The Green Party launched its plan for the 2026 election at a meeting in south Auckland over the weekend. The big idea: new taxes on wealth and inheritance, plus a higher tax rate for high earners.

Co-leader Marama Davidson told party members the Greens want to tax the "super-rich" and crack down on "corporate greed" to put more money into public services. Co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick gave a speech calling the policies "evidence-based". Members at the meeting showed strong support for taxing wealth. RNZ

Here is what the plan includes: no income tax on the first $10,000 you earn, a higher tax rate on income over $160,000, new taxes on companies, a wealth tax, and an inheritance tax. A wealth tax means the very wealthiest people pay tax on what they own — their assets — not just what they earn. An inheritance tax means tax is paid on money and property passed on when someone dies. New Zealand currently has neither of these taxes. RNZ

Swarbrick compared the plan to the 1930s and 1940s, when New Zealand built its public healthcare, education, and housing systems. Those were funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. She said the Greens' plan follows that same tradition. RNZ

Finance Minister Nicola Willis pushed back quickly. She said a wealth tax would make wealthy people take their money out of New Zealand. "If you impose a wealth tax, you're kicking wealth out the door," she told reporters. Willis pointed to a Treasury paper that found higher wealth taxes lead to money going overseas or being hidden through rearranging assets. RNZ

This sets up a clear divide for the 2026 election. The Greens say taxing wealth is about fairness and paying for public services. The government says it would actually lose money because wealthy people would move it offshore. Both sides have now made their case in public.

The party published speeches from the meeting on its website. greens.org.nz The south Auckland venue and the enthusiasm from members show the Greens plan to campaign hard on redistributing wealth, rather than softening their policies to win over middle-ground voters.

The detail matters because it would change the tax system significantly. The tax-free threshold below $10,000 and the higher rate above $160,000 would change income tax at both the bottom and the top. The wealth and inheritance taxes would bring in charges that New Zealand does not currently collect at all. The corporate tax part adds a further cost for businesses.

The broader context is how the government is fighting back. Willis is not arguing about whether taxing wealth is fair or unfair. Instead, she is making a practical argument: Treasury says wealthy people find ways around wealth taxes, so the Greens' numbers for funding public services may not stack up. Whether that argument works with voters is a separate question.

Swarbrick's "evidence-based" label is a direct response, saying the Greens have done the policy work. Her comparison to the 1930s–40s welfare state is also a strategic move, linking the Greens' plan to a well-known part of New Zealand history rather than presenting it as something new or radical. Whether voters buy that comparison will shape how the policy lands.

The Greens have chosen their ground for 2026. They want to tax concentrated wealth more heavily, and they are not backing down from that. Willis has signalled the government will use Treasury's analysis to fight the plan. The tax debate is now set up clearly for the next election.