Independent public-opinion data2026 election cycle / Public beta
CAMPAIGN GUIDE · NEW ZEALAND 2026

Compare the parties.

See the proposals, follow the funding and read the evidence.

7 parties67 selected policy summariesChecked

Proposals and forecasts are party claims. Our checks trace the sources and arithmetic; coalition agreements may change delivery.

Reset
START WITH AN ISSUE

See the choices together.

All reviewed issues

Selected proposals across the reviewed issues.

11 summaries · 1 party

National

11 summaries
Living costs & tax

No new taxes and a specific visitor-levy freeze

Commit to no new taxes and freeze the visitor levy for at least three years. Existing taxes and levies are a separate question.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • The visitor levy has a defined three-year freeze and a published council-allocation formula, making that particular commitment measurable.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • No new taxes does not stop bills rising under existing rules. The fiscal paper acknowledges bracket creep and leaves income-tax relief conditional.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Open questions
  • Which existing taxes, levies and fees could still rise, and when would any funded income-tax relief begin?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National says it would introduce no new taxes if re-elected. This is not an explicit blanket freeze on existing taxes or levies. It separately promises no increase in the International Visitor Levy for at least three years.

Who it covers
Taxpayers generally. The specific levy commitment covers overseas visitors who pay the International Visitor Levy.
Timing
The proposed next term of government; the visitor-levy freeze is for at least three years.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The visitor-levy reset starts 1 July 2027; its $105.1m net operating effect over 2027/28–2030/31 is included in the new fiscal schedule. The 12 October plan does not allocate a costed income-tax cut or an indexation timetable; it leaves future relief conditional on growing surpluses.

The fiscal paper explicitly acknowledges bracket creep as wages and prices rise. The visitor-levy freeze is not a guarantee about every existing tax, levy, fee or charge. Extra receipts from existing tax rules are not the same as a new tax rate.

Sources reviewed
National: no-new-taxes commitment Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: visitor-levy commitment Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: full visitor-levy reset paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: new fiscal plan Policy paper · Published
Health

More Pharmac funding and earlier screening

Add $604m to Pharmac over four financial years and deliver earlier screening, with some screening commitments already funded.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Sets screening deadlines and multi-year Pharmac funding, while the papers distinguish new spending from screening services already funded.Evidence 1Evidence 2Evidence 3
Trade-offs & risks
  • Partly financed by a $431.2m aid reduction over four years, leaving less funding for overseas assistance outside the Pacific.Evidence 1Evidence 2Evidence 3
Open questions
  • What capacity supports earlier screening, and how does the narrative's further $45.6m MFAT saving relate to the tables?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National proposes an additional $604 million for Pharmac over four financial years, more clinical trials and earlier cancer screening. It would lower bowel screening to age 50 and extend breast screening to age 74 by 2029, with free cervical screening from March 2027.

Who it covers
Patients eligible for funded medicines and screening programmes. The cervical-screening proposal covers women aged 25–69; Pharmac would decide which medicines receive funding.
Timing
Pharmac uplift in 2027/28–2030/31. Cervical screening from March 2027; bowel and breast screening targets by 2029.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The policy table shows $351.1m net operating cost and $41.5m capital over 2027/28–2030/31: Pharmac $604m plus bowel screening $178.3m less aid savings $431.2m. All appear in the new plan as separate rows. The narrative’s further $45.6m MFAT saving remains unidentified in the tables, which count fewer savings. Other screening commitments are already funded or use baselines.
Sources reviewed
National: medicines and earlier care Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: medicines and screening policy (PDF) Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: consolidated fiscal plan Policy paper · Published
Housing

Widen access to 5% home deposits

Raise the First Home Loan income cap to $300,000, keeping the lender’s affordability test for a 5% deposit.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Widens access to an existing low-deposit scheme while retaining lenders' affordability checks, addressing the deposit hurdle for more eligible buyers.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • A 5% deposit means a larger loan for the same home. Borrowers still pay mortgage-insurance costs and must meet lending requirements.Evidence
Open questions
  • When would the expansion start, and what fiscal period does the $4–6m estimate cover?Evidence

Party proposal

National would raise the First Home Loan income cap to $300,000 for all applicant types. Eligible buyers could use a 5% deposit, while lenders would still decide whether they can afford the mortgage.

Who it covers
Eligible first-home buyers within the proposed income cap. A smaller deposit does not remove the lender’s affordability test or guarantee approval.
Timing
Proposed for a re-elected government; no implementation date is specified in the reviewed sources.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The party paper estimates a fiscal impact of $4–6 million, funded from existing budgets. It does not specify an annual or multi-year period for that estimate.
Sources reviewed
National: First Home Loan access Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: first-home buyer policy (PDF) Policy paper · Publication date not stated
Education

School readiness, qualifications and learning support

Change school readiness checks, screens, qualifications and leaving requirements, alongside learning-support reforms already funded.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Readiness checks explicitly avoid pass/fail school entry and build on existing early-intervention support, giving identified needs a defined support route.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Screen restrictions narrow teaching choices; new reporting and qualification rules also require services to change practice.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Open questions
  • What staff time and resources are needed, and how will readiness checks, disability exemptions and the qualification transition be implemented?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National proposes school-readiness checks, screen-use rules, consistent term dates and qualification changes. Its manifesto also describes learning-support coordinators and teacher-aide hours as already delivered or funded reforms.

Who it covers
Children, families and schools. The coordinator proposal covers schools with Year 1–8 students; students would stay until Year 11 is completed or age 16, whichever is later, with exemptions for employment or further training.
Timing
NCEA replacement begins in 2028. The coordinators and two million additional annual teacher-aide hours are part of an already funded rollout from 2028.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The ECE paper refers to existing $266m Early Intervention Service funding. Screen-use changes are primarily regulatory; checks build on existing information. A whole-package new spending cost is not stated in these papers.
Sources reviewed
National: 2026 education proposals Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: school-leaving proposal and exemptions Announcement · Published
National: full education manifesto Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: early childhood paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated
Energy & climate

Property-backed loans for home electrification

Offer long-term, property-secured loans for solar, batteries, insulation and heat pumps. Borrowers repay them.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Spreads approved equipment costs over ten years through a specified financing mechanism, reducing the upfront payment for eligible property owners.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Households take on property-secured debt. Renters, owners below 20% equity and households in non-participating councils cannot access this loan scheme.Evidence
Open questions
  • What interest rates, affordability checks and launch timetable would apply, and which councils would participate?Evidence

Party proposal

National proposes a Home Energy Fund offering long-term loans for solar, batteries, insulation and heat pumps. Loans would be secured against the property and repaid through rates or on sale. It would also relax consent rules for small-scale renewable energy.

Who it covers
Ratepayers with at least 20% equity in their property, in participating councils. Council participation would be voluntary.
Timing
Loans repaid over ten years. The reviewed paper does not specify a programme launch date.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The paper proposes a one-off $7 million Crown equity investment for a 20% shareholding, with remaining investment from councils and the Local Government Funding Agency. Borrowers repay the loans.
Sources reviewed
National: Home Energy Fund Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: home electrification policy (PDF) Policy paper · Publication date not stated
Living costs & tax

Compulsory savings, a Baby Boost and family support

Make worker retirement saving compulsory, raise contributions over time, and add a payment at birth and support during parental leave.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Automatic enrolment and parental-leave top-ups extend retirement saving, including contributions for eligible parents who are not contributing themselves.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Higher compulsory employee payments reduce money available now. Employers also face rising contributions; suspending employee payments would require the specified hardship test.Evidence
Open questions
  • What explains the included $140.2m employer-cost revision, and what model supports the newly counted $506.1m net tax offset?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National would make KiwiSaver or an equivalent scheme compulsory for workers, lift combined default contributions to 12% by 2032, add $1,500 at birth and fund parental-leave contributions.

Who it covers
Workers, including the self-employed at the employee rate only. Equivalent employer schemes, parental leave and hardship have specified exceptions. Compulsory employer contributions would extend to contributing workers over 65.
Timing
Baby payments, parental-leave top-ups and over-65 employer contributions from 1 July 2027. Compulsory savings from 1 July 2028; employee and employer defaults reach 6% each on 1 April 2032.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The new plan implies $784m net over 2027/28–2030/31: $1,290.1m costs less a $506.1m net tax offset. Crown-employer costs are $140.2m above the original paper; changed assumptions need explanation. The tax offset already deducts reduced income tax.

The original paper excluded uncertain tax receipts. The consolidated plan includes them without publishing the model. The separate parental top-up revision is explained by longer parental leave; a costing revision alone is not a funding hole.

Sources reviewed
National: original KiwiSaver paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: consolidated fiscal plan Policy paper · Published
Living costs & tax

Extend and share paid parental leave

Extend paid parental leave to 30 weeks in stages and let parents share or overlap the same combined entitlement.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Adds paid weeks on a dated rollout and lets eligible parents choose overlapping leave, offering more flexibility around a new child.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • More weeks do not raise the weekly payment cap or expand eligibility. Overlapping leave uses the same total entitlement, rather than doubling it.Evidence
Open questions
  • When would shared-leave rules commence, and what fiscal conditions would trigger the longer-term 40-week ambition?Evidence

Party proposal

National would extend paid parental leave from 26 to 30 weeks in stages and allow parents to share or overlap the same combined entitlement. A 40-week longer-term ambition depends on future fiscal conditions.

Who it covers
Eligible parents under existing eligibility and maximum weekly-payment settings. Sharing the entitlement does not double the total weeks available for a child.
Timing
27 weeks from 1 July 2027, 28 from 1 July 2028 and 30 from 1 July 2029, for entitlements commencing on or after each date.
Cost & funding stated by the party
Displayed extension costs sum to $327.5m over 2027/28–2030/31, matching the fiscal plan. The standalone $327.4m total differs by $0.1m, consistent with rounding. The $121.9m KiwiSaver top-up is a separate row; shared-leave administration uses existing baselines.
Sources reviewed
National: parental-leave paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: new fiscal plan Policy paper · Published
Education

Lower domestic loan repayments and increase overseas enforcement

Lower domestic student-loan repayments from 12% to 10%, while adding overseas penalties and enforcement. The debt still needs repaying.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Lower compulsory deductions would give domestic borrowers more income now, with a stated start date and voluntary extra repayments retained.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Lower payments delay clearance rather than forgive debt, while overseas borrowers face extra penalties. The Crown also receives repayments later.Evidence
Open questions
  • What cash/debt path accompanies the $296m valuation charge, and how robust are the overseas collection assumptions?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National would lower the compulsory domestic student-loan repayment rate from 12% to 10% and add penalties and enforcement for overseas borrowers. Lower repayments do not cancel the loan.

Who it covers
Domestic borrowers making income-based repayments and overseas borrowers covered by the enforcement proposals. Existing repayment thresholds remain relevant.
Timing
The domestic repayment-rate change starts 1 April 2027. The cost table covers 2026/27–2030/31.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The five-year net operating cost is $372.6m after forecast penalty revenue and enforcement recoveries, matching the fiscal plan. The $296m current-year charge is principally a loan-book valuation effect; slower cash repayments affect debt on a separate path not fully scheduled here.

The enforcement estimate assumes $25m gross annual recoveries for $10m of extra annual funding, leaving $15m net. This is a collection assumption, not a guaranteed return.

Sources reviewed
National: student-loan paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: new fiscal plan Policy paper · Published
Living costs & tax

Jobseeker support, lower long-term payments and residency rules

Add employment support, reduce long-term Jobseeker payments and change residency rules, with specified protections for existing recipients and exemptions.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Targets practical case management and employment support at 30,000 work-ready Jobseekers, including specified places and programme funding for young people.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Lower long-term payments and longer eligibility waits reduce support for affected households, even when they have not secured a job.Evidence
Open questions
  • How robust are programme outcomes and hardship offsets, and how would drug-test safeguards and treatment access work?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National would add intensive employment support, reduce Jobseeker payments after two of the previous three years, introduce random drug tests and extend the main-benefit residency requirement.

Who it covers
The employment programme targets 30,000 work-ready Jobseekers. Long-term payment reductions are smaller for households with children; Supported Living Payment is unchanged. Existing main-benefit recipients, refugees and protected persons retain specified protections from the residency change.
Timing
Long-term payment reductions and the five-year residency requirement from 1 April 2028. The employment and savings table covers 2027/28–2030/31.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The plan uses $583m net savings, including $11m initial net cost. The welfare paper’s main saving is $572m from reduced payments, with other assistance offsetting one-fifth of the reduction; it does not assume extra employment-response savings from that payment change. Drug testing uses around $1.5m annually from MSD baselines.
Sources reviewed
National: welfare policy paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated
National: new fiscal plan Policy paper · Published
Democracy & Te Tiriti

Council rate limits and an independent regulator

Set a target range for council rates increases, with independent oversight, exemptions and community consultation.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • A published range and independent exemption process could make rates decisions more predictable and easier for communities to scrutinise.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • A national range limits councils’ revenue discretion while infrastructure and essential services still need funding; exemptions become important.Evidence
Open questions
  • How would exemption tests, regulator funding and council transition work, and how would the range reflect different local pressures?Evidence

Party proposal

National would require councils to keep annual rates increases within a 2–4% target range, overseen by an independent regulator. Exemptions would cover exceptional needs or demonstrated prudent financial management, with community consultation required.

Who it covers
Councils and ratepayers; the proposed range includes a minimum increase as well as an upper limit.
Timing
Implementation in 2029, with council transition support.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The reviewed page does not separately cost the regulator or transition support.
Sources reviewed
National: Keeping rates affordable Policy page · Publication date not stated
Work & business

Small-business support and employment-law changes

Help first-time employers, simplify administration and minor employment disputes, and require minimum employee support before new collective bargaining.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • First-employer guidance and simpler records target practical compliance burdens. The dispute proposals retain fair-hearing safeguards and a separate route for serious cases.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • The bargaining-support test creates a new hurdle for initiating collective negotiations. Shared business data and faster procedures require the promised privacy and fairness safeguards.Evidence
Open questions
  • What would implementation cost, which agencies deliver each measure, and how would progress be measured? The paper distinguishes existing programmes from new commitments.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

National proposes support for first-time employers, simpler recurring seasonal agreements and apprenticeship records, one-time business information sharing, and faster minor employment disputes. It would also introduce a minimum employee-support test before new collective bargaining begins, retain Investment Boost, and support 200 promising exporters.

Who it covers
Small firms, their workers and exporters. Bargaining would need support from the lesser of ten employees or 20% of the covered workforce, with at least two employees.
Timing
Employment-law consolidation in the next parliamentary term; no common launch date is stated for all new measures.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The full paper includes existing programmes and new regulatory or administrative proposals. It does not give a separate total for all 47 measures. Investment Boost is an existing deduction; the GST registration threshold is proposed for review, not a promised specified increase.
Sources reviewed
National: Small-business plan Policy page · Publication date not stated
National: full 47-point small-business paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated

Selected coverage, not a ranking of policy quality. How we review the sources

Back to guide navigation ↑