New Zealand 2026 election: Transport, water and infrastructure

Policy comparison · 30 October 2026 · New Zealand-wide

The central question in this election is not simply how much infrastructure New Zealand needs. It is who should decide what gets built, who should pay, and how much control should sit with central government versus councils and local communities.

There are some significant differences between the parties:

• National: prioritises roads, maintenance, economic growth and financially sustainable infrastructure, with more disciplined investment.
• Labour: prioritises affordable public transport, protecting existing infrastructure commitments and keeping transport charges down.
• The Greens: favour substantially greater investment in public transport, rail, cycling, walking and environmental protection.
• ACT: emphasises roads, maintenance, private-sector investment, lower construction costs and user-pays funding.
• NZ First: emphasises regional infrastructure, rail, water storage and flood protection.
• Te Pāti Māori: places greater emphasis on Māori partnership, community resilience and equitable infrastructure investment.

An important distinction: these are election commitments, not automatically funded or enacted policies. The election is scheduled for 7 November 2026. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 20262026 Election Q&A - Science

1. What the parties propose on transport

The following summarises published 2026 commitments, including announcements made during October.

Party	Main transport proposals
National	Continue major highway projects, improve road maintenance, strengthen freight connections and introduce electronic road-user charging over time.
Labour	Introduce a $20 weekly public transport fare cap in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, and $10 elsewhere. Freeze fuel excise increases for three years.
Greens	Build mass rapid transit in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch; expand regional and intercity rail; improve buses, cycling and walking. Free fares for specified groups and cap other fares at $2.
ACT	Prioritise roads, road maintenance and capacity ahead of growth. Require lower-cost project options and transparent cost-benefit assessments.
NZ First	Invest in national rail, regional passenger connections, freight infrastructure and new Cook Strait ferries.
Te Pāti Māori	Emphasises equitable investment, Māori participation and community resilience; detailed transport funding commitments are less clearly specified in the material reviewed.

Sources: Where the parties stand on transport | The Chartered Institute of Logistics and TransportGreen Party launches the transport plan to combat fossil fuel crisisNew Zealand First announces ten-point rail policyACT New ZealandPolicies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026

Important differences in funding

• National intends to use fuel excise duty, road-user charges, electronic road-user charging, tolling and time-of-use charging. It has delayed scheduled fuel-tax and road-user-charge increases, with five-cent increases proposed from January 2028.
• Labour proposes no fuel excise or road-user-charge increases over the next three years. Its fare-cap policy would cost approximately $65 million annually, with transport projects potentially scaled back to accommodate the reduced funding.
• The Greens support a user-pays approach for roads, alongside substantial public investment in public transport and rail.
• ACT wants motorists' contributions spent on roads and maintenance, rather than non-essential additions to transport projects.

Where the parties stand on transport | The Chartered Institute of Logistics and TransportWhere the parties stand on transport | The Chartered Institute of Logistics and TransportACT New Zealand

One particularly significant development is NZ First's rail announcement on 27 October. It proposes a $1.135 billion 2027–30 rail investment programme, making Te Huia permanent, and establishing Auckland and Wellington metropolitan rail organisations with shared council and central-government ownership. New Zealand First announces ten-point rail policyTen-Point Rail Policy

2. What the parties propose on water

Water policy needs to be understood in the context of the Government's existing Local Water Done Well programme.

This replaced Labour's Three Waters model. It restores council ownership and control of water services, while introducing stronger financial and regulatory requirements.

It covers three essential services:

• Drinking water.
• Wastewater and sewage.
• Stormwater and drainage.

Under the current framework, councils can choose how to organise delivery, including retaining services within the council or establishing council-controlled organisations (CCOs). Water quality is regulated by Taumata Arowai and economic regulation by the Commerce Commission. Local Water Done Well - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and TransportATTACHMENT 2: Local Water Done Well

Party differences on water

Party	Water policy and funding direction
National	Retain Local Water Done Well, with council ownership, financial sustainability requirements and stronger economic oversight. Supports additional rural water storage investment.
Labour	Its 2026 campaign material places less emphasis on a new nationwide water restructuring proposal. Its approach to water governance and environmental protection differs from the current Government's reforms.
Greens	Emphasise freshwater quality, pollution prevention, environmental protection and transparent drinking-water information.
ACT	Supports reducing regulatory barriers to water storage and irrigation, with science-based freshwater limits and greater property-rights protection.
NZ First	Supports regional water storage, irrigation, flood protection, catchment management and assistance for councils upgrading ageing water infrastructure.
Te Pāti Māori	Emphasises Māori authority, Te Tiriti partnership, equitable access and protection of waterways.

Sources: Securing water and fertiliser to back NZ farmersGreens to end drinking water Russian roulette, as half of wells tested show increased nitrate pollutionACT New Zealand2026 Election Q&A - ScienceLocal Water Done Well - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport

Specific funding proposals worth knowing

National

National has proposed:

• $300 million in concessional loans for water-storage projects.
• Continued feasibility-study grants through the Primary Sector Growth Fund.
• A long-term water infrastructure pipeline involving farmers, growers, councils and iwi.
• A national rural and provincial water-use strategy in 2027.

This is principally about productive and rural water infrastructure, rather than a general-purpose fund for municipal drinking-water pipes. Securing water and fertiliser to back NZ farmers

NZ First

NZ First's September election policy response to the Science Media Centre identified:

• A $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund for regional water storage, flood protection, managed aquifer recharge and irrigation.
• A proposed Infrastructure Equalisation Fund of $100 million annually to help councils upgrade drinking-water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
• Re-establishing local catchment boards.

These are proposals attributed to NZ First in its election response. 2026 Election Q&A - Science

The Greens

The Greens' emphasis is more on the quality and protection of freshwater. On 30 October, they announced a draft bill requiring more accessible public drinking-water quality information, including publication of data and drinking-water safety plans. Greens to end drinking water Russian roulette, as half of wells tested show increased nitrate pollutionManifesto 2026

ACT

ACT proposes national standards for freshwater-limit methodologies and reduced consenting requirements for routine on-farm activities, including water storage. Its approach gives greater weight to local conditions and landowner rights. ACT New ZealandACT New Zealand

What about the actual cost of fixing water infrastructure?

This is a major issue whichever party forms the next government.

The Auditor-General's 2026 review of council water-service plans found that councils forecast approximately $47.9 billion of water infrastructure investment over the next ten years.

Most councils chose to establish council-controlled organisations, either individually or jointly with neighbouring councils. Others retained services in-house. ATTACHMENT 2: Local Water Done Well

That investment will need to be financed through some combination of:

• Water charges and service revenue.
• Council borrowing.
• Council-controlled water organisations' borrowing.
• Rates and other council funding where applicable.
• Central-government assistance and targeted funding.

The political disagreement is largely about how much of this burden should fall on water users, ratepayers, taxpayers and private or institutional investors.

3. Who actually makes decisions: central government or councils?

This is perhaps the most important distinction for understanding the election.

National parties can promise national policies, but many everyday infrastructure decisions are made locally.

Here is how responsibilities are divided.

Who controls what?

Decision	Main responsibility
National highways and state highways	Central government and NZTA
Local roads and footpaths	City and district councils
Local parking and street management	Councils
Regional public transport planning	Regional councils and unitary authorities
Local bus services and public transport infrastructure	Councils, with central-government co-funding
Drinking-water infrastructure	Councils or their water-service organisations
Wastewater and sewage	Councils or their water-service organisations
Stormwater and local drainage	Councils or their water-service organisations
Water quality standards	Central government regulators
Freshwater environmental rules and regional resource consents	Regional councils, within national legislation and standards
Flood protection	Primarily regional councils, with other council and central-government involvement
Major national infrastructure priorities	Central government, Parliament and relevant national agencies

Sources: NZ Transport Agency, Local Government Commission and Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. The role of local governmentAbout local government in New ZealandLocal Water Done Well - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and TransportATTACHMENT 2: Local Water Done Well

What councils can decide themselves

Councils have important democratic powers over local infrastructure.

For example, they can generally decide:

1. Road priorities: Which local roads need upgrading, resurfacing or safety improvements.
2. Local transport: Where to provide footpaths, cycleways, parking, bus facilities and local transport services.
3. Water delivery: Whether to operate water services internally or through a council-controlled organisation, within the statutory framework.
4. Infrastructure spending: Which local projects should be funded first and how much borrowing is appropriate.
5. Rates: How much to collect from property owners to fund council responsibilities, subject to legislation.
6. Local planning: How land development, housing growth and local infrastructure are coordinated.

These decisions are normally reflected in council long-term plans, annual plans and infrastructure strategies.

The Local Government Act 2002 establishes the framework for democratic local decision-making and providing local infrastructure and services. Amendments in September 2026 also require councils to give particular consideration to core services, including network infrastructure and public transport. Local Government Act 2002Local government system improvements - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and TransportPart 1: Our audits of councils’ 2024-34 long-term plans

What councils cannot decide independently

Councils cannot simply disregard national legislation or regulatory requirements.

Central government retains significant powers over:

• National transport priorities and the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport.
• National funding allocations through NZTA.
• Drinking-water quality requirements.
• National environmental legislation and standards.
• Economic regulation of water services.
• Major national infrastructure and transport projects.

For example, a council may want to build a particular road, but NZTA funding approval and national investment priorities can affect whether it proceeds.

Similarly, councils can decide how to organise their water services, but they must meet national financial sustainability and water-quality requirements.

How land transport is fundedThe role of territorial authoritiesLocal Water Done Well - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and TransportATTACHMENT 2: Local Water Done Well

4. Infrastructure funding: what are the different approaches?

There are several competing philosophies in the 2026 election.

Funding approach	What it means
General taxation	All taxpayers contribute through central-government revenue.
Rates	Local property owners help pay for council infrastructure.
User-pays	People using roads or water services pay through charges.
Borrowing	Councils or government borrow to spread the cost over the life of long-term assets.
Public-private partnerships	Private investors help finance or deliver infrastructure under contractual arrangements.
Targeted government grants	Central government helps fund projects that councils or regions cannot easily afford themselves.
Development contributions and levies	Developers contribute towards infrastructure required to support growth.

The parties differ in the emphasis they place on these approaches.

• National: Financial discipline, user contributions, private financing tools and targeted investment.
• Labour: Public investment, affordable transport and protecting households from additional fuel charges.
• Greens: Greater public investment, particularly in public transport, rail and climate resilience.
• ACT: Private-sector involvement, user-pays, development contributions and lower-cost construction.
• NZ First: Direct regional investment, rail and targeted government assistance for infrastructure.
• Te Pāti Māori: Equitable investment, Māori partnership and community resilience.

ACT, for example, supports regional deals between central and local government and private-sector infrastructure partnerships. ACT New ZealandACT New Zealand2026 Election Q&A - ScienceLocal government funding and financing

5. What does this mean for ordinary New Zealanders?

The practical implications are worth considering separately.

Issue affecting households	Where the decision sits
Future increases in public transport fares	Councils and regional transport authorities, influenced by national funding
Local road repairs	Council, with NZTA co-funding
New state highways	Central government and NZTA
Water bills	Water-service provider, within regulatory requirements
Council rates	Local council
New cycleways and footpaths	Primarily local councils
Major rail investments	Central government, KiwiRail and relevant councils
Local flood protection	Primarily regional councils
Water quality standards	National regulators

One important point: voting in a general election does not remove the importance of local elections.

A central government can change the rules, funding arrangements and regulatory requirements, but locally elected representatives still make many decisions about infrastructure priorities and how local money is spent.

6. Where to compare the original policies

These are useful sources for checking the commitments directly rather than relying solely on party descriptions or campaign commentary.

• Policy.nz – 2026 transport and infrastructure comparison
• National – 2026 election policies
• Labour – 2026 election policies
• Green Party – 2026 manifesto
• ACT – infrastructure policies
• NZ First – party policies
• Government – Local Water Done Well
• Local Government Commission – how councils work

Bottom line

There are three particularly important questions to examine when comparing the parties:

1. Who pays? Will infrastructure be funded through general taxation, rates, water charges, fuel taxes, road-user charges, borrowing or private investment?

2. Who decides? Will central government have more influence over infrastructure priorities, or will councils retain greater freedom to make local decisions?

3. Who carries the financial risk? If a water, road or transport project becomes significantly more expensive than expected, will the burden fall on taxpayers, ratepayers, service users or private investors?

These questions matter because a party's promise to build more infrastructure does not necessarily mean that your council will have more money, your rates will fall, or your water bills will become cheaper.

The distinction between national policy and local decision-making is essential: a general election determines the national direction, but your council still has substantial influence over the infrastructure and services in your community.

---

Worked for 16s

Searching the web

Searching the web

Searching the web

Searching the web

Searching the web

Searching the web

Searched 35 websites