2026 New Zealand general election: Mental health and addiction policies

The key question for voters is not just how much each party promises to spend on mental health, but what happens when someone actually tries to get help: how long they wait, whether they can afford treatment, where they can access services, and what support is available if they have an addiction or experience a mental health crisis.

There are several important areas to compare:

• Access: Will people be able to see a counsellor, psychologist or psychiatrist sooner?
• Cost: Will more treatment be free or subsidised?
• Early intervention: Will young people and people with emerging problems get help before reaching crisis point?
• Addiction: Will alcohol, drug and gambling addiction services receive more funding and treatment options?
• Crisis care: Will people have alternatives to emergency departments and police involvement?
• Long-term recovery: Will people receive ongoing support, including housing and community-based care?

1. What the parties are proposing

The following comparison covers the seven parties included in the 2026 election policy comparisons: National, Labour, Greens, ACT, New Zealand First, Te Pāti Māori and Opportunity.

Policy information available as at 30 October 2026. Some parties have published more detailed commitments than others.

National

Current governing party

National's approach emphasises expanding existing services, improving delivery and targeting additional funding.

Its stated priorities include:

• Continuing its Action Plan to Prevent and Reduce Substance Harm 2026–2029.
• Investing almost $20 million in additional annual funding for addiction-related initiatives.
• Improving access to addiction support at different stages of substance use.
• Supporting drug-checking services and improving overdose prevention.
• Continuing to develop the mental health workforce and improve access targets.

What this could mean for people seeking help: More addiction-service capacity, better access to drug checking and overdose prevention, and continued development of existing mental health services. The extent to which this translates into shorter waits and more local treatment places will depend on implementation and staffing.

Election 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harmAction Plan to Prevent and Reduce Substance Harm 2026 – 2029Mental health and addiction services

Labour

Labour has emphasised prevention, early intervention and properly resourced specialist services.

Its published election responses indicate:

• Earlier mental health support, before people reach crisis.
• Better access to specialist mental health and addiction services.
• Properly funded teams and culturally grounded care.
• Particular attention to young people and Māori.
• Support for additional addiction treatment and harm-reduction investment, although it says its full manifesto policy will provide more detail.

What this could mean for people seeking help: Greater emphasis on getting assistance earlier, rather than waiting until problems become severe. Labour has also highlighted the need for better-funded specialist teams, although its specific funding commitments and delivery targets need to be considered alongside its full manifesto.

Election 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harmElection Survey 2026 - National Council of Women of New Zealand

Green Party

The Greens propose expanding community-based mental health support and strengthening harm reduction.

Their commitments include:

• Expanding free mental health services to more communities.
• Extending services such as Piki, Mana Ake and Youth One Stop Shops.
• More support through Asian Family Services.
• Dedicated support for postnatal mental health.
• Implementing suicide prevention recommendations, with particular attention to people under 24.
• Supporting increased addiction treatment and harm reduction funding.
• Supporting drug checking, naloxone access and overdose prevention centres.

What this could mean for people seeking help: More opportunities to access free, community-based support, particularly for young people and groups who may struggle to access mainstream services. People experiencing drug-related harm could also have greater access to harm-reduction services.

Election Survey 2026 - National Council of Women of New ZealandElection 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harm

ACT

ACT's response to the Drug Foundation's 2026 questionnaire was a statement rather than completed answers to the individual policy questions. This makes direct comparisons difficult.

It is important not to interpret missing questionnaire answers as commitments to support or oppose particular proposals.

What this could mean for people seeking help: The available questionnaire evidence does not establish a sufficiently detailed set of new ACT commitments on treatment access, free counselling or addiction-service expansion to describe a definite change for patients.

Election 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harm

New Zealand First

New Zealand First has highlighted youth mental health and community responses.

Its stated priorities include:

• Expanding access to school counselling.
• Supporting Gumboot Friday's free youth counselling.
• Establishing Mental Health Response Units.
• More face-to-face suicide prevention.
• Addressing cyberbullying.
• Directly resourcing youth mental health services in communities.

What this could mean for people seeking help: More emphasis on young people accessing support through schools and local communities, and potentially different responses when someone is experiencing a mental health crisis.

The precise funding, coverage and operating arrangements for the proposed response units would need to be established.

Election Survey 2026 - National Council of Women of New Zealand

Te Pāti Māori

Te Pāti Māori has emphasised culturally grounded, accessible services and treating addiction as a health issue.

Its stated priorities include:

• Investing in kaupapa Māori mental health services.
• Providing free community-based mental health services for everyone.
• Decriminalising drug use.
• Moving addiction responses away from criminalisation and towards health-based treatment.

What this could mean for people seeking help: More community-based and Māori-led options, with less reliance on criminal justice responses to drug use. Decriminalisation would represent a change in how people who use drugs are treated, although it would not automatically guarantee access to treatment.

Election Survey 2026 - National Council of Women of New Zealand

Opportunity Party

Opportunity has proposed a broader, long-term restructuring of health funding and service delivery.

Its commitments include:

• A ten-year health plan, increasing health funding from approximately 7.4% to 9% of GDP.
• Increasing primary and community care's share of Health NZ spending.
• Stable, multi-year funding for kaupapa Māori and iwi-led services.
• Expanding the mental health workforce, including nurses, counsellors and peer-support workers.
• Free, clinically validated digital mental health tools for mild-to-moderate needs.
• Greater investment in prevention, early intervention and addiction treatment.
• Expanding drug checking and naloxone access.

What this could mean for people seeking help: More options outside hospitals, including community and digital support, and potentially more continuity of care. The proposed funding changes would be a substantial longer-term commitment rather than an immediate guarantee of additional appointments.

Election 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harmElection Survey 2026 - National Council of Women of New Zealand

ACT

ACT's published health proposals include a significant commitment to expanding access to therapy.

Its health policies include:

• Eliminating therapy waiting lists by training and employing more therapists, including psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists.
• Transitioning privately funded services towards publicly funded, free services, including mental health services.
• Increasing the health workforce and improving workforce retention.
• Supporting access to psychedelic-assisted treatments through regulated prescribing, including treatments for certain forms of depression and PTSD.

ACT also supports evidence-based harm-reduction measures and supported the first reading of the Drug Overdose (Assistance Protection) Bill.

What this could mean for people seeking help: Potentially more publicly funded therapy and more treatment options. However, eliminating waiting lists is a policy objective, not a guarantee of immediate appointments.

NZ Election 2026 Health Policies for Resident DoctorsElection 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harm

2. What could change for someone seeking help?

The differences become clearer when looking at common situations people experience.

Situation	Policy direction that could make a difference
Cannot afford a psychologist	Free community services (Greens, Te Pāti Māori), publicly funded therapy (ACT), digital support (Opportunity).
Young person struggling at school	School counselling (NZ First), expanded youth services (Greens), early intervention (Labour).
Waiting months for treatment	More therapists (ACT), expanded community workforce (Opportunity), improved service capacity (National and Labour).
Experiencing addiction	Increased treatment and harm reduction funding (National, Greens and Opportunity).
Māori needing culturally appropriate care	Greater kaupapa Māori investment (Greens, Te Pāti Māori and Opportunity).
Someone experiencing an overdose	Better naloxone access, drug checking and overdose prevention initiatives.
Experiencing a mental health crisis	Better crisis responses, including NZ First's proposed Mental Health Response Units and continued crisis-service development under National.

These are potential policy effects, not guaranteed outcomes. The details of eligibility, funding and nationwide availability will matter.

3. Addiction services: where are the important differences?

Addiction policy is particularly important because parties differ on whether the emphasis should be on treatment, harm reduction, criminal justice or a combination.

Here are some of the specific proposals identified by the NZ Drug Foundation.

Issue	Party positions
More addiction treatment funding	National, Greens and Opportunity support substantial increases. Labour will consider them.
Drug checking	National, Greens and Opportunity support expansion.
Take-home naloxone	Opportunity supports a nationwide scheme; National and Labour will consider it. Greens also support improved access.
Overdose prevention centres	Greens and Opportunity support a pilot. National opposes the proposal; Labour is unsure.
Decriminalisation of drug use	Te Pāti Māori supports it.
Overdose legal protections	Greens, Labour and Opportunity support the proposed legislation. National is considering its position.

Election 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harmElection 2026: Where the parties stand on reducing drug harm

One important distinction:

• Treatment-focused approaches aim to help people stop or reduce harmful substance use through clinical and community support.
• Harm-reduction approaches aim to prevent death, disease and other harms, even when someone is not yet ready or able to stop using substances.
• Criminal justice approaches involve enforcement and penalties for illegal drug activity.

These approaches can coexist, but parties place different emphasis on them.

4. What is already happening, regardless of the election?

It is useful to distinguish new election promises from services and plans already in place.

New Zealand has adopted the Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2026–2036, which sets out a ten-year direction for:

• Prevention and early intervention.
• Better access to mental health and addiction services.
• Growing the health workforce.
• Improving the quality and effectiveness of care.
• Better coordination between services and communities.

There is also an existing Action Plan to Prevent and Reduce Substance Harm 2026–2029.

These are important because the next government will inherit existing programmes and commitments. The election question is partly about whether parties will continue, expand, change or redirect them.

Sources: Ministry of Health: Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy and Substance Harm Action Plan.

5. What should voters look for beyond the promises?

There are five practical questions worth asking of every party:

1. Waiting times: Will someone who needs a psychologist or psychiatrist actually get an appointment sooner?
2. Affordability: Will free counselling be available to adults as well as young people?
3. Regional access: Will people outside major centres have access to the same level of care?
4. Workforce: Are there enough qualified psychologists, counsellors, psychiatrists and addiction specialists to deliver the promises?
5. Continuity: Will people receive ongoing support after leaving hospital, rehabilitation or crisis services?

The workforce issue is particularly important. Funding a service does not automatically mean there are enough trained professionals to provide appointments.

The mental health sector has also highlighted the importance of workforce development, community services and addressing the social factors that contribute to poor mental health. Mental Health & Addiction 2026 General Election Debate - Events2026 General Election Key Messages - Platform TrustResponses from the political parties

6. Where to compare the parties' actual policies

For further independent information:

• NZ Drug Foundation – 2026 election drug policy comparison — particularly useful for addiction, drug law reform and harm reduction.
• Changing Minds – Political party responses — questions answered from a lived-experience mental health perspective.
• NZ Resident Doctors Association – Election health policy comparison — useful for workforce and health-system proposals.
• Policy.nz – 2026 election policy comparison — compare parties across health and other policy areas.

My overall reading of the policy differences: The major divide is between approaches that prioritise expanding existing services and improving their delivery, and approaches that propose a more substantial shift towards free community care, prevention, harm reduction and different models of treatment.

There is also considerable common ground: earlier intervention, better youth support, more effective addiction treatment and a stronger workforce.

The biggest unanswered question is how many additional people will actually receive timely, affordable treatment, rather than simply seeing new strategies and funding announcements.

That is probably the most useful measure against which to assess each party's promises.