ChatGPT · No location
My partner and I rent, have steady jobs and are trying to save a deposit for our first home. We worry that the target keeps moving. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties plan to fund the transport and water infrastructure needed for new housing?
2026 New Zealand election: who pays for the infrastructure behind new homes?
Your concern about the deposit target continually moving is understandable. Saving for a first home is difficult enough without wondering whether the infrastructure needed to build more homes will eventually make those homes more expensive.
There is an important connection between housing affordability and infrastructure policy: a new subdivision needs roads, public transport, drinking water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure before people can comfortably live there.
If that infrastructure isn't funded, housing developments can be delayed. If it is funded through high development charges, those costs can flow through to land and house prices. If existing ratepayers fund it, households can face higher rates.
I've compared the parties' published positions as at 30 October 2026, focusing on the funding mechanisms rather than simply their promises to build more houses.
1. How the main funding approaches differ
There are four broad approaches in the current debate:
| Funding approach | Who ultimately pays? |
|---|---|
| Development levies | Developers and, potentially, new homebuyers |
| Council borrowing and rates | Councils and existing ratepayers |
| Central government investment | Taxpayers and government borrowing |
| Infrastructure funds and private finance | Investors initially, repaid through future revenue, levies or taxes |
These approaches can be combined. The important questions are how much each party expects each group to contribute, and whether the funding is actually sufficient to deliver infrastructure before homes are built.
2. What each party is proposing
National – growth pays for growth
Development levies and private finance
National's approach is to make developers and the properties benefiting from new infrastructure contribute more directly.
Its main proposals and existing reforms include:
- Development levies: replacing the current development contributions system with a more flexible levy system.
- Private infrastructure finance: private investors can finance roads, water pipes and other infrastructure, with costs repaid over time through levies on properties benefiting from it.
- Council incentives: rewarding councils for consenting new homes.
- Independent oversight: having the Commerce Commission oversee levy calculations and compliance.
The proposed development levies cover water supply, wastewater, stormwater, transport and other growth infrastructure. The revised implementation programme anticipates the system becoming available from 2029 onwards. Next steps confirmed for development levy reformBetter tools to fund and finance new infrastructureHon Chris Bishop's speech to Building Nations 2026
What this could mean for you: infrastructure costs are less likely to fall entirely on existing ratepayers. However, developers may pass some of their levies on through land and house prices.
National also promises no new taxes, so its approach relies substantially on existing funding tools, borrowing and charges associated with growth. 2026 Election PolicyNext steps confirmed for development levy reform
Labour – public investment and a Future Fund
Crown investment and public funding
Labour proposes creating a New Zealand Future Fund, independently governed and seeded with Crown-owned assets and an initial capital contribution.
The fund would invest in:
- Modern and resilient infrastructure.
- Projects connecting regions and supporting economic growth.
- Innovative New Zealand businesses.
Labour also proposes a $200 million initial capital contribution to the fund. Labour's New Zealand Future FundLabour's Fiscal Plan 2026
For transport, Labour proposes:
- A weekly public transport fare cap of $20 in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and $10 elsewhere.
- A three-year fuel tax freeze.
- Funding the fare cap by reprioritising 1% of the National Land Transport Fund.
Importantly, the fare cap is an affordability measure, not a direct funding programme for new roads or water pipes. Labour's Fiscal Plan 2026Better Starts Now
What this could mean for you: Labour's Future Fund offers a mechanism for longer-term infrastructure investment, but its published policy does not yet specify how much of the fund would go to water and transport infrastructure for new housing, or which particular housing developments would benefit.
Green Party – public transport investment and government support
Public investment and transport alternatives
The Greens emphasise investment in public transport rather than relying predominantly on expanding roads.
Their 2026 transport policy includes:
- Mass rapid bus and light rail in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
- Free public transport for children, teenagers, students, apprentices, Community Services Card holders and Total Mobility users.
- A maximum $2 fare for other passengers.
- More frequent regional and intercity bus services.
- New passenger rail connections.
They also propose funding the shortfall councils face in providing public transport services. Green Party launches the transport plan to combat fossil fuel crisisWe asked about policies for Auckland – which parties responded?
For a growing housing development, this could mean more emphasis on connecting new neighbourhoods to public transport.
However, the published transport announcements are much more detailed about public transport than about financing new water pipes, wastewater treatment plants and stormwater systems.
What this could mean for you: the Greens' approach places greater emphasis on transport accessibility and reducing dependence on cars. You would want to examine how their wider infrastructure and water investment would be funded.
ACT – targeted infrastructure charges and road-focused funding
User contributions and spending priorities
ACT has proposed a $6-per-day infrastructure surcharge on temporary work visas.
The party estimates that this would raise approximately $80 million annually, with the intention of making new migrants contribute towards infrastructure. ACT New ZealandACT New Zealand
ACT also supports focusing the National Land Transport Fund on road infrastructure, rather than its wider range of current transport purposes. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026
This is a different approach from Labour and the Greens, which place more emphasis on public transport investment.
What this could mean for you: ACT has identified an additional revenue source for infrastructure, but the published surcharge announcement does not establish how much would be allocated to new housing-related water and transport projects.
The Opportunity Party (TOP) – borrow for long-term infrastructure
Long-term public borrowing
TOP has one of the more explicit infrastructure-financing proposals.
It proposes raising up to $60 billion over ten years through a new Infrastructure Fund.
Its approach includes:
- Borrowing at Crown interest rates rather than relying on more expensive private finance.
- Issuing bonds that KiwiSaver funds could invest in.
- Providing grants to councils, not just loans.
- Using congestion charges, visitor levies and value capture to help pay for infrastructure.
- Giving Te Waihanga, the Infrastructure Commission, a stronger role in planning and overseeing investment.
TOP also proposes directing 60% of future infrastructure spending towards maintenance and renewals. Intergenerational Infrastructure
The party argues that long-lived infrastructure should be financed over its useful life rather than relying entirely on current ratepayers.
What this could mean for you: this approach could reduce the need for councils to recover all infrastructure costs through immediate rates or development charges. However, the borrowing still has to be serviced, and TOP's proposed charges could affect transport users and other beneficiaries.
New Zealand First – regional investment from mining royalties
Regional revenue sharing
New Zealand First proposes returning 50% of mining royalties to the regions where the mining occurs.
The proposed money would support:
- Water infrastructure.
- Flood protection.
- Transport and connectivity upgrades.
- Energy projects.
- Infrastructure supporting housing development in mining regions.
NZ First Campaign Announcement: 50% Mining Royalties to be Returned to Regions – not Wellington.Election Policy Comparison
What this could mean for you: regions with mining activity could receive an additional source of infrastructure funding. However, this is not a nationwide funding mechanism that guarantees infrastructure investment in every growing town or city.
Te Pāti Māori – housing and resource priorities
Te Pāti Māori's published housing priorities include increasing public and affordable housing, making it easier to build on Māori and ancestral land, and addressing speculation and land banking.
Its wider priorities include protection of whenua, wai and climate. Policy
I haven't found a sufficiently detailed published 2026 proposal specifying how the party would finance the roads, water supply and wastewater infrastructure for new housing developments. Its broader tax proposals include wealth taxation, but it would be misleading to assume a particular amount would be allocated to infrastructure without a published funding commitment.
3. The water infrastructure question deserves particular attention
Water infrastructure is slightly different from transport because it has its own funding and regulatory arrangements.
New Zealand's water services include:
- Drinking water supply and treatment.
- Wastewater collection and treatment.
- Stormwater and flood management.
Currently, most councils fund water services through rates or charges on connected properties. Auckland has more extensive volumetric water charging than most other parts of the country. Sector summaries: Water and wastewater | National Infrastructure Plan
There are already government funding mechanisms designed to help unlock housing development:
- Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: $908 million of government funding has been allocated nationally to projects involving roads, water and flood management. Developers and councils also have funding responsibilities. Infrastructure Acceleration Fund | National Infrastructure Funding and Financing
- Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act: allows private investors to finance infrastructure and recover their costs through charges on benefiting properties. The 2026 amendments broadened its potential use, including by water organisations. Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (Formerly Te Tūāpapa Kura KāingaBetter tools to fund and finance new infrastructure
These mechanisms matter because the issue isn't simply whether a party wants more housing. It's whether the funding arrangements make it possible to build the necessary infrastructure before new residents arrive.
4. Side-by-side comparison
Here's a simplified comparison of the main funding approaches.
| Party | Main infrastructure funding approach | Main consideration |
|---|---|---|
| National | Development levies and private finance | Costs can reach new homeowners |
| Labour | Crown investment and Future Fund | Specific water allocations unclear |
| Greens | Public transport investment and council support | Water funding detail needs scrutiny |
| ACT | Temporary visa infrastructure surcharge; road-focused transport funding | Limited detail on housing-related water funding |
| TOP | Up to $60bn public Infrastructure Fund | Borrowing and alternative user charges |
| NZ First | 50% of mining royalties returned to regions | Depends on regional mining activity |
| Te Pāti Māori | Housing, land and resource priorities | Specific infrastructure financing not established |
One independent cross-check is the Property Council's October 2026 election comparison. It finds that National, ACT, Labour, the Greens and TOP all support strengthening infrastructure funding tools, although they differ in their specific proposals. It also identifies gaps where parties have not stated a position. Election Policy Comparison
5. What does this mean for your first-home deposit?
I would separate three things when considering the impact of these policies on your household.
First: the purchase price.
Development levies, infrastructure charges and the cost of connecting new subdivisions can affect the final price of a property. But the extent to which developers pass these costs on depends on land prices, competition, demand and other development costs.
Second: your ongoing housing costs.
Even after buying, you may face:
- Council rates.
- Water charges.
- Public transport or fuel expenses.
- Potential infrastructure-related charges incorporated into the property price.
A policy that reduces the upfront cost of a new development might not necessarily reduce your ongoing household costs.
Third: whether enough homes actually get built.
A party can promise to release more land, but without funded water and transport capacity, that land might not translate into completed, affordable homes.
That is why I would pay attention to whether funding commitments are specific, costed and tied to actual housing delivery.
6. Five questions worth asking before voting
Given that you're renting, working and saving towards your first home, these are useful questions to put to every party:
Who ultimately pays? Will infrastructure costs be paid by developers, existing ratepayers, taxpayers or new homeowners?
Will infrastructure arrive before the houses? Are water treatment capacity, wastewater connections and transport links funded before developments are approved?
Will councils have enough money? Are they receiving grants, borrowing capacity or reliable revenue to support population growth?
Will the funding make housing cheaper? Are there safeguards against infrastructure costs simply being passed on to first-home buyers?
How will projects be held accountable? Are there published budgets, construction deadlines and independent assessments of delivery?
7. Where to investigate further
These are useful resources for comparing the actual proposals rather than campaign slogans.
- Policy.nz – 2026 transport and infrastructure policies: compare transport and infrastructure proposals.
- Property Council – 2026 party policy comparison: independent industry comparison of infrastructure and housing policies.
- Te Waihanga – New Zealand Infrastructure Commission: long-term infrastructure planning.
- Infrastructure Acceleration Fund: see how existing government funding supports housing developments.
My suggested way to assess the policies
I wouldn't judge the parties solely on how many billions they promise to spend.
For someone saving for a first home, a particularly useful distinction is between making infrastructure available to enable more housing and making the resulting homes affordable to buy. Those are related, but they aren't the same outcome.
TOP's borrowing proposal, National's development levy approach and Labour's Future Fund illustrate three substantially different ways of trying to address the infrastructure funding problem. The Greens, ACT and NZ First have other priorities and funding mechanisms that are worth examining alongside them.
One final question I'd encourage you to keep in mind:
If a government successfully builds 50,000 additional homes, but the infrastructure costs are added to the price of those homes, has it actually made homeownership more accessible to people like you?
That's a worthwhile test of any party's housing and infrastructure promises.
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
Captured 31 October 2026 · shown as ChatGPT gave it, not a verified account