Source: Opportunity Party
>
By Qiulae Wong
The spending accusations have been flying this week – National’s dramatic AI-generated movie trailer about Labour’s alleged fiscal hole, Winston basking in the glory of a typo in a Greens press release that referred to billions instead of millions, a travel budget blow-out for Shane Jones’ trip to Canada to schmooze global mining companies.
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 judgment, 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. They compete on market access, standards, and credibility.
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.
Original source: https://nz.mil-osi.com/2026/07/07/when-the-bill-comes-due/