Here's Interest.co.nz's 2023 election party policy comparison feature

Public Policy / news

Voters wanting to make their election decision based on policy positions now have a unique resource allowing them an easy way to compare party positions

24th Jul 23, 1:05pm by David Chaston

Source: 123rf.com. Copyright: feodora52

We have opened our policy comparison resource for the 2023 Election.

You can find it here.

This feature allows readers to compare the policy positions of each party across a very wide range of public policy issues, with a bias to those policies that affect the New Zealand economy. The comparison is on 'one page' making it easy to assess what each party says on the issue selected.

All the policy positions listed are in the exact words of each party. Yes, we have selected the most important points, but we have not tampered or 'interpreted' their words or meaning. And we have supplied a link to the Party's original document.

We have been providing this resource each general election cycle since the 2002 Election.

New Zealand elections tend to be 'presidential'-style contests, dominated by the party leaders and their 'likeability'. This year, Chris-v-Chris.

But all parties will go into the election with a full set of policies. And a more considered choice by voters might be by assessing the policies that interest them. We are offering the ability to make these types of choices.

The major parties are usually late in releasing policies. Neither has much released yet. But we will load them as they are released. The challenger parties (especially Act on the right and Greens on the left) do have comprehensive policies. And parties like TOP (The Opportunities Party) also have policies worthy of consideration. What they have released is already in our comparisons.

We invite readers to let us know if you think we have missed anything important.

Finally, this resource also records each party's list, in a way that makes it easy to compare. Candidate profile links are there too.

And each party's core principles or philosophy is listed in the same easy way to compare.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

66 Comments

by xingmowang | 24th Jul 23, 1:25pm 1690161937

no matter which party gets into the office, the truth will remain.

that is the bad ones will speed up NZ's deterioration while the less bad ones will slow down the process a bit.

by JimboJones | 24th Jul 23, 1:31pm 1690162294

Is NZ really deteriorating? People seem to have forgotten the 80's when we had to sell everything off to survive, the 90's were not much better either. Sure we are not Australia, but for a small island in the middle of nowhere I reckon we do OK.

by Zwifter | 24th Jul 23, 2:50pm 1690167013

Well just judging from the general anger on here and the number of really pissed off people towards the housing market, I would have to say things were better in the 1980's, I for one had a great time, life was so much more simple back then for a kid, you know there was no social media and no gender confusion and we actually went to school to learn stuff and just riding your bike was enough.

by GV 27 | 24th Jul 23, 3:09pm 1690168182

No gender confusion in the 1980s? Explains the deeply hetero music of the time, such as David Bowie, the Pet Shop Boys or the notoriously macho Boy George.

What tosh.

by Cheetahlegs66 | 24th Jul 23, 3:18pm 1690168734

Unlike my son, I wasn't given school reading where 'Mike' had a boyfriend. This was in Yr-10.

by GV 27 | 24th Jul 23, 3:34pm 1690169645

I generally am confident enough in myself that the mere existence of gay people in our society doesn't trigger some sort of existential crisis.

You should give it a crack sometime.

by Cheetahlegs66 | 24th Jul 23, 6:26pm 1690180019

I would have thought this was a discussion within families when the child is 13. Would you be happy with a 3rd party initiating this?

I’m not homophobic, used to hit the Hero parties hard in the mid 90s. Alas I am a racist, ask TK.

by mfd | 24th Jul 23, 6:46pm 1690181163

I am genuinely not sure what the problem is with children being aware that some people are attracted to other members of the same sex. Most would be aware of same-sex couples in the family or their friends parents long before 13, surely?

by youngdumbandfullofit | 25th Jul 23, 4:14am 1690215254

Not when the family excommunicates the gays like the good old days and you can shelter your children from the immorality... <s>

by GV 27 | 25th Jul 23, 7:46am 1690227995

Your kids have been exposed to gay people and the notion that people can be attracted to the same sex by the age of 13. They'll have friends who alrady know they're gay at this point. If I've left it to my kid turning 13 to let him know that gay people exist then I've failed as a parent.

It's not a 'discussion' within families if there's no need to. I think you'll find this kind of representation is being normalised, as it should be, in most media that children consume, instead of hushed away and treated like some sort of moral panic.

It just is. There's nothing to shelter my kid from because I'm not hung up on some sort of stigma about it. Kids can have a mum, a dad, or two mums or two dads. End of chat. No Family First intervention needed.

by Nzdan | 24th Jul 23, 3:51pm 1690170678

I'm pretty sure gender dysphoria existed well before 1980's. It's just generations such as the Boomers were highly intolerant of people who were different (race/gender etc). Remember, the Race Relations Act was only introduced in 1971 so a lot of Boomers were raised in an environment where such intolerance was acceptable, so much so they believe such people didn't even exist.

by Yvil | 24th Jul 23, 4:19pm 1690172389

"It's just generations such as the Boomers were highly intolerant of people who were different"

NZDan, can you not see that your comment itself is intolerant towards people who are different, namely the Boomers.

by Lanthanide | 24th Jul 23, 4:30pm 1690173003

Observing common characteristics of a group is not inherently being intolerant to that group.

by kiwikidsnz | 24th Jul 23, 4:59pm 1690174754

Good to hear that it's not being intolerant to call the Greens & TPM a bunch of racist separatists out to steal as much as they can from those who worked all their lives to support their own families while paying the bulk of net income tax to charitably support those worse off than themselves.

by Nzdan | 24th Jul 23, 5:17pm 1690175844

I agree, it's not intolerant at all to call them racist separatists if their policies support that.

Is calling a spade a spade is okay as long as you're not doing it to a Boomer?

by Pragmatist | 24th Jul 23, 4:30pm 1690173023

You going to jump in in support of Apartheid proponents too Yvil?

by Nzdan | 24th Jul 23, 4:53pm 1690174422

Oh good point. Yes Boomers are different, I shouldn't be so intolerant of a generation that was raised inherently racist and homophobic. I won't go into the other traits such as greed and self entitlement.

by kiwikidsnz | 24th Jul 23, 5:01pm 1690174880

In fact the boomers are the ones who passed all the anti discrimination laws decades ago.

by Nzdan | 24th Jul 23, 5:15pm 1690175754

Boomers introduced the Race Relations Act in 1971 and the Human Rights Commission Act of 1977? The oldest Boomer would have been 30 in 1977, but I'll take your word for it.

by mfd | 24th Jul 23, 5:20pm 1690176030

Maybe kiwikidsnz was out there with a placard protesting for the rights of the oppressed? Seems out of character with his comments these days, but I guess people change.

by kiwikidsnz | 24th Jul 23, 5:27pm 1690176474

“If a person is not a socialist when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.'

by Yvil | 24th Jul 23, 11:00pm 1690196401

I think many are missing the point here. The point is not "which group to discriminate against" (racist, boomers, the left, the right etc...).

The point is NOT to stereotype a group of people based on their age, gender, political views etc .. and then conclude that all people in that group are...(fill in the blank)

by cantab | 24th Jul 23, 11:20pm 1690197659

Wow, these forums have really descended into chaos… Racism, Homophobia, and Politics in a single thread.

Religion anyone?

by Pa1nter | 25th Jul 23, 7:48am 1690228110

Doesn't compute.

If you run out of groups to blame

Then that'd only make yourself responsible for your situation

by Rumpole | 25th Jul 23, 9:53pm 1690278790

NzDAN - what people do behind closed doors is their business, but was/is not widely accepted as normal so the Boomers having seen and experienced the disease, emotional and disruptive changes that the political and MSM attempted normalisation of activities many consider unacceptable in terms of portraying it at every opportunity will eventually lead to social backlash.

by Uncle Bulgaria | 24th Jul 23, 3:26pm 1690169192

Life generally always better as a kid ...or at least the memories are. I get you are talking about your experience but when you think about the 80s.... people didn't live as long which almost ends the argument about life quality.

From memory, the threat of nuclear war real and constant. Consumer goods were massively expensive. Public transport even worse than now. Everyday sexism totally acceptable. Racism only just really starting to be questioned. Restaurants appalling. Driving riskier and less comfortable. Practically no public places banned smoking. Television was dismal. Abuse in care absolutely off the scale.

I dunno - I just think the quality of life for a lot of people has generally got better.

by JimboJones | 24th Jul 23, 3:42pm 1690170173

Yes, its both better and worse. I agree that smartphone and social media has made life a lot worse although not a NZ specific issue. But in most other areas life is better, but better can be a lot more boring.

Life has always been pretty good for white hetro males with decent parents...

by Yvil | 24th Jul 23, 4:21pm 1690172510

If you consider that "smartphone and social media has made life a lot worse", just stop using them, including for reading and posting on Interest!

by Noncents | 24th Jul 23, 5:43pm 1690177405

Comparing now to the 80s...

I would rather 70 active healthly years, than 95 years where the last 40 were inactive and only prolonged due to modern medicine.
Nuclear war is still a factor (Russia, China, North Korea), Nuclear terrorism is now a thing.
Doomsday is now ecologically driven, but still a doomsday none the less.
Public transport was actually better at least in Wellington (Less cancellations, cheaper tickets, more reliable buses, and it ran on weekends, plus the buses were electric)
Racism and sexism are the same, just less overt.
Dining out is definitely better now, but the quality in the supermarket was better in the 1980s, although the range somewhat reduced.
Smoking has been replaced by Vapes, can't stand either.
Less people, just made most things work better - looking at the health system in particular. I used to be able to get a doctors appointment within hours, now it is days.
the internet, although a double edged sword, infite knowledge available at the touch of a screen (not even a button), but equally, infinite sh!t is also available.
Air travel is a lot cheaper and more widely available, but destroying the world.
Property was in the range of 2x-4x salary, now... and I would say that is one of the biggest drivers of happiness.

by streetwise | 27th Jul 23, 12:54am 1690376088

I think it was 1962, I was 13 years old, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, that nuclear stand-off between USA and Russia, was in full swing and dominated the headlines.

Things were looking terrifyingly grim; I went to bed one night and then, just as I was about to fall asleep, I heard what my imagination assumed to be nuclear bombs going off and thought the war was underway. I was paralysed with fear and broke out in a cold sweat. Again and again I heard the huge booming of atom bombs exploding. My paralysis turned into an uncontrollable trembling as I wondered how soon it would be before I was incinerated. I thus waited and trembled until after a while I gathered the courage to get out of bed, pull the curtain back and peer out the window. It was only then that I realised I had only been hearing claps of thunder; there was a thunder storm raging.

True story. Even though in most ways the 1950s thru 1960s were in most ways idyllic to grow up in, there were moments of terror and, yes, there were pedophiles around most corners, perhaps more so than today.

by cantab | 24th Jul 23, 10:25pm 1690194321

Human nature is to adapt to whatever ever presents itself, and most people tend to maintain an equilibrium of the way they perceive the world and themselves, regardless of actual events.

In the 80’s, hypochondriacs used to wonder if they had a disease. Now with Google, they wonder which disease they have…

by Nugatory | 25th Jul 23, 7:33am 1690227200

For this reason I will vote TOP. The rest are proven bad. This mob might be bad but it's not proven. Let's find out.

by Yvil | 24th Jul 23, 1:30pm 1690162214

Great (and tricky) work DC, thank you.

by To the pint | 24th Jul 23, 1:41pm 1690162889

Labour's housing policy is not available on their website.

How can they show their faces in public?

by bw | 24th Jul 23, 2:00pm 1690164056

Labour need to re-evaluate everything on that list you've complied (well done, by the way).

What have they got to lose now?

If they have one shot at keeping the reigns of Government it's to scrap this popularisation thing they've been reduced to, and actually come out with a plan that, tough though it will be, is an alternative for us to look at to what we've been force-fed by both sides for a couple of decades now. Provoke a real conversation on what we have to face. A Bazball of politics, I guess.

We all know some hard choices have to be made. The days of coating them in sugar, are over.

by Yvil | 24th Jul 23, 4:23pm 1690172609

bw, "What have they (Labour) got to lose now?"

Another 3 - 4 ministers perhaps ?

by Rumpole | 25th Jul 23, 9:58pm 1690279095

I hope.

by Cheetahlegs66 | 24th Jul 23, 2:05pm 1690164305

Under the NZ First-Maori seats section you have images of Rawiri and Debbie from TPM. I don't think they align with the NZF position.

by morepork | 24th Jul 23, 2:07pm 1690164427

FYI there's a link/page with a typo, Immagration.

by Lanthanide | 24th Jul 23, 2:44pm 1690166691

You've got TOP's tax policy wrong: https://www.interest.co.nz/elections/2023/policy/84940/tax

The $16,500 tax free income for everyone is in their "phase 2" of their policy, which is after 2026.

Their 2023 policies are on part 1 of their tax page, here: https://www.top.org.nz/fair-tax-system

You'll notice the number $16,500 does not appear on part 1 of the policy, and the LVT rate is 0.75%, not 1.25%, which is in part 2.

Also you REALLY need to have a "fix an error" submission form on each of these individual pages. At present it appears commenting on this article is the only direct way to alert you to errors.

And again for the Youth policy section you say that TOP does not have any policy on their website. They do, right here: https://www.top.org.nz/tealcard

by Pragmatist | 24th Jul 23, 2:57pm 1690167466

All purely academic, reality is that might get an MP this election, and maybe in about a decade have enough clout to actually start negotiating some policy with a coalition partner.

by GV 27 | 24th Jul 23, 3:07pm 1690168043

I don't think it would take many MPs to have much influence in the coming parliament.

by buyandhodl | 24th Jul 23, 3:08pm 1690168123

Dunno about that, TOP this election will either have 0 or 3-4. Could easily end up holding balance of power and able to form a coalition with either party. That sort of position tends to reap large rewards under MMP, just ask Winston, then ask James Shaw what you get when you can only ever work with one of the majors.

by lucenera | 24th Jul 23, 3:17pm 1690168632

true, I think the same.

By not having obvious links with left or right TOP might be in a very convenient position even with just 3-4. That's another reason why it is actually a meaningful vote

by Pragmatist | 24th Jul 23, 4:27pm 1690172838

I think you'd find a Minority Govt before you saw either National or Labour cave into TOPs LVT. Neither or them wants to be known as the party that introduced a LVT. Once they let that cat out of the bag its not going back in.

by Macawsley | 25th Jul 23, 8:19am 1690229966

"ask James Shaw what you get when you can only ever work with one of the majors."

or David Seymour

by Lanthanide | 24th Jul 23, 4:41pm 1690173715

If the page is going to have a section for a political party then it needs to be correct, regardless of your views of that political party.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Jul 23, 11:56am 1690242965

It represents TOPs published policies as you've confirmed.

by Lanthanide | 26th Jul 23, 5:46pm 1690350390

1. No, it doesn't. They have tax policies for the 2023 election and they ALSO have tax policies for the 2026 election, because their policy prescription is longer term than other parties. The policies posted on this website are the ones that TOP has given for the 2026 election, and does not include their 2023 policies at all. This website should include the 2023 ones at the very least and it does not, so it is wrong. If this website chooses to also include their 2026 policies, then it needs to say that they are the 2026 policies and it has not done this.

2. The Youth policy section on this website says that TOP does not have a Youth policy on their website. They do, it is called the TealCard.

EDIT: After writing the above reply I went to check the Tax policy and the Youth policy. Both have been updated in line with my suggestions, so thanks to interest.co.nz for doing that.

by Andre13 | 24th Jul 23, 3:39pm 1690169992

Joke of the year, policies comparison :) Its same maksists running the show. Overseas money tap turned off, it's going to go downhills, no options

by Piggy | 24th Jul 23, 3:46pm 1690170385

There is a very good shout that NAct will come into government this year. I know they intend to revoke the housing remit from the RBNZ. Does anyone know whether that will include revoking the DTI tool (that some users here are absolutely thirsting for)?

by Chairman Moa | 24th Jul 23, 4:20pm 1690172429

Let labour finish what they planned..

by Yvil | 24th Jul 23, 4:25pm 1690172738

Only 90'000 affordable home to go...

by Cheetahlegs66 | 24th Jul 23, 6:31pm 1690180311

Doing well with racial division.

by Macawsley | 25th Jul 23, 8:31am 1690230678

The resentful virtue signaling from some angry conservatives has certainly ramped up.

by Rumpole | 25th Jul 23, 10:01pm 1690279319

how many trees still waiting to be planted.

by Firstclass | 24th Jul 23, 7:58pm 1690185501

You mean this ?

by kiwikidsnz | 24th Jul 23, 4:25pm 1690172751

Apart from the Greens and TPM whose policies are to implement the racist separatism of the unelected authors of He Puapua, none of the major parties have anything under Constitutional reform.

Thought ACT proposed a referendum on the ToW & Maori seats ?

by Firstclass | 24th Jul 23, 8:07pm 1690186062

I just had a look and Labour has no policies, anywhere. nice plan Labour.

by cantab | 24th Jul 23, 9:59pm 1690192796

I think their plan is to just use National’s policies, but give woke names to everything.

by solardb | 25th Jul 23, 8:00am 1690228850

Short memories, a year ago you were all complaining too many things were happening to fast, now it's not enough

by keriwin | 25th Jul 23, 9:12am 1690233137

You need to add Democracy. Labour wants co governance, getting rid of 1 person 1 vote. Isn’t that he most important issue this election?

by sparrow | 25th Jul 23, 11:27am 1690241238

No, it's irrelevant.

The most important issue this election as it has been for a while is the cost of housing in NZ and the national pastime of speculating on property.

For that reason a vote for NACT can't be considered.

(And if we want to vote based on culture wars, allowing the right wing religious faction to dominate parliament is far more dangerous than giving Maori back a little of what was stolen from them.)

by Pa1nter | 25th Jul 23, 10:17pm 1690280264

None of these parties have a sound plan for making housing affordable.

They're either going to promote the status quo.

Or mimic something already tried elsewhere, that doesn't work either.

by keriwin | 26th Jul 23, 12:50pm 1690332616

If Labour win this will be the last election with 1 person 1 vote. The other issues won’t matter as they will all be Maori centric. If you do not believe me check the contract for funding on NZ on air website. It States that 1)Maori never ceded sovereignty. 2) All White people are racist. Have you never wondered why we have had 2 puff documentaries on Greenie Cloe and a house moving series by the former No 1 man in NZ. I suggest you all go to the Stop Co Governance web site. Contrary to what is written in the bought and paid for press Julian Batchelor is very much for the Treaty and you can learn all about the events that went on in 1840. I went to one of his meetings last week and was surprised how much of what happened is documented.

by Escander | 27th Jul 23, 3:03pm 1690426997

I know it's been said before, but the council rates are a form House and Land Value Tax, so technically we already have HLVT, perhaps we could increase the rates on vacant land to keep it productive as this seems to be the main driver.

Personally, I think an LVT will have the opposite effect than intended, as not only will homeowners have to find the money for deposit, mortgage, rates and add an VLT. I don’t see this making anything more affordable or attainable.

I think foreign buyers for real estate or businesses that include real estate should only be able to purchase lease hold, it could be a 500-year lease, but the land should always return to New Zealand.

I’ll vote for the government that includes accountability in its manifesto 😊