# 2026 Party Position Matrix — Aged Residential Care | Field | Detail | | ------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Type** | Party position matrix — aged residential care (ARC) funding, quality, and workforce | | **Status** | Final (data from party profiles as at June 2026) | | **Date** | June 2026 | | **Classification** | Neutral business/campaign intelligence | --- ## Summary This matrix maps the positions of **all six parties currently represented in Parliament** on key issues relating to **aged residential care (ARC) funding, bed supply, workforce, quality regulation, and equity of access**. The data is extracted from party profiles, issue briefs, and portfolio profiles in this Knowledge Base. **Context:** The ARC sector faces a growing funding crisis. The Sapere review warns of a 12,000-bed shortage by 2032. The NZIER equity analysis confirms the funding model has not been meaningfully revised since 2000. NZ First has called for 2,000 new beds and a Select Committee inquiry. National, under Health Minister Dr Simeon Brown, has acknowledged the issue but taken limited action. Workforce shortages compound the problem across all care settings. --- ## Matrix | Issue | National | Labour | ACT | NZ First | Greens | Te Pāti Māori | Evidence Quality | Notes | | ---------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **ARC funding model reform** | Incremental adjustments to contract rates; comprehensive reform not a priority. Health Minister Brown acknowledges pressure but limited corrective action taken. | Support comprehensive funding model reform; increase public funding; higher staffing ratios. Shadow Health (Ayesha Verrall) has made aged care a focus. | Cautious on increased state spending; favours market-based solutions and reducing regulatory burden on providers. | **Strongest advocate in government** — called for 2,000 new beds and a Select Committee inquiry into aged care sustainability. Minister Costello coordinating. | Support transition to publicly funded, not-for-profit aged care model. Oppose for-profit provision. | Iwi-led, culturally appropriate kaumātua care models; critical of mainstream underfunding. | ✅ **Confirmed** — NZ First position from coalition agreement and party profile; others from party profiles | Funding model not revised since 2000 per NZIER; 12,000-bed gap projected by 2032 per Sapere review | | **Bed construction targets** | No specific ARC bed target; general health infrastructure investment. | Would increase public bed capacity but no specific number given. | No specific bed target; market should determine supply. | **2,000 new beds committed** — signature seniors policy. Budget bids prepared. | Support increased public/not-for-profit bed supply; no specific target. | Support increased kaumātua-focused care beds in iwi-led facilities. | ✅ **NZ First confirmed** — party profile and coalition agreement; others unconfirmed | NZ First's 2,000-bed commitment is the only specific target from any party | | **Workforce / immigration for ARC** | Acknowledge workforce shortages; health workforce plan underway; aged care workforce strategy component. Immigration settings for aged care workers largely status quo. | Increased public funding for workforce; better pay and conditions to attract staff; training investment. | Reduce regulatory barriers to workforce participation; market-led solutions to staffing. Immigration settings should be flexible. | Aged-care bed investment plan includes workforce component; support for better pay and conditions. Minister Costello coordinating aged care workforce. | Support increased funding for aged care workforce; transition to public/not-for-profit employment model. | Support Māori workforce development in aged care; culturally appropriate caregiver training. | 🟡 **General commitments across all parties** — limited specific workforce/immigration policy for ARC | Aged care workforce shortages are acknowledged across the political spectrum | | **Dementia care funding** | Dementia strategy refresh in progress; Pharmac funding for dementia medications; no specific dementia care funding commitment identified. | Support increased dementia care investment; dementia strategy funding. | Market-based solutions for dementia care; no specific funding commitment. | Support dementia care as part of aged-care bed investment plan. | **Dementia strategy is a manifesto commitment** — increased funding for research, support, and care. | Support culturally appropriate dementia care for Māori; kaumātua-centred approaches. | 🟡 **Greens most specific** — manifesto commitment on dementia strategy; others inferred from general health positions | Growing dementia prevalence drives need; cross-party consensus on importance | | **Residential care subsidy rates** | Current indexation maintained; periodic adjustments. Minister Upston (Social Development) responsible for RCS settings. | Support increased subsidy rates to reflect real care costs. | Support means-testing or targeting of subsidies; reduce overall government spend. | Support increased investment; protect and enhance subsidy settings. | Support increased public funding to ensure adequate subsidy levels. | Support equitable subsidy access for Māori; culturally appropriate care funding. | 🟡 **Limited specific policy** — general positions inferred | RCS asset limit: $291,825 (single); personal allowance: $56.58/week | | **Asset testing thresholds** | Maintain current thresholds ($291,825 single); no change signalled. | May adjust thresholds upward to protect more assets; no specific commitment. | Support clearer asset testing but potentially stricter means-testing overall. | No specific position on thresholds but generally protective of seniors' assets. | Would likely increase thresholds; oppose punitive asset testing. | Support review for equitable treatment of Māori asset holdings (collective/whānau assets). | ⚠️ **Limited detail across all parties** — position inferred from general approach | RCS asset test currently $291,825 single, $578,858 couple (joint) | | **Psychogeriatric bed supply** | No specific psychogeriatric bed target; mental health funding through Associate Health (Doocey). | Would increase mental health service funding including specialist older people's beds. | Market-based; no specific commitment. | Mental health and aged care bed investment likely to include psychogeriatric component. | Support increased specialist mental health beds for older people. | Support culturally appropriate mental health care for kaumātua. | ⚠️ **No party has specific psychogeriatric bed commitment** — inferred from health positions | Psychogeriatric bed shortage is a known gap; limited specific policy attention | | **Aged Care Commissioner role** | No specific position on establishing a dedicated commissioner; current HDC model covers aged care complaints. | Likely to support a dedicated Aged Care Commissioner or strengthened oversight. | Oppose new regulatory roles; existing complaints mechanisms sufficient. | May support stronger oversight — NZ First favours stronger resident protections generally. | **Support independent Aged Care Commissioner** — part of stronger consumer protection platform. | Support Māori representation in any oversight body. | 🟡 **Greens most supportive** — others inferred from general positions | HDC currently handles aged care complaints; no dedicated commissioner exists | | **Quality regulation (certification, audits)** | Health NZ manages certification and auditing; current framework seen as adequate with incremental improvement. | Support stronger quality regulation; higher staffing ratios; more frequent audits. | Reduce regulatory burden; industry-led quality assurance preferred. | Support quality improvements as part of aged-care bed investment plan. | Support stronger public oversight; transition to not-for-profit quality model. | Support cultural audit standards for Māori providers; Māori quality measures. | 🟡 **Limited specific policy across parties** — general positions only | Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act 2001 governs certification | | **Rural ARC access** | General infrastructure investment; no specific rural ARC commitment identified. | Would prioritise rural health funding including aged care. | Market-based solutions; reduce barriers to rural service provision. | **Strong rural/provincial focus** — NZ First core demographic is rural seniors. Specific attention to rural ARC access. | Support equitable rural health access; public funding model. | Support rural Māori communities' access to kaumātua care. | ✅ **NZ First confirmed** — rural/provincial focus is party differentiator; others general | Rural ARC shortages are well-documented; NZ First strongest advocate | | **Māori / Pacific ARC access** | General equity approach; no specific Māori/Pacific ARC policy identified. | Support health equity; culturally appropriate services. No specific ARC target. | General equity of access; no specific Māori/Pacific policy. | Support equitable access as part of overall aged care investment. | Commitment to Māori health equity; culturally appropriate aged care. | **Strongest advocate** — iwi-led, culturally appropriate kaumātua care models; Māori health equity is core policy. | ✅ **Te Pāti Māori confirmed** — core policy; others general | Māori under-represented in ARC; life expectancy gap ~7 years | | **Dementia training requirements** | No specific mandatory training requirement identified; workforce training generally supported. | Would likely support mandatory dementia training for aged care workers. | Oppose new mandated training requirements — market should determine skill levels. | May support training requirements as part of aged-care investment plan. | Support mandatory dementia training in not-for-profit model. | Support culturally specific dementia training for Māori caregivers. | ⚠️ **Limited specific policy across all parties** | Dementia training is currently not mandatory for all aged care workers | | **Rest home audit transparency** | Current audit process; limited public transparency of detailed audit reports. | Would support increased transparency of audit results. | Oppose additional disclosure requirements. | May support greater transparency as part of resident protection focus. | Support full public transparency of audit reports. | Support transparent reporting with cultural safety indicators. | ⚠️ **Limited specific policy** — inferred from general transparency positions | Audit reports exist but are not always easily accessible to the public | | **Provider profit regulation** | Mixed public/private model acceptable; no profit regulation. | Would increase public funding and potentially regulate provider margins. | Oppose any profit regulation — market freedom essential. | Generally supports mixed model; focus on bed investment rather than provider profit regulation. | **Support transition to not-for-profit/public model** — opposed to for-profit aged care. | Support iwi/community-led not-for-profit models. | ✅ **Greens confirmed** — manifesto commitment to not-for-profit model; others inferred | Greens are the only party explicitly opposing for-profit aged care | --- ## Key Insights | Insight | Detail | | ---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Strongest ARC advocate in government** | NZ First — 2,000-bed commitment, Select Committee inquiry, Minister Costello coordinating | | **Most cautious on state spending** | ACT — favours market-based solutions, wary of increased regulatory burden | | **Most transformational position** | Greens — transition to publicly funded, not-for-profit model would restructure sector | | **Māori-focused alternative** | Te Pāti Māori — iwi-led, culturally appropriate care as alternative to mainstream ARC | | **Limited specific policy** | Most parties have general commitments rather than detailed funding plans | | **Cross-party agreement** | All parties acknowledge underfunding and workforce shortages — disagreement on solutions | | **Election 2026 battleground** | Health funding and aged care will be major campaign issues | | **Workforce crisis** | No party has a fully developed workforce plan for aged care | --- ## Coalition Dynamics on ARC ``` NZ First (bed investment) <——> National (incremental) <——> ACT (market solutions) | Labour / Greens (public funding model) | Te Pāti Māori (iwi-led model) ``` | Factor | Impact | | ----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **NZ First leverage** | Holds Associate Health (Aged Care) portfolio; 2,000-bed commitment is test of influence | | **Budget constraint** | Finance Minister Willis controls funding; aged care competes with other health priorities | | **National's position** | Dr Simeon Brown acknowledges problem but has not made major funding commitment | | **ACT's influence** | Can slow regulatory increases; favours private sector solutions | | **Opposition pressure** | Labour and Greens will campaign on increased health and aged care funding | | **Election pressure** | All parties will use aged care as a campaign issue in 2026 | --- ## Evidence Quality Scale | Symbol | Meaning | | ----------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | ✅ **Confirmed** | Official party policy, manifesto commitment, coalition agreement text, or direct statement | | 🟡 **Inferred** | Clear from party platform, stated positions, or consistent with ideology | | ⚠️ **Unverified** | Not in current party profile — position inferred from general approach | --- ## Sources | Source | Location | | ------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | National Party profile | `02_Political_Parties/2026 Party Profile - National.md` | | Labour Party profile | `02_Political_Parties/2026 Party Profile - Labour.md` | | ACT Party profile | `02_Political_Parties/2026 Party Profile - ACT.md` | | NZ First Party profile | `02_Political_Parties/2026 Party Profile - NZ First.md` | | Green Party profile | `02_Political_Parties/2026 Party Profile - Green Party.md` | | Te Pāti Māori profile | `02_Political_Parties/2026 Party Profile - Te Pati Maori.md` | | Issue Brief — Aged Residential Care Funding | `11_Issue_Briefs_for_Campaigning/2026 Issue Brief - Aged Residential Care Funding and Political Risk.md` | | Health Portfolio Profile | `04_Ministers_and_Portfolios/2026 Portfolio Profile - Health.md` | | Seniors Portfolio Profile | `04_Ministers_and_Portfolios/2026 Portfolio Profile - Seniors.md` | | Social Development Portfolio Profile | `04_Ministers_and_Portfolios/2026 Portfolio Profile - Social Development and Employment.md` | | Finance Portfolio Profile | `04_Ministers_and_Portfolios/2026 Portfolio Profile - Finance.md` | | Campaign Relevance Map | `00_CAMPAIGN_RELEVANCE_MAP.md` | --- _Part of the NZ Seniors Knowledge Base — Political & Campaign Intelligence layer_ _Last updated: June 2026_