ACT promises to scrap cap on tax breaks for charity donations

ACT would scrap the cap on charitable donations that qualify for tax breaks, leader David Seymour says.

Seymour, the MP for Epsom, announced the policy on 6 October as a preview of the party's fiscal plan due on Sunday, RNZ reported. He leads ACT with Deputy Leader Nicole McKee, according to the party's website ACT.

The tax break works like a partial refund from the Government for money given to charity. At present only donations up to a set limit attract that help. Seymour said the tax system should encourage giving rather than set an arbitrary ceiling on it. He said if New Zealanders want to give $1 million, $10 million or more to cancer care, medical research or other causes, the tax system should encourage that generosity.

He linked the change directly to ACT's plan for New Zealand's first Comprehensive Cancer Centre. He said the centre would be delivered by partnering with philanthropists, families, businesses, charitable trusts, community organisations and successful Kiwis.

He cited Wellington's new children's hospital as the model. He said its opening would not have been possible without the backing of Sir Mark Dunajtschik and Dame Dorothy Spotswood.

Seymour said the wider fiscal plan would remove locks on New Zealand's potential and get rid of waste preventing economic growth. The detail is still to come. The donations announcement was presented as an early signal of that direction.

The announcement sits inside a busy campaign feed. ACT's website lists three recent news items attributed to Seymour: "Greens “for all of us”, yeah right" dated 7 Oct 2026, "Hipkins puts unions ahead of thousands of students" dated 6 Oct 2026, and "See how much you’d save with ACT’s KiwiSaver calculator" dated 6 Oct 2026 ACT.

The broader context here is sequencing. Releasing one part of a fiscal plan early is a familiar campaign tactic. It secures first coverage of the policy detail and leaves a second round for the full document on Sunday. It also lets the party test its lines and stakeholder reaction before the full numbers land.

Looking at what this means for the policy debate, the choice of vehicle matters. Seymour has not presented the donations change as a standalone tax detail. He has tied it to a major health building project and to a named example of philanthropy. That presents a loss of tax revenue as a way to deliver health services. Other parties will assess it on that basis, as a question of how health buildings should be paid for and whose giving the tax system should reward.

In my view, operatives will also note the audience. A general lift to the donations incentive speaks more to boards, trusts and high-capacity donors than to weekly payroll givers. The political calculation appears to be that unlocking larger gifts can be presented as expanding what is possible in cancer care and medical research, without committing Crown money up front. Whether rival parties accept that trade, and how Treasury and Inland Revenue cost the foregone revenue once the fiscal plan appears, will shape where this sits in the wider fiscal argument.