Steve Gaskell: TOP - A Fresh Political Brand, Treaty Politics and a Tax on Your Backyard.

The Opportunity Party wants to sell itself as something different from the usual crowd in Wellington. Fair enough. But have a look at its first 12 candidates and some interesting backgrounds start to emerge. Climate activism, Māori economic development, environmental restoration and Treaty issues feature in the experience of several candidates. Kayla Kingdon-Bebb was among the contributors to He Puapua, the report looking at how New Zealand could implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

That report raised some pretty big questions about Māori self-determination, governance and the future constitutional direction of the country. Jessica Hammond has worked in Māori economic development, while Eden Skipper has experience in environmental restoration and Indigenous development. Does that automatically make them radical left-wingers? No. But if a party wants our votes, it shouldn't be surprised when people take a closer look at the people standing for it and ask where they intend to take New Zealand.

TOP's Treaty policies raise questions of their own. The party opposes the Treaty Principles Bill, supports giving effect to Treaty obligations and wants a national conversation about the place of Te Tiriti in our constitutional arrangements. It also supports Māori participation in decisions concerning the Treaty relationship and greater Māori involvement in some community services. Those are its stated positions, and there is no need to pretend they amount to a plan for separate voting rights.

The real question is what they would mean in practice. Who makes the decisions? Who answers to the taxpayer when things go wrong? And how do we ensure that every publicly funded service is accountable to the public, regardless of who runs it? New Zealanders are entitled to ask whether these proposals strengthen democracy or make an already complicated system even harder to hold accountable. Asking questions about government policy isn't discrimination. It's what voters are supposed to do.

Of course, you can't judge someone entirely by their CV. Working in Māori development or environmental protection doesn't tell us everything about their personal politics. But the same courtesy shouldn't be extended to a political party's promises without a bit of scrutiny. TOP needs to spell out what its Treaty commitments would actually change, how decisions would be made, and how equal democratic representation would be protected. Fine words about fairness and partnership are easy enough to put in a policy document. The hard part is explaining how they work when legislation is written, public money is spent and somebody has to answer for the outcome.

Then we get to the land tax. This is where the conversation gets particularly interesting for homeowners and retirees. TOP proposes an annual tax on land value, with a proposed rate of 1.75% for urban land and 0.5% for rural land. It's the land that gets taxed, not the value of the house sitting on it. The argument is that taxing land rather than relying so heavily on income tax would encourage more productive use of property. That might sound tidy on paper, but let's look at what it could mean for someone who has spent 30 or 40 years paying off their home.

Take a retiree whose urban land is valued at $400,000. At TOP's proposed annual land tax rate of 1.75%, the bill would be $7,000 a year, before any exemption or deferral. That's a serious amount of money for someone living on NZ Super. The value of their property may have increased over the years, but that doesn't mean they have extra cash sitting in the bank to pay a new annual tax. A rising property valuation might look great on paper, but you can't take a chunk out of the lawn and sell it to pay the bills.

TOP has proposed deferrals for some people who are asset-rich but cash-poor, including superannuitants. That needs to be acknowledged. But putting off the bill doesn't necessarily make the problem disappear. Who qualifies? Does the amount owed accumulate, and are there interest or other costs? What happens when the owner dies, or the family eventually sells the property? How much of the sale proceeds could be eaten up by years of deferred tax? These aren't silly questions, and older homeowners deserve clear answers before anyone starts calling the policy fairer.

So TOP wants voters to consider changes to the Treaty relationship, greater Māori involvement in some public services and a new tax on the land beneath their homes. Voters can support environmental protection, better public services and a fairer tax system without signing a blank cheque for the whole package. Explain the details. Show us how accountability will work. Tell retirees exactly what happens to their tax bill. And don't expect people to accept a policy simply because it's wrapped in the language of fairness and progress.

A new party logo might look good on a billboard, but it won't pay a retiree's bills. Before New Zealanders buy what TOP is selling, they deserve to know exactly what it will cost them and what they're getting in return.

Steven is an entrepreneur and an ex RNZN diver who likes travelling, renovating houses, Swiss Watches, history, chocolate art and art deco.