Opportunity’s positioning not new, but it has a radical idea

Saturday, 4 July 2026

Opportunity leader Qiulae Wong. A new poll suggests the party is close to the 5% Parliament threshold.

Ben Thomas is a regular opinion contributor. He is a public relations consultant and political commentator who has worked for the National Party.

OPINION: Opportunity (formerly The Opportunities Party) has often reflected not so much the spirit of the times as the online zeitgeist. Under eccentric founder Gareth Morgan in 2017, it was the Twitter party: wonkish, smarter-than-thou, and thirsty for debate that inevitably spilled into personal abuse.

New leader Qiulae Wong’s biography describes her as a mother, and an impact- business leader, and clicks through to her LinkedIn profile. After the party’s shock 4.6% result in the TVNZ-Verian poll, she may update it to include: “disruptor”.

While the party says it is “standing up for a different kind of politics”, there is nothing new about Opportunity’s positioning as neither-left-nor-right, although it is getting better cut-through from the altogether sunnier and more relatable Wong than the sequence of capable but somewhat off-putting economists who preceded her.

In a recent social media clip on compulsory KiwiSaver (which Opportunity supports), Wong summed up the pitch: “making sure that political disagreements and ideology don’t get in the way of a good idea.”

That canard has proved reliably fertile ground for student politicians, mayors and, very often, parliamentary parties in obstinately common-sense-centrist Aotearoa.

However, it could be said there has never been a worse time than 2026 to run the line of amiable, common-sense positivity. We’re more than a decade into the global Trump era, and the New Zealand Parliament has rarely seemed more partisan, recriminatory, and ossified into self-conscious, warring, left and right blocs.

But on the other hand, Opportunity now finds itself standing alone on the previously fertile ground of the centrist affect. If hope and positivity and rising above politics is not where the majority of the country is right now, then they might just be worth 5%.

In past elections TOP predominantly drew voters from the centre-left, especially the Greens. It’s easy to see Wong as the natural heir to another consultant-turned-politician who pursued progressive goals across the aisle, James Shaw.

Opportunity would broadly seem to slot more easily into a centre-left government in the current Parliament.

Former Greens co-leader James Shaw. Ben Thomas says it’s easy to see Qiulae Wong as his natural heir.

Or rather, it’s harder to see it fitting in alongside New Zealand First and ACT – Opportunity’s powerpoint-liberalism would mostly gel just fine with the National Party Christopher Luxon probably thought he would lead in the heady days of 2021.

But it suggests Opportunity could potentially free votes from the coalition bloc, those who can’t bring themselves to forgive Labour but are turned off by National’s abandonment of the centre in favour of its partners, or Blue Greens queasy about some of the coalition’s priorities in the environment.

The Government seems to have woken up to this danger, coinciding by chance or otherwise with the TVNZ poll: after a year spent defending its right flank from its coalition partners, National has tacked to the centre, backtracking on Fisheries Act changes and amendments that would have allowed the divestment of conservation land.

Parliament’s left bloc seems similarly alarmed about a threat to its votes. Supporters on both sides have kvetched about what they see as the outsize media profile Opportunity has enjoyed.

Media do get enthusiastic about parties that could potentially break into Parliament: see the Conservatives, see the Internet Party.

But you have to take the opportunities (or Opportunity). Wong and general manager Iain Lees-Galloway have parlayed that coverage into a place in the conversation and, seemingly, a non-trivial bump in public support.

Its messaging is clear and direct. The party doesn’t finesse its online calculator for its “tax reset”, its key economic policy which would create a universal basic income (similar to a negative income tax), simplify income tax rates, and fund that with a tax on the value of residential land.

Middle income earners in modest homes would tend to be better off; those with expensive standalone houses would often pay significantly more.

This is where the party is not centrist at all, in the sense of meeting halfway between the National and Labour policies. Its prescription for economic reform is in this sense radical.

(Other policies, such as its innovation policy launched this week around research and development tax credits, forgiving student loan interest for New Zealand graduates returning from three-year OEs, and its pro-environment policies, are significant but more mainstream.)

The land tax is a radical idea, though, that used to be perennially suggested by the government Treasury in order to broaden the tax base to ensure sustainability (land is harder to hide or structure away than money) and encourage productive investment than an over-reliance on unproductive residential property.

Treasury stopped suggesting the land tax around a decade ago, during which time the problems it warned about (an insufficient tax base, low productivity and wasted investment in over-valued property) have got much worse.

A week after the TVNZ poll, the Public Service Commission released a somewhat withering report on Treasury’s current capability to provide advice to government.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis said she agreed the traditional economic brains-trust was not bringing “enough big ideas” to the table for New Zealand’s economic growth. There’s a long way to go, but if Opportunity has its way there may be some big ideas back on the table after November 7.