2026 New Zealand election: who pays for the infrastructure behind new homes?

Your concern gets to an important part of the housing affordability debate: getting a deposit together is only half the challenge if the cost of building new homes, connecting them to services and making them accessible keeps pushing prices up.

For first-home buyers, there are two related questions worth separating:

1. Who pays for infrastructure? Roads, public transport, drinking-water pipes, wastewater networks and stormwater systems all cost money.
2. When is it paid for? If councils or developers have to pay upfront, those costs can end up being reflected in land prices, development contributions, rents or house prices. If central government borrows or provides grants, the cost may instead fall on future taxpayers.

The parties contesting the 7 November 2026 general election have different approaches to infrastructure investment, local-government funding and making developers contribute to the cost of growth.

Here is a comparison focused on the infrastructure needed to build new housing, rather than just general transport promises.

1. How the main parties approach funding

The following reflects published 2026 election policies and proposals available as at 1 November 2026. I've distinguished policies already being implemented from new election promises.

National

Current governing party

Approach: developers and new developments should contribute more directly to growth infrastructure.

National's Going for Housing Growth programme has three main elements:

• Development levies: Replace the existing development contributions system with levies calculated around the expected cost of growth. They would cover water supply, wastewater, stormwater, transport, reserves and community facilities.
• Infrastructure financing: Expand the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) model, allowing infrastructure costs to be financed over time rather than requiring councils to find all the money upfront.
• Growth incentives: Provide councils with up to $400 million over four years through the Incentives for Growth Fund, linked to the number of homes they consent.

National also proposes independent Commerce Commission oversight of development levies. Its reform timetable envisages legislation in 2027, so the new levy system is not yet fully operational. Going for Housing Growth programme - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (Formerly Te Tūāpapa Kura KāingaNext steps confirmed for development levy reform

For transport, National has announced investment in road and rail links, including the Mill Road project in South Auckland and the Belfast-to-Pegasus and Woodend bypass projects. Its broader fiscal plan promises no new taxes and a return to surplus in 2028/29. 2026 Election PolicyElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

What this means for you: Developers would be expected to pay a more clearly calculated share of infrastructure costs. The intention is to reduce the burden on existing ratepayers and make infrastructure funding more predictable. However, developers may still pass some costs on through land or house prices.

Labour

Approach: public investment and a longer-term infrastructure funding mechanism.

Labour's 2026 policy programme includes a proposed Future Fund, with seed funding for an infrastructure and innovation fund.

Its infrastructure proposals include:

• Supporting infrastructure investment through longer-term financing.
• A $20 weekly public transport fare cap, due to begin by July 2027.
• Public transport improvements and a focus on making transport more affordable.
• A $2.9 billion capital programme for Kāinga Ora as part of its housing and social infrastructure commitments.

Labour also proposes expanding access to First Home Loans, allowing more eligible buyers to purchase with a 5% deposit. Labour's 2026 Election PoliciesElection policy tracker: what the parties are promising

What this means for you: Labour's approach places more emphasis on public investment and infrastructure funding over time. However, its published headline policies provide less specific detail about the proposed Future Fund's size, financing structure and the precise division of infrastructure costs between developers, councils and central government.

ACT

Approach: private investment, infrastructure financing and lower costs from planning reform.

ACT supports alternative infrastructure funding mechanisms and greater financial incentives for councils to enable development.

Its position includes:

• Supporting infrastructure funding and financing tools that bring forward investment.
• Supporting incentives for councils to enable housing growth.
• Requiring infrastructure projects to consider cheaper alternatives.
• Focusing the National Land Transport Fund on road infrastructure rather than a wider range of transport objectives. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026Election Policy Comparison

What this means for you: ACT's approach puts emphasis on controlling project costs, enabling development and using financing mechanisms to get infrastructure built. Its position on road funding is relevant if you think new housing should come with public transport investment as well as roads.

Green Party

Approach: greater investment in public and low-emissions transport, alongside alternative infrastructure financing.

The Greens support:

• Alternative funding and financing mechanisms for infrastructure.
• Financial incentives for councils to enable housing growth.
• Mass rapid transit in three major cities, alongside better rail and bus connections.
• More investment in walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026Election Policy Comparison

The Greens also have proposals for clean-energy investment, including community energy funding and a Crown-owned renewable energy investment entity. These are energy policies rather than direct funding for water or housing infrastructure. Election policy tracker: what the parties are promising

What this means for you: The Greens place greater emphasis on transport connections and sustainable urban development. Their published infrastructure proposals need to be examined further for the precise funding arrangements for water networks and new housing developments.

New Zealand First

Approach: a large, long-term infrastructure investment fund.

NZ First has proposed a Future Fund of up to $100 billion to finance infrastructure over multiple decades.

It also proposes:

• Requiring housing developments receiving fast-track approval to have prior approval for infrastructure such as roads and wastewater.
• A 12-month trial of commuter rail in Canterbury.
• Restoring the Southerner passenger rail service between Christchurch, Dunedin and Invercargill. Election policy tracker: what the parties are promising

What this means for you: NZ First's proposed fund is a significant long-term financing concept, but the headline $100 billion is a proposed fund size, not $100 billion of immediately available government spending. The details of its capitalisation, investment returns, governance and project selection are important unanswered questions.

The Opportunity Party (TOP) and Te Pāti Māori

These parties also have relevant positions, although their published infrastructure funding detail is less extensive in the material reviewed.

• TOP: Supports alternative infrastructure funding mechanisms, financial incentives for councils to enable growth and smarter infrastructure investment planning. It also supports stronger business cases and funding certainty for major projects. Election Policy Comparison
• Te Pāti Māori: Has proposed a $1 billion Energy Sovereignty Fund for Māori and community ownership of renewable energy. This is not a dedicated water or housing infrastructure fund. Election policy tracker: what the parties are promising

2. The biggest difference: who ultimately pays?

This is arguably the most important question for a household saving for its first home.

Funding method	How it works	Who ultimately bears the cost?
Government grants	Central government pays towards infrastructure	Taxpayers
Council rates	Councils fund infrastructure through rates	Existing and future ratepayers
Development levies	Developers contribute towards growth infrastructure	Developers initially; potentially buyers or renters
Targeted rates	New developments or beneficiaries pay additional rates	Property owners in the targeted area
Infrastructure bonds or IFF financing	Borrowing funds construction, repaid over time	Future property owners, ratepayers or users
Public-private partnerships	Private investors help finance and deliver infrastructure	Ultimately government, users or beneficiaries, depending on the contract

One important distinction: borrowing does not make infrastructure cheaper by itself. It spreads the cost over time, potentially allowing homes to be built earlier, but interest and repayment costs still have to be covered.

What is happening with water infrastructure?

Water is particularly important because it can be a major constraint on housing development.

A new subdivision may need:

• Drinking-water supply and treatment capacity.
• Wastewater pipes and treatment capacity.
• Stormwater pipes, detention facilities and flood protection.

National's proposed development levy system explicitly includes all three water services.

There is also a distinction between the two funding streams:

• The development levy reforms are designed to recover growth-related infrastructure costs from development.
• The Local Water Done Well reforms establish new arrangements for councils to deliver and finance water services.

The government's stated intention is to reduce the extent to which existing ratepayers subsidise new development. Its development levy proposals also provide for Crown agencies to pay their share when their developments create infrastructure demand. Development levies - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and TransportNext steps confirmed for development levy reformGoing for Housing Growth programme - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (Formerly Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga

The crucial issue for first-home buyers is whether those charges are predictable and proportionate. Excessively high upfront charges could discourage development or be passed on to purchasers. Charges that are too low could leave councils and existing residents carrying the shortfall.

3. What the policies could mean for your deposit

Consider two hypothetical approaches to building a new housing development.

Scenario A: Infrastructure paid for upfront

1. Developers pay large upfront contributions for roads, pipes and other services.
2. Those costs are included in their development calculations.
3. Some costs may be reflected in the selling price of the homes.
4. Buyers may need a larger deposit because the purchase price is higher.

Scenario B: Infrastructure financed over time

1. A financing arrangement funds roads and water infrastructure upfront.
2. Homes can potentially be built sooner.
3. Infrastructure costs are recovered over a longer period through levies or targeted rates.
4. Buyers may face lower upfront development costs, but could inherit ongoing charges.

Neither arrangement automatically produces cheaper houses. The important factors are the total cost of infrastructure, how efficiently it is delivered, how much competition exists between developers, and who is responsible for repayment.

For your situation, I would pay particular attention to whether parties have credible plans to:

• Increase the supply of serviced land, not just land zoned for housing.
• Make water and transport infrastructure available before or alongside new housing.
• Prevent existing ratepayers from carrying disproportionate costs.
• Avoid making development levies so high that new housing becomes uneconomic.
• Provide transport connections that reduce the need for households to own multiple cars.

4. Questions I'd ask each party before voting

The headline announcements are useful, but I'd look for answers to these five questions:

1. How much money is actually committed? Is there a specified dollar amount, or just a proposal to create a funding mechanism?
2. Where does the money come from? General taxation, borrowing, development levies, targeted rates or private investment?
3. Who pays for water infrastructure? Are developers, councils and central government each contributing a clearly defined share?
4. Will infrastructure be ready when homes are built? A housing development isn't much use if wastewater capacity or transport connections arrive years later.
5. Will the policy make buying a first home easier? Does it reduce the total cost of housing, or simply shift infrastructure costs from the purchase price to future rates and levies?

5. Where to compare the parties yourself

These are useful sources for checking the detail and holding parties to their commitments.

• Policy.nz – 2026 transport and infrastructure comparison — compare infrastructure funding, roads, public transport and planning.
• Policy.nz – 2026 housing comparison — compare housing affordability and supply.
• Property Council – 2026 election policy comparison — particularly useful for comparing parties' positions on infrastructure financing and development levies.
• Government – Going for Housing Growth — explains the existing government's infrastructure funding reforms.
• The Conversation – 2026 election policy tracker — independent overview of campaign promises.

My overall assessment of the policy differences

Without recommending a party, there are some clear distinctions worth considering:

Party	Main infrastructure funding emphasis
National	Development levies, infrastructure financing and growth incentives
Labour	Public investment and a proposed Future Fund
ACT	Alternative financing, development incentives and cost control
Greens	Public transport investment and alternative infrastructure funding
NZ First	Proposed long-term infrastructure Future Fund
TOP	Alternative financing and better infrastructure planning
Te Pāti Māori	Community and Māori energy investment, with less specific water infrastructure detail

One important qualification: a proposal to establish a fund is not the same as a fully costed commitment to build particular water or transport projects. The funding source, repayment arrangements and delivery timetable matter.

For a first-home buyer, I'd focus on the relationship between three things: the price of serviced land, the cost of building a home, and the ongoing cost of owning it. A policy that improves one while making the other two more expensive might not improve your prospects of home ownership.

And one final thought: you shouldn't have to save for a deposit against a constantly moving target because infrastructure and housing supply haven't kept pace with population growth. It's reasonable to expect parties to explain not just how many houses they want built, but how those houses will be connected, who will pay, and how quickly it will happen.