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.

Education

Early learning, schools, tertiary study and student support.

16 summaries · 7 parties

ACT

2 summaries

More choice when buying school uniforms

Limit compulsory branded uniform items to three and let families buy generic everyday clothing from ordinary retailers.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Generic everyday items and a three-item branding limit could expand shopping choice, while retaining specialist-uniform exemptions.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Schools would lose discretion to require additional branded everyday items; excluded sports and kapa haka uniforms could still add costs.Evidence
Open questions
  • The page gives no start date, enforcement arrangements or supporting savings model; actual savings would depend on uniform requirements and prices.Evidence

Party proposal

ACT would limit state schools to three compulsory branded uniform items and require generic options for everyday clothing such as trousers and socks. Families could buy those items from ordinary clothing retailers.

Who it covers
State-school families. Sports strips, kapa haka uniforms and tracksuits would be excluded from the proposed rules.
Timing
No implementation date specified in the reviewed source.
Cost & funding stated by the party
This is a proposed change to education law. The reviewed page does not provide a programme cost or quantified household saving.
Sources reviewed
ACT: school uniform rules Policy page · Publication date not stated

Teacher powers and classroom behaviour

Expand teachers' authority to remove disruptive students to supervised spaces, strengthen responses to assaults, and require parent engagement with penalties for unexplained missed meetings.

Current policy positionParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • A supervised response below formal suspension could protect classmates' learning time while keeping the removed student on site.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Physical removal, fines and damage debts increase the need for proportionate decisions, disability support and practical safeguards for families.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify staff training, supervision resources and review routes. Neither the accessible summary nor a separately named fiscal line resolves these implementation questions.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

ACT would let teachers send seriously or persistently disruptive students to a supervised room, with escalation before reasonable physical removal. It proposes mandatory stand-down or suspension after assaults, parent meetings, fines for unexplained non-attendance and recovery of deliberate property-damage costs.

Who it covers
Schools, students and parents. Removed students must stay supervised; empty or lockable rooms and corporal punishment would remain prohibited.
Timing
No implementation date is specified in the accessible summary.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The summary gives no staffing or implementation cost. The fiscal plan has no separately named behaviour-policy line and retains unannounced initiatives.

The linked full behaviour paper could not be retrieved. The summary caps missed-meeting fines at $300 initially and $3,000 for later offences, with a reasonable-excuse exception.

Sources reviewed
ACT: Disrupt the Class, Leave the Class Policy page · Publication date not stated
ACT: Fiscal Plan 2026 Policy paper · Publication date not stated

Green Party

3 summaries

Free early learning and stronger learning support

Make early learning free, expand learning support and school lunches, and reset curriculum reforms with a long-term educator workforce plan.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Free early learning and wider learning support could reduce barriers for families and children with additional needs where coverage expands.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Ending for-profit early learning would require a substantial transition; expanded services also need educators and public funding.Evidence
Open questions
  • Set out annual costs, transition protections and the timetable for wider lunch and learning-support coverage.Evidence

Party proposal

The Greens propose free early childhood education delivered as a public good, ending for-profit provision; wider learning-support eligibility; and expanded locally made school lunches towards universal coverage. They would reset curriculum reforms and co-develop a long-term educator workforce plan.

Who it covers
Children, families and educators, including learners needing disability or health support and Māori-medium education communities.
Timing
The chapter describes these commitments without a dated implementation or transition schedule.
Cost & funding stated by the party
No total package cost or annual funding path is specified in the reviewed education chapter. Free early learning, support services and a wider lunch programme require public funding.
Sources reviewed
Greens: 2026 manifesto — education Manifesto chapter · Publication date not stated

Student income and tertiary education reform

Introduce a universal student income and paid required placements, reduce loan repayments and work towards fees-free study and a debt write-off.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Student income and paid required placements could make study more accessible without relying solely on additional borrowing.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Income support, institutional funding and debt relief compete for public resources; institutions also need enough suitable placement capacity.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify income rates, placement-funding responsibilities and a staged costed timetable, including who would qualify for debt relief.Evidence

Party proposal

The Greens propose a universal student income, including postgraduates, and at least living-wage pay for required work placements. They would expand free apprenticeships, reduce loan repayments and work towards fees-free tertiary study and a student-debt write-off, alongside stronger local polytechnic funding and governance.

Who it covers
Tertiary students, including postgraduates, placement students and apprentices; tertiary staff and local communities would also be affected.
Timing
No dated rollout. Fees-free study and debt relief are directions to work towards, without an immediate universal entitlement.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The reviewed tertiary chapter does not quantify the student income rate, total reform cost or annual financing schedule.
Sources reviewed
Greens: 2026 manifesto — tertiary education Manifesto chapter · Publication date not stated

A Youth Jobs Guarantee

Offer out-of-work 16–24-year-olds a pathway into jobs, education or training, with additional community jobs and expanded council-led support.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Combining local job creation with education and training pathways could help young people who face prolonged unemployment.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Employers and councils must create additional roles and support participants; placements alone do not establish lasting employment.Evidence
Open questions
  • The full costing paper remains unreadable here. Verify its budget, rollout dates and the period covered by 32,000 placements.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

The Greens propose a pathway into work, education or training for 16–24-year-olds out of work for six months. A Jobs for Young People pilot would fund additional community jobs, while expanded Mayors Taskforce for Jobs support would target 32,000 placements across all 67 councils.

Who it covers
Young people meeting the six-month unemployment criterion, with councils, iwi, businesses and community organisations involved. The page says programme jobs must not replace existing workers.
Timing
Announced 11 October 2026. A dated pilot rollout and the period for the 32,000-placement target were not verified from the available web sources.
Cost & funding stated by the party
Detailed funding and costings remain unverified: the official full-policy link could not be read during this review. The accessible web announcement and summary do not state a dollar amount; that is a source-access limit, not evidence the full paper lacks costings.

The guarantee includes education or training pathways; it should not be described as an immediate unconditional job for every young person. The placement target is not verified as annual.

Sources reviewed
Greens: Good Jobs for All of Us — youth guarantee Policy page · Publication date not stated
Greens: Youth Jobs Guarantee announcement Announcement · Published

Labour

4 summaries

Cheaper uniforms, school lunches and rural buses

Limit compulsory branded uniforms, bring back fresh local school lunches, and restore cancelled rural school bus routes where possible.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Generic uniform options and locally prepared lunches could reduce school-day costs for affected families, rather than providing a general cash payment.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Restoring routes depends on practical local alternatives; lunch delivery also needs suppliers and school capacity.Evidence
Open questions
  • Clarify lunch coverage and reconcile the Term 1 2028 start with the fiscal table’s later first allocation.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Labour proposes limits on compulsory branded uniform items and cheaper generic alternatives, locally made school lunches funded at $5 per meal ($6.50 for Years 9–13), and restoring cancelled rural school bus routes where possible.

Who it covers
School families, participating school-lunch students and affected rural communities. The page does not promise every rural route can be restored.
Timing
Uniform changes and fresh school lunches from Term 1 2028. No fixed date for rural bus restoration is given.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The fiscal PDF lists $590.8m for school lunches in 2028/29–2030/31. Its first allocation is later than the web page’s Term 1 2028 start; scope and timing need reconciliation. Separate uniform and rural-bus amounts were not identified in that table.

The fare cap is covered separately under Living costs & tax. A timing or source-edition difference does not establish an unfunded programme.

Sources reviewed
Labour: Cutting Back-to-School Costs Policy page · Publication date not stated

Cut qualifying student debt by 10%

Cut eligible graduate loans by 10%, with a three-year New Zealand residence route for current and future students and exclusions for Fees Free recipients.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Debt reductions could bring eligible borrowers’ final repayment date forward, rather than reducing every current repayment; income-based repayments remain available.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Fees Free recipients are excluded, and future graduates must wait three years; relief is not universal or immediate.Evidence
Open questions
  • Publish take-up and residence assumptions, and show how initial write-offs and later annual costs fit together.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Labour would reduce qualifying graduates’ outstanding student loans by 10%. Existing graduates qualify on 1 April 2027; current and future students qualify after three years based in New Zealand following study. Balances of $2,000 or less would be cleared under that three-year route.

Who it covers
New Zealand-based borrowers who have finished study, meet their loan obligations and did not receive Fees Free. Repayments remain income-based.
Timing
Existing eligible graduates: 1 April 2027. Labour expects the first three-year-route reductions in 2031.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The fiscal plan sets aside $420m capital for the initial write-off and $163.1m operating over 2026/27–2030/31. The policy estimates nearly $40m annually once fully running from 2031; costs use loan fair value rather than the face value owed.
Sources reviewed
Labour: Cutting Student Debt Policy page · Publication date not stated

Expand apprenticeship support

Extend employer apprenticeship payments to two years, add a $1,000 starter grant and broaden eligible training with a mentoring pilot.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Starter grants and longer employer support could reduce entry costs and help apprentices complete training.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Subsidies still require employers able to offer work; payments do not by themselves create lasting job demand.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify mentoring coverage and completion measures, and test how many supported apprenticeships would be additional to those taken on without a subsidy.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Labour proposes $500 monthly employer payments for two years, a $1,000 starter toolbox grant, five additional training areas and a mentoring pilot. New areas include road construction, water and sanitary engineering, personal services, sales and marketing, and sports and recreation.

Who it covers
Employers and apprentices in accredited programmes, with expanded eligibility. Grants cover starting tools, kit, uniforms and course materials.
Timing
New areas, grant and mentoring pilot: 1 July 2027. Two-year employer payments: 1 July 2028.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The fiscal plan allocates $21m/$64m/$69.5m/$71.5m in 2027/28–2030/31: $226m total, or $56.5m annually on average. It is funded within Labour’s Budget allowances.
Sources reviewed
Labour: Apprenticeship Boost Expansion Policy page · Publication date not stated

Māori-led training linked to local jobs

Fund Māori-led training with local employers, recognised qualifications and mentoring, open to Māori of all ages seeking better employment.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Provider-led training, mentoring and links to real employers could help participants gain recognised skills and sustain work in their communities.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Training still depends on employer demand and provider capacity; a funded place does not guarantee an additional long-term job.Evidence
Open questions
  • Identify the funding reprioritised, provider selection criteria and job-retention targets, then report whether supported outcomes exceed what would otherwise occur.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Labour proposes a contestable fund for Māori providers, including marae and iwi trusts, to deliver employment-focused training linked to local employers and recognised qualifications. Programmes would combine practical skills with mentoring and support to complete training and remain in work.

Who it covers
Māori of all ages seeking a first job, retraining or more secure work; Māori providers would apply to deliver programmes shaped around local skills needs.
Timing
As soon as possible after Budget 2027; no exact commencement day is given.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The policy specifies $21m annually through reprioritisation and existing baselines in Budget 2027. The fiscal table separately includes $21m in each of 2027/28–2030/31: $84m over four years. This is separate from Apprenticeship Boost.
Sources reviewed
Labour: Backing Māori into Skilled Work Policy page · Publication date not stated

National

2 summaries

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

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

NZ First

1 summary

ECE quality, curriculum advice and student support

Tighten ECE supervision and free-hours rules, establish independent curriculum advice, expand student financial support and support vocational pathways.

Current policy positionParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Group-based supervision and spot checks offer concrete accountability mechanisms, alongside support spanning early learning to tertiary study.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Higher supervision requirements need staffing; expanded financial support needs funding. A proposed council's independence depends on its appointments and powers.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify ratios, eligibility, new allowance thresholds, repayment matching and annual costs; the response supplies directions rather than an implementation plan.Evidence

Party proposal

A signed NZ First response proposes ECE group-based supervision ratios and spot checks, retaining 20 free hours without minimum-hours loopholes, and an Independent Curriculum Council. It also proposes higher student-allowance and loan-repayment thresholds, matching repayments for graduates working here, and vocational pathways.

Who it covers
Children, families, tertiary students and trainees.
Timing
No commencement dates or new thresholds are given.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The response gives no total cost or annual funding schedule for these proposals.

This party-signed response is hosted externally; it is not a consolidated manifesto or fiscal plan.

Opportunity (TOP)

2 summaries

Science, innovation and stronger competition

Increase science and innovation funding, support small businesses and give the Commerce Commission stronger powers.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Itemised annual costs make the science, business and competition package auditable; the $1.33bn headline does not subtract speculative growth benefits.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • The recurring investment needs funding before uncertain long-term gains arrive. Stronger competition powers also require legal processes and implementation resources.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Open questions
  • When would each initiative start, and how would early spending be financed before Tax Reset is fully implemented?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Opportunity would increase science and technology funding, support small businesses, and strengthen Commerce Commission powers through the High Court.

Who it covers
Researchers, businesses, returning graduates and consumers. The July paper includes conditional student-loan interest forgiveness, rather than cancelling every returning graduate’s loan.
Timing
Longer-term R&D targets extend over a decade and to 2050. There is no full annual rollout schedule for the package.
Cost & funding stated by the party
Listed annual operating additions sum to $1,330.5m, consistent with the $1.33bn headline. The party proposes future Tax Reset revenue or a Budget allocation; the timing of funding remains a question.
Sources reviewed
Opportunity: Breakthrough Economy Policy page · Publication date not stated
Opportunity: full Breakthrough Economy paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated

A long-term education plan and stronger early learning

Seek stable cross-party education planning, professional curriculum decisions, more teacher support and higher early-learning standards.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Links curriculum stability with teacher development and specific early-learning standards, rather than changing qualifications without addressing delivery support.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • Tighter ratios and qualifications require staffing and funding. A durable cross-party plan depends on other parties participating and agreement on the council’s authority.Evidence
Open questions
  • Which reforms would be prioritised, how much would they cost, and what staffing, funding and legal protections would sustain them? These would be negotiated later.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Opportunity would seek a ten-year cross-party education plan and an independent curriculum and assessment council. Within that plan it would advocate better teacher support, tighter early-learning quality standards, more community-owned provision, and stronger connections between academic and vocational education.

Who it covers
Learners, whānau and educators from early childhood through tertiary study. Proposed early-learning ratios are 1:3 for under-twos, 1:5 at 24–36 months and 1:8 from age three, with 80% minimum qualifications in teacher-led services.
Timing
A ten-year school and early-learning plan and a 20-year tertiary Skills and Learning Accord; no commencement date or complete rollout schedule is supplied.
Cost & funding stated by the party
No total cost is provided. Opportunity would seek additional teaching and early-learning funding through the cross-party plan, rather than publishing committed annual allocations in this paper.

The paper advocates these changes within a negotiated long-term plan. It would leave qualification decisions, including the proposed NCEA replacement, to the independent council.

Sources reviewed
Opportunity: Future-fit Education Policy page · Publication date not stated
Opportunity: full September 2026 education paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated

Te Pāti Māori

2 summaries

Māori-led education and fewer participation barriers

Give Māori communities more education authority, embed Māori knowledge in learning and remove barriers to education and training.

Current policy positionParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Links educational decision-making with cultural identity and participation, setting clear priorities for Māori learners and whānau.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Changing authority and curriculum roles requires responsibilities and educator support to be defined; the short summary does not set those out.Evidence
Open questions
  • Which legal powers, access measures, funding and delivery dates would implement this position? A full programme paper was not located.Evidence

Party proposal

Te Pāti Māori supports Māori-led education authority, more Māori knowledge within learning, and greater Māori participation in education governance. It also proposes removing obstacles to whānau accessing education and training.

Who it covers
Māori learners, whānau and communities participating in education and training.
Timing
No implementation date is stated in the current official summary.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The reviewed summary does not specify a total budget or particular funding allocations.

A full current education programme paper was not located. This card is limited to the official position available now.

Sources reviewed
Te Pāti Māori: Education & Training Policy page · Publication date not stated

Te reo Māori in education and public services

Require age-appropriate te reo education and bilingual public institutions, backed by community language programmes and media support.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Connects school learning with community use, media and public services, providing several routes to sustain language transmission and regional dialects.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • Compulsory provision and bilingual institutions need trained staff, teaching resources and sustained funding, alongside other education and service responsibilities.Evidence
Open questions
  • How would staffing, proficiency expectations, implementation stages and annual funding be set, and how would access and language outcomes be assessed?Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Te Pāti Māori would make te reo Māori compulsory in education with age-appropriate progression, require bilingual public institutions, and support staff to learn the language. It would fund whānau, marae, hapū and iwi revitalisation and support Māori-language broadcasting and digital content.

Who it covers
Learners, educators, public servants, whānau and Māori-language providers. The full paper does not specify a Year 10 cutoff for compulsory provision.
Timing
The Manifesto 2026 paper does not state a commencement date or complete rollout.
Cost & funding stated by the party
Stable investment in language initiatives, broadcasting and public-service capability is proposed. The paper gives no total cost or annual allocations.
Sources reviewed
Te Pāti Māori: Te Reo Māori summary Policy page · Publication date not stated
Te Pāti Māori: full 2026 Te Reo Māori paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated

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

Back to guide navigation ↑