See the proposals, follow the funding and read the evidence.
Proposals and forecasts are party claims. Our checks trace the sources and arithmetic; coalition agreements may change delivery.
Open a party to see the documents behind our selected summaries and funding checks.
Plan tables reviewed · 12 October fiscal schedule and selected original 2026 policy papers; forecast assumptions remain unverified.
We separate 2026 election commitments from current positions. Eligibility, dates and exclusions stay with each proposal.
We trace figures to original tables and check their arithmetic. Party forecasts and assumptions are not independently validated by a matching sum.
Missing details mean they were not specified or located in the reviewed sources. This is not proof that a policy or document does not exist.
OpinionScope’s editorial analysis considers clarity, who benefits or pays, funding, delivery and the evidence available. Potential benefits are not guaranteed outcomes. Each point links to its basis in the reviewed sources; the inference is ours.
We select the most material strengths, trade-offs and questions, without party scores or a required balance of positives and negatives. These are document-based assessments, not independent economic modelling.
Selected sources for the seven parties in our polling pages; not a list of every party standing in the election. Checked . The edition is manually reviewed and does not update automatically. Policy counts describe coverage, not ambition or quality. Coalition negotiations can change delivery.
Suggest a source or correctionSocial-media collection is paused. This separate, single-party website snapshot is retained with its evidence and limits.
A release can explain a policy and criticise an opponent. We record its main focus, then separately note whether it contains any opponent criticism.
4–10 October 2026 · Pacific/Auckland
A snapshot of National’s Latest News archive . These figures describe website release text. They do not measure Facebook, Instagram or the party’s campaign as a whole.
That includes 7 of the 7 proposal-focused releases, often in a closing campaign contrast. 8 have criticism as their main focus. “Both central” means substantial attention to each.
Headlines below are the party’s original wording. Our labels describe their focus and do not endorse the claims.
The release centres on fisheries commitments, including marine protection and enforcement. A closing paragraph criticises Labour and its potential coalition partners.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe central message challenges Labour and the CTU over union membership. National’s closing economic slogan does not set out a substantial specific proposal.
Contains opponent criticism: YesConcrete water-storage and fertiliser commitments dominate. The final paragraph criticises the tax and spending approach attributed to a Labour coalition.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe release reports export results and credits existing government measures. It does not centre on a new election commitment or criticise an opposition party.
Contains opponent criticism: NoThe release questions funding in Labour’s fiscal plan, particularly redress for abuse survivors. Its closing National message is a general campaign contrast. These allegations are not independently verified here.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe five welfare commitments and how they would operate are the main focus. The text also criticises Labour’s welfare record and a potential coalition’s taxes.
Contains opponent criticism: YesSpecific small-business proposals dominate, including compliance, employment support and dispute resolution. A later paragraph criticises Labour’s position on Investment Boost.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe headline, opening and repeated argument challenge Labour’s education position. National’s existing reforms and commitment to retain daily learning hours support that contrast; criticism remains the dominant focus.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe release centres on an alleged correction and omissions in Labour’s fiscal plan. National’s own closing message is general. This label describes the messaging, not the accuracy of the allegations.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe text challenges Labour’s Investment Boost revenue assumptions. The attached image is excluded from this text-only review; the fiscal allegation is not adjudicated by this classification.
Contains opponent criticism: Yes · Attached image excluded from this text reviewMedicines funding, cancer screening and treatment commitments dominate. The release also criticises Labour’s previous Pharmac funding and a potential coalition’s tax approach.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThis is an announcement of a current government regulatory review and its scope. It does not centre on an election commitment or criticism of an opposition party.
Contains opponent criticism: NoThe release disputes Labour’s transport funding assumptions and describes alleged consequences. A brief National economic slogan does not make its own proposals equally central.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe main argument challenges the credibility and implications of Labour’s proposed budgets. National’s closing economic contrast is general. The classification does not verify the fiscal claims.
Contains opponent criticism: YesBoth messages are substantial: the release challenges Labour’s statements on Woodend and explains National’s project funding, preparation and construction commitment. This is a borderline editorial judgement, shown as both central.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe release principally explains the Belfast–Pegasus and Woodend funding commitment and expected benefits. It also contrasts transport investment and criticises a Labour coalition’s tax plans.
Contains opponent criticism: YesThe release’s main message alleges omissions and a lack of credibility in Labour’s fiscal plan. Its closing National slogan is general. This label is not a finding that the allegations are true.
Contains opponent criticism: YesMill Road construction, funding and route protection are the central commitments. The closing paragraph criticises the tax and spending approach attributed to a Labour coalition.
Contains opponent criticism: YesWe checked two consecutive unfiltered archive pages and crossed both date boundaries. Every unique release listed for this week was retrieved; each article’s date matched the archive. Text from the title and article body was reviewed. Images, attached documents, social posts, comments and ads are excluded. Separate releases count separately, even when their message repeats.
This is one editorial review, with a rationale for each label. It classifies messaging; it does not verify the truth of political allegations. Borderline labels may change after further review. The source pages can be edited or deleted, so this is coverage of the archive at capture time, not proof of every release ever published.
National is the first reviewed website collection. Other parties are not ranked or assigned zero counts. This fixed-week review is independent of the issue and search filters above.
Captured and reviewed (Pacific/Auckland). This edition does not update automatically. Suggest a correction.
