This term, issue by issue · Defence, foreign affairs and trade
Defence and trade: only current settings and National have funded answers; Opportunity is silent
Only current settings (the funded 2% defence path) and National's trade diversification build toward a riskier world, and neither says whether 2% is enough if allies move to 3%.
What is at stake now and by 2050
This term
The United States is pressing allies to spend more on defence and tariffs are rising, so a small trading economy is exposed on both fronts. The current plan lifts defence to 2% of GDP by 2032, and exports are now about $114b a year.
Number to know
Defence spending to reach 2% of GDP by 2032 under the Defence Capability Plan, which adds $9b of new funding over four years.
Source: Ministry of Defence, Defence Capability Plan released
By 2050
Larger neighbours are spending more: Australia aims for 3% of GDP on a NATO-style measure (about 2.3% on its usual budget measure), and the US says 2% is 'not enough', so the 2% plan may not be the ceiling. To 2050 the questions are which alliances New Zealand keeps, how much of the Pacific's security and climate costs it carries, and how widely it spreads its export markets.
Number to know
The US says 2% of GDP on defence is 'not enough'; Australia aims for 3% by 2033 on a NATO-style measure, about 2.3% on its usual budget measure.
Source: 1News, US 'freeloading' claim puts heat on NZ's independent foreign policy
Current settings
The Defence Capability Plan lifts defence spending to 2% of GDP by 2032. New Zealand stays in Five Eyes but is not in AUKUS Pillar II. It pursues new free trade agreements and focuses its aid on the Pacific.
The options on the table
| Option | Backed by |
|---|---|
| Diversify export markets with new trade deals and a doubling target |
|
| Cut foreign aid to fund domestic priorities |
|
| Raise aid towards 0.7% of GDP and restore Pacific climate finance |
|
| Recognise Palestine and sanction Israel |
|
| Leave Five Eyes, stay out of AUKUS, or declare military neutrality |
|
| Trade protection for local industry |
|
Where each party stands
Voter priorities out of 15 (the four core tests plus relief this term) and Readiness to 2050 out of 21 (the four core tests plus the three long-run tests). Current settings come first, as the bar to beat. Open a party for every test score, the rationale and the sources.
Current settings
- Voter priorities
- 9/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 14/21
Test scores, rationale and sources for Current settings
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 2 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 2 Readiness to 2050 Durability 3 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
The Defence Capability Plan sets a funded path to 2% of GDP by 2032, and trade and alliance settings have cross-bloc support; the government has not said what it will forgo to pay for it, or whether 2% is enough.
Relief this term
The Defence Capability Plan adds $9b over four years, but the capability builds toward 2% of GDP by 2032; trade deals continue case by case, with no new answer to tariffs this term.
Sources
National
- Voter priorities
- 10/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 15/21
Double exports by 2034 through new trade deals, and cut aid outside the Pacific to fund medicines.
- Double export earnings by 2034; at least 23 trade missions next term
- Start trade talks with Brazil, Switzerland, Argentina, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Uruguay and EFTA within five years
- Cut non-Pacific aid by 10% ($431m over four years) to fund Pharmac
- Trial passport-free digital trans-Tasman travel before the 2028 Cricket World Cup; ratify the High Seas Treaty
Test scores, rationale and sources for National
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 2 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 3 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 2 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 2 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Names market concentration as the trade risk and sets a measurable target (double exports by 2034, 13 named partners), with the aid cut costed in its fiscal plan and a delivery record in government; it names who pays (non-Pacific aid, $431m), but Labour and the Greens would reverse the aid cut, and it adds no defence position beyond current settings.
Relief this term
Export doubling targets 2034 and new trade talks start within five years, so gains mostly land after 2029; the trade missions and a trans-Tasman travel trial before the 2028 Cricket World Cup are narrow. The aid cut's relief falls in health, not here.
Sources
Labour
- Voter priorities
- 5/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 8/21
An 'independent voice' foreign policy: more aid, new markets, recognise Palestine; no stated defence position.
- Raise aid progressively to 0.7% of GDP 'as fiscal limitations allow' (no date)
- Trade deals with Africa and South America; prioritise ASEAN, the EU and Canada
- Recognise Palestine, sanction Israel, divest ACC and NZ Super Fund from occupied territories
- Pacific climate and displacement agreement; visa-waiver travel for Pacific Islands Forum citizens
Test scores, rationale and sources for Labour
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 0 Both scores Delivery 1 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Names a less stable world and strained alliances, but answers with intent: aid to 0.7% of GDP has no date or cost and is not in its fiscal plan. It has no defence position, and its stance relies on a speech (tier 3) and one release.
Relief this term
Aid to 0.7% of GDP has no date, new trade deals with Africa and South America would land after the term, and Pacific visa-waiver travel helps a narrow group; no defence position.
Sources
Greens
- Voter priorities
- 5/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 7/21
Step away from US-led security ties and put climate, human rights and the Pacific at the centre.
- Withdraw from Five Eyes; stay out of AUKUS; refocus the Defence Force on climate, humanitarian work and monitoring
- No autonomous weapons, and support an international ban
- Restore and raise Pacific climate finance
- Recognise Palestine and pass the party's bill to sanction Israel; enforceable Te Tiriti, labour and climate clauses in trade deals
Test scores, rationale and sources for Greens
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 2 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 0 Both scores Delivery 1 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Names climate as the Pacific's main security threat, but the case that leaving Five Eyes improves security is asserted; Pacific climate finance is uncosted and outside its tax package, and Labour does not back leaving Five Eyes.
Relief this term
Leaving Five Eyes and refocusing the Defence Force are structural and untimed; restored Pacific climate finance helps a narrow group, and nothing addresses tariff exposure this term.
Sources
ACT
- Voter priorities
- 7/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 11/21
Cut foreign aid back to 2017 levels to help balance the books.
- Cut aid to 2017 levels, saving about $283m a year (about 28%), excluding Ukraine
- Protect defence from spending cuts (fiscal plan)
Test scores, rationale and sources for ACT
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 1 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 2 Both scores Delivery 2 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 2 Readiness to 2050 Candour 2 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
The aid cut is framed as a fiscal saving, not a foreign-policy answer, but it is costed in its fiscal plan ($283m a year) and names who pays; National backs a smaller cut. ACT says little on trade or alliances.
Relief this term
Protecting defence from cuts keeps the $9b Defence Capability Plan, the same in-term effect as the status quo; the aid cut is a fiscal saving and nothing lands on trade exposure.
Sources
NZ First
- Voter priorities
- 4/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 6/21
Protect domestic industry and national sovereignty in trade and international agreements.
- Reverse the decision not to seek trade protection for NZ-made aluminium
- National interest test for UN agreements (as summarised in this report; party source to confirm)
Test scores, rationale and sources for NZ First
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 1 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 0 Both scores Delivery 1 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Aluminium protection treats job losses as the problem without weighing retaliation or consumer costs; it is uncosted and names no losers.
Relief this term
Reversing the decision on trade protection for NZ-made aluminium would apply immediately but helps a small group; the national interest test for UN agreements is a process change.
Sources
Te Pāti Māori
- Voter priorities
- 4/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 6/21
Declare military neutrality and refocus foreign policy on the Pacific and Indigenous solidarity.
- Declare New Zealand 'militarily neutral' and review all military alliances
- Focus the Defence Force on protection, disaster response and the Pacific
- Fund a national action plan to implement UNDRIP
- Hold international war criminals to account
Test scores, rationale and sources for Te Pāti Māori
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 1 Both scores Mechanism 1 Both scores Funding 0 Both scores Delivery 1 Both scores Relief 1 Voter priorities Future effect 1 Readiness to 2050 Durability 1 Readiness to 2050 Candour 1 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Asserts that alliances with powerful states are the risk and proposes neutrality with no legal path, cost or assessment of the security trade-off; no likely partner backs it.
Relief this term
Declaring military neutrality and reviewing all alliances is a review with no timeline or legal path; nothing on trade.
Sources
Opportunity
- Voter priorities
- 0/15
- Readiness to 2050
- 0/21
Silent: nothing on record by 19 October 2026.
No stated position on defence, foreign affairs or trade.
Test scores, rationale and sources for Opportunity
Test Score /3 Counts towards Diagnosis 0 Both scores Mechanism 0 Both scores Funding 0 Both scores Delivery 0 Both scores Relief 0 Voter priorities Future effect 0 Readiness to 2050 Durability 0 Readiness to 2050 Candour 0 Readiness to 2050 Rationale
Silent: no policy on defence, foreign affairs, aid or trade found in party documents or on Policy.nz to 19 October.
Relief this term
Silent: no policy on defence, foreign affairs or trade to 19 October 2026.
Sources
Place yourself
Agreeing sometimes means change and sometimes keeping current settings. Take the quiz to compare across every issue.
| Statement | National | Labour | Greens | ACT | NZ First | Te Pāti Māori | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stay in Five Eyes. New Zealand should stay in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. | No stated position | No stated position | Disagrees | No stated position | No stated position | Mixed | No stated position |
| Cut foreign aid. New Zealand's foreign aid budget should be cut. | Agrees | Disagrees | Disagrees | Agrees | No stated position | No stated position | No stated position |
| Recognise Palestine. New Zealand should formally recognise the state of Palestine. | No stated position | Agrees | Agrees | No stated position | No stated position | No stated position | No stated position |
| New trade deals. New Zealand should keep pursuing free trade deals with new markets such as Brazil and African countries. | Agrees | Agrees | Mixed | No stated position | No stated position | No stated position | No stated position |
✓ Agrees, ○ Mixed, ✗ Disagrees, · No stated position. Silence is a finding.
Why each statement matters
Stay in Five Eyes New Zealand should stay in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
- What it means
- Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing alliance between New Zealand, Australia, the US, the UK and Canada. Agreeing keeps membership; disagreeing means leaving it.
- The case for
- It gives a small country intelligence and security support it could never build alone.
- The case against
- It ties New Zealand to larger powers' priorities and can limit an independent foreign policy.
- The trade-off
- Close security ties versus more independence in an uncertain world.
Cut foreign aid New Zealand's foreign aid budget should be cut.
- What it means
- New Zealand's aid goes mostly to the Pacific. Proposals range from cutting non-Pacific aid 10% to returning to 2017 levels (about 28% less); others would raise aid towards 0.7% of GDP.
- The case for
- The savings (about $283m a year in one proposal) could fund needs at home, such as medicines.
- The case against
- Aid is New Zealand's main tool of influence in the Pacific; cuts could weaken ties with neighbours.
- The trade-off
- Money for domestic needs versus influence in the region.
Recognise Palestine New Zealand should formally recognise the state of Palestine.
- What it means
- Recognising Palestine means formally accepting it as a state. New Zealand has not done so; most UN members have.
- The case for
- It brings New Zealand into line with most UN members and backs Palestinians' right to their own state.
- The case against
- Recognition is better kept as part of a future peace deal, where it can help secure agreement.
- The trade-off
- Taking a clear stand now versus holding recognition for a peace settlement.
New trade deals New Zealand should keep pursuing free trade deals with new markets such as Brazil and African countries.
- What it means
- New Zealand already pursues new free trade deals. This would keep seeking deals with new markets such as Brazil and African countries, beyond main partners China, Australia and the US.
- The case for
- Spreading exports beyond China, Australia and the US reduces exposure to one market's tariffs.
- The case against
- New deals expose local firms to more competition and may not protect workers, the environment or Te Tiriti.
- The trade-off
- Wider markets for exporters versus pressure on some local industries.
The 2050 test
Only current settings (the funded 2% defence path) and National's trade diversification build toward a riskier world, and neither says whether 2% is enough if allies move to 3%. Labour's aid ambition and the Greens' and Te Pāti Māori's moves away from current alliances are unfunded or have no delivery path, while ACT's and National's aid cuts save money now at some cost to Pacific influence. No party states a defence spending figure for after 2032, prices an AUKUS Pillar II decision, or plans for a long US tariff shock.
| Party | Effect to 2050 | The policy that drives it | Would it last? |
|---|---|---|---|
| National | Builds | Double exports by 2034 through 13 new trade deals. More markets reduce exposure to any one partner's tariffs or sanctions. Source | Yes |
| Labour | Neutral | Aid to 0.7% of GDP; new markets; Pacific climate agreement. Builds Pacific ties in intent, but with no cost, date or defence position the net effect is unclear. Source | Partly |
| Greens | Neutral | Leave Five Eyes; Pacific climate finance. More Pacific climate finance helps resilience, but leaving Five Eyes cuts intelligence access, so the net effect is unclear. Source | No |
| ACT | Neutral | Aid back to 2017 levels; protect defence from cuts. Saves $283m a year while holding defence, at some cost to soft power outside the Pacific. Source | Partly |
| NZ First | Neutral | Trade protection for aluminium. Protects one smelter-linked industry but invites retaliation against a trade-dependent economy. Source | No |
| Te Pāti Māori | Neutral | Military neutrality and alliance review. Lowers involvement in great-power conflict but removes partner support, with no plan for self-reliance or its cost. Source | No |
| Opportunity | Neutral | None stated. Silent on the grouping, so it neither builds nor borrows here. Source | No |
All sources for this grouping are listed on the sources page.