status quo that is helping nobody currently. No vote is ever 'wasted' if one votes for what they individually believe is in the best interests of the country. Far better doing that with ones head held high than changing ones vote last minute form fear, habit, or pressure from family/friends then living as a coward to themselves for another 3 years. 

Up
8

Just to clarify, I was speaking in the third person - I wouldn't dream of voting for them

Up
2

I think that depends entirely on how they are polling closer to election - if they continue to stay above 5% then that will give many people the confidence to vote for them

Up
4

This is a good article, but I'd be very interested in OP's thoughts on confidence and supply support, while dealing with other issues on a case-by-case basis across party lines. 

That would be consistent with their messaging on keeping the others 'honest' and a potentially  non-partisan occupation of the middle way. 

Up
1

The other item mentioned on other sites and not picked up here is that they won't be in a government where Winston Peters is Foreign minister

Up
6

This is not new today. They have said this before, after what Peters said to Green MP Lawrence Xu-Nan in parliament. https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/08/13/opportunity-party-leader-on-poll-surge-working-with-winston-peters/

Up
2

Apologies Gareth - I had not seen that until today

Up
0

A lot of people are getting tired of the bauble-loving, glad-back handing, xenophobic senior members of NZ First

Up
14

Totally, I think many people will vote for Opp on this basis - simply to deny NZF kingmaker position with the goal of stopping NZF with its corruption (selling itself to the tobacco and fishing industries)

Up
14

Yes, it's one of my reasons for voting for OP.  Time to retire the Trumpian look-alike.

Up
11

Agree, same here!

Up
2

Tomotime,

Indeed. I have decided to vote for them in the hope that they can disrupt BAU. I detest NZF and if OP can help keep them from office, they will have done the country a great favour in my view. My guess is that National will end up as the largest party post election and it will be amusing to watch Luxon swallowing a dead rat. and negotiating with OP. At some point his party just has to dump him in the same bin Hipkins will end up occupying.

Up
3

A 10 year plan sounds great in theory but by the time you have consulted everyone and agreed on it it’s out of date 

Up
2

A 3yr plan for the next govt would be better than Nationals "nothing to see here" BS

I've a good friend I've been supporting closely in recent months as she is increasingly crippled by her hip deteriorating through this year. She spent months awaiting even getting on an assessment list (100+ in front), then after she paid for a private assessment & finally got put on the urgent op list (including approval for public/private funding), had her anesthitist & physio consultations & has now waited 7 weeks so far to be advised of a surgery date. Health is an absolute disgrace.

Up
2

Health is overwhelmed, not a disgrace.   

Between living longer/aging population, obesity, diabetes, and medical advances meaning more things are treatable, they simply cant keep up.  

 

Up
13

In my service it's a simple lack of investment. The increase workload was well understood, we knew when we needed new capacity to be built, have had a number of plans to do so over the last decade none of which came to fruition, and now we are waiting for the next attempt to be funded while we watch the waiting list keep growing. 

Up
6

Ive spent quite a bit if time in Wgtn hospital lately & while I agree its a staffing issue (across the board) I suspect theyre ignoring maximising use of the facilities they already  have.

Happy to be corrected by someone in the health sector however it looks a lot like there is quite limited after-hours & weekend elective surgery scheduled, at those times its primarily acute/accident cases. Thats 75% of available hours being under utilised. 

Up
3

Equipment available 75% of the time is not much use if there's no clinical staff because they're in Australia or too busy doing admin because the "back office" people (non front line) didn't get replaced. 

Up
1

That's my point: its not facilities it's staff. So no point in building more multimillion  hospitals just to give a cushy M-F 9-5 operating hours. For eg. use the money to attract & offer immediate PR to foreign medics conditional on their being bonded on shiftwork for 3 years

Up
3

My wife used to work in WGTN hospital. A massive issue they have is DNA's for appointments. MRI time wasted, specialist/surgeon time wasted, all for silly reasons like turning up too late to be seen, or simply not showing at all with no explanation, and the system has an obligation to reschedule them a couple of times, therefore you'll have some people that no-show multiple appointments despite receiving reminder texts, physical letters etc. The wastage there she described to me would add up to a solid amount. When do we hold personal responsibility to a greater standard and go with the low hanging fruit such as this, to sure-up.

Up
2

Sounds awful - that could well be why waitlists vary between regions for these services.  Depending on just how bad that is, what I would do in that case, is make one day a fortnight with no appointments scheduled - and the two-time offender 'no shows' would then need to get the treatment on a first-come-first served basis on that one day a fortnight.

 

Up
0

That would appear to me (not a health professional) a sensible idea.

Up
0

Yes, that's part of it. We're likely to increase our treatment hours as a result which means hiring a bunch more staff, and everyone having less stable working hours. There will be a trade off between the capital investment and the staff cost of paying us to work later shifts. There will also be an impact on recruitment and retention - we can already move to Australia for 50-100% more pay, if the hours are more cushy over there as well that's another nail in the coffin for our efforts to keep trainees in the country. 

There's a limit to what you can do with out patient treatments as most people are not willing to come in at random hours of the night for their regular treatments. Surgery might work differently and maybe people are willing to be flexible for one-off treatments.

Up
1

My friend waiting for her hip replacement is in continuous pain & on ineffective painkillets for months, she would go for her op anytime available.

IIRC 80% of a medical degree is paid by the taxpayer: these people should all be bonded to work in NZ for 3yrs, as they used to be.

eg. an arrogant rorting thief like this guy (& his brother who was reported to have done the same)..

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360997679/doctor-built-life-overseas-no…

Up
3

It is extremely difficult to provide a service if you refuse to fund the required resources....we languish at the arse end of provision within the OECD.

Up
1

and lack of personal responsibilty for their "health" in some instances.....

Up
4

Health is an absolute disgrace.

As she is sadly finding, and I applaud her persistence as hips are very painful, it is a resource problem not a monetary one. if everyone went private tomorrow, there would still only be so many operating theatres, surgeons, anaethetists (short supply nationwide) etc. The current govt has scuppered so much in the sector, and there are a few suspect practices around where specialists are outsourcing public work to private clinics as it nets them more money. Be that as it may, I hope she gets a date soon.

Up
3

Thank you very much for your kind thoughts 

Up
0

A lot of people shitting themselves

Up
3