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.

Work & business

Jobs, training, worker rights and support for businesses.

16 summaries · 7 parties

ACT

1 summary

Wage and employment rules for businesses

Freeze the adult minimum wage for three years, introduce an under-20 training rate, and change employment disputes, exit negotiations, union-fee collection and digital-investment deductions.

Current policy positionParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Specified wage periods and dispute deadlines could give employers more predictable hiring costs and processes.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • A wage freeze limits increases for the lowest-paid workers; the youth rate permits substantially lower pay. Shorter proceedings need accessible safeguards.Evidence
Open questions
  • Clarify coercion protections, what qualifies as training, and tax-revenue effects. The full paper was unavailable and the fiscal schedule does not identify this package separately.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

ACT proposes freezing the adult minimum wage for three years and a training wage at 60% for under-20s during their first year with an employer. It also proposes protected exit negotiations, filing Authority proceedings within three months of raising a grievance, voluntary employer collection of union fees and clearer digital-investment deductions.

Who it covers
Employers, employees, unions and workers under 20. The proposed training wage is tied to an employer's first 12 months of employment.
Timing
A three-year wage freeze; no commencement date is stated in the accessible summary.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The summary gives no total cost. ACT's consolidated fiscal schedule has no separately named small-business-package line; some initiatives remain unannounced.

The official summary was reviewed. Its linked full business paper could not be retrieved; it may contain further safeguards and cost details.

Sources reviewed
ACT: Backing Small Business Policy page · Publication date not stated
ACT: Fiscal Plan 2026 Policy paper · Publication date not stated

Green Party

3 summaries

Worker rights, wages and longer parental leave

Strengthen bargaining and gig-worker rights, protect time outside work, raise wage floors and expand paid parental leave.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Inflation protection, clearer worker rights and longer paid leave could improve income security and time for care.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Wage floors and employment obligations increase employer responsibilities; expanded publicly funded leave also needs a budget and delivery capacity.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify phase-in dates, leave payment rates and opt-out rules, with annual public costs and implementation support.Evidence

Party proposal

The Greens propose default union membership with an opt-out, wider strike rights, a right to disconnect and stronger protections for gig workers. They would guarantee minimum-wage increases at least matching inflation, pay publicly funded roles a living wage and extend primary-caregiver paid parental leave to 15 months with additional partner leave.

Who it covers
Employees, platform workers, employers and parents. Worker representatives on listed-company boards would be explored, rather than immediately required.
Timing
The workforce chapter gives no dated implementation sequence for these changes.
Cost & funding stated by the party
Publicly funded wage changes and longer parental leave would require public funding. No total or annual cost is specified in the reviewed chapter.
Sources reviewed
Greens: 2026 manifesto — workforce rights 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

Local procurement and support for small firms

Buy more from local firms, expand small-business technology support and strengthen competition enforcement and sustainable regional development.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Local purchasing and better competition enforcement could broaden opportunities for smaller firms facing powerful incumbents.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Preference for local suppliers needs value-for-money safeguards; expanded grants and regulatory capacity require public resources. Their scale depends on grant eligibility and enforcement plans.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify eligibility, grant budgets, measurable procurement goals and how trade obligations and competition tests would be met.Evidence

Party proposal

The Greens would expand Buy Kiwi Made and origin labelling, direct more government purchasing to local firms, widen small-firm technology grants and rebates, and support sustainable regional industries. They also propose stronger competition rules and better-resourced enforcement.

Who it covers
Small local enterprises, technology firms, regional communities and Māori-led businesses, alongside consumers affected by competition changes.
Timing
No implementation date or staged programme schedule is specified in this manifesto chapter.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The reviewed chapter does not give grant amounts, procurement targets or a total cost for regional support and enforcement.
Sources reviewed
Greens: 2026 manifesto — small business Manifesto chapter · Publication date not stated

Labour

4 summaries

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

Restore pay equity and lift care workers’ pay

Restore the pay-equity claims process and give care and support workers a $4 hourly rise; other settlements would remain negotiated.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • The immediate care/support rise has a defined amount, start date and separate fiscal provision for the named worker group.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • Later negotiated settlements would add Budget pressure; the immediate rise does not settle every pay-equity claim.Evidence
Open questions
  • Explain how future settlement costs will be prioritised alongside other service pressures and Budget limits.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Labour would restore pay-equity legislation within its first 100 days and recognise previous claim work. Care and support workers would receive an immediate $4 hourly increase; other settlements would follow negotiation.

Who it covers
An estimated 65,000 care and support workers receive the immediate increase. Other pay-equity claimants would use the restored process rather than an automatic immediate settlement.
Timing
Care/support increase: 1 January 2027. Legislation: first 100 days. Future settlement dates depend on negotiations.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The fiscal table costs the immediate rise at $279m in 2026/27 and $558m each year from 2027/28–2030/31: $2.511bn total. Labour says later negotiated settlements would be funded through future Budgets; those amounts are not quantified here.
Sources reviewed
Labour: Pay Equity Policy page · Publication date not stated

Faster payments and support for small firms

Require faster payments, allow earlier asset deductions, lift the GST threshold and give small firms a larger share of government work.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Faster payments and earlier deductions could improve small firms’ cash flow; smaller tender lots could improve access to government work.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • The asset deduction changes tax timing rather than paying the asset’s full cost. Refocusing Investment Boost changes who receives investment support.Evidence
Open questions
  • Set out enforcement resources, procurement value-for-money safeguards and how the 15% target is measured.Evidence 1Evidence 2

Party proposal

Labour proposes a 15-day payment rule for large firms’ small-supplier invoices, a $10,000 immediate asset deduction and an $80,000 GST-registration threshold. Its separate Small Business First plan targets 15% of government contracts for local small firms and start-ups, with smaller tender lots and simpler information requirements.

Who it covers
Small firms: asset deduction for annual revenue below $10m; payment rule for invoices up to $25,000. Large payer tests and voluntary GST registration apply.
Timing
Payment legislation: first 100 days. Asset deduction: 1 July 2027. GST threshold: 1 July 2028. No exact procurement-target start date is stated.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The fiscal table allocates $1.354bn to the asset deduction and $210m to the GST change over 2027/28–2030/31 ($1.564bn combined), funded by refocusing Investment Boost. The policy page rounds the package to $1.56bn and gives $1.355bn for the asset deduction.

The asset write-off is a deduction from taxable income, not a dollar-for-dollar tax credit. The $1m difference between source editions does not establish a material funding shortfall.

Sources reviewed
Labour: Small Business Action Plan Policy page · Publication date not stated
Labour: Small Business First 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

3 summaries

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

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

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

NZ First

3 summaries

A lower company-tax rate for smaller businesses

Lower company tax to 20% for businesses with turnover below $30m.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Could leave profitable eligible companies more cash for reinvestment; the turnover threshold and proposed company-tax rate are clearly stated.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • Costs about $1bn annually at first. Companies above the cutoff do not receive this rate; growth receipts would arrive later, if achieved.Evidence
Open questions
  • What evidence supports the claimed growth offset, and how would the initial revenue loss be financed?Evidence

Party proposal

NZ First proposes reducing company tax to 20% for companies with turnover below $30 million, from the 28% rate cited in its policy.

Who it covers
Companies with turnover under $30 million. This is a company-tax proposal, not a personal income-tax cut.
Timing
No implementation date specified in the reviewed source.
Cost & funding stated by the party
NZ First estimates an initial fiscal cost of about $1 billion a year. It says subsequent growth would cover that cost in the medium term; this is the party’s forecast, not an independently verified offset.
Sources reviewed
NZ First: smaller-company tax proposal Policy page · Publication date not stated

Working for Families and minimum wages

Increase Working for Families support and raise the minimum wage by at least inflation during the next term.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • A permanent in-work credit boost could make support more predictable; inflation-linked minimum-wage increases give the next term a clear wage floor.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • The tax-credit change costs $500–600m annually; employers fund higher minimum wages. The proposed credit remains support for eligible working families.Evidence
Open questions
  • What exactly is the final credit entitlement, when would it start, and how is the annual cost funded?Evidence

Party proposal

NZ First would retain the temporary $50 weekly Working for Families boost, add $70, and increase minimum wages by at least inflation each year of the next term.

Who it covers
Eligible working families and minimum-wage workers. The page’s wording around the total credit is ambiguous; it is not treated as a settled individual entitlement here.
Timing
The minimum-wage commitment is for each year of the next term. No precise Working for Families start date is stated.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The party estimates $500–600m annually for the Working for Families change. No specific funding source or independent offset is given.
Sources reviewed
NZ First: Working for Families and minimum wages Announcement · Published

A shortage-led skilled work visa

Replace employer-led work visas with occupation and regional shortage tests, domestic recruitment safeguards, a wage floor and stronger enforcement; end routine retail access.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Occupation and regional tests could make recruitment priorities more transparent; targeted enforcement aims to improve migrant protection.Evidence
Trade-offs & risks
  • More recruitment evidence and narrower access add compliance demands for employers; shortage definitions may struggle to keep pace with changing needs.Evidence
Open questions
  • Specify shortage criteria, the wage floor, worker-transfer protections and existing-visa transition arrangements. Their design and implementation funding remain unclear in the announcement.Evidence

Party proposal

NZ First would replace the Accredited Employer Work Visa with a Skilled Work Visa tied to an occupation, region and proven shortage. Employers would need genuine domestic recruitment or training efforts. It proposes ending routine retail access, a wage floor, stronger accreditation, targeted enforcement and transparency data.

Who it covers
Employers seeking migrant staff, migrants and domestic workers. Access would depend on demonstrated shortages rather than accreditation alone.
Timing
No commencement date or transition for existing visa holders is specified.
Cost & funding stated by the party
The announcement gives no administration or enforcement cost and no funding schedule.
Sources reviewed
NZ First: shortage-led work visa announcement Announcement · Published

Opportunity (TOP)

1 summary

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

Te Pāti Māori

1 summary

Regional Māori enterprise funding and procurement

Fund regional Māori enterprise, reserve procurement for qualifying Māori firms and create Māori-led trade, research and investment institutions.

2026 election policyParty source
Our assessment & details

Our assessment

Analysis
Strengths
  • Regional financing and contract access could support Māori enterprise; the paper specifies fund size, financing mix and administration allowances.Evidence 1Evidence 2
Trade-offs & risks
  • Reserved contracts narrow access for other suppliers. Revolving loans, Crown investments and grants have different repayment prospects and public risks.Evidence
Open questions
  • What are the lending terms and Super Fund safeguards, how is the Crown share funded, and what would the additional institutions cost?Evidence

Party proposal

Te Pāti Māori proposes a $4.5bn regional fund for Māori enterprise, employment and training, a 25% Māori government-procurement allocation, and trade, research and data institutions. It would replace the Overseas Investment Office with iwi-chaired regional bodies.

Who it covers
Fund activity would use 12 regional clusters. Reserved procurement would require firms to be wholly Māori-owned and Māori-governed.
Timing
$4.5bn over three years; no programme launch date is stated.
Cost & funding stated by the party
Half the fund would use Super Fund revolving loans; half Crown investments and grants. The fund allocates $90m to establishment and first-year delivery, then $45m annually to operations from year two. Separate institutional costs and a whole-package budget reconciliation are not supplied.
Sources reviewed
Te Pāti Māori: Economic Development announcement Announcement · Published
Te Pāti Māori: full 2026 Economic Development paper Policy paper · Publication date not stated

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

Back to guide navigation ↑