National puts Labour's unfunded promises at $18.8 billion

National says Labour has $18.8 billion in spending promises without identified funding, according to RNZ.

Nicola Willis says that shortfall equals $2,263 in extra tax a year for the average household. It is a direct per-household share of the gap between promised spending and planned revenue.

The National Party newsroom on 30 September 2026 listed an item by Willis titled 'Labour will cost households $2,263 per year'. It is described as a refreshed analysis of the gap between Labour's spending promises and revenue intentions, according to the National Party newsroom.

The figure has moved. In June, Willis said Labour was $18.2 billion short on funding for its policies. National now puts the unfunded total at $18.8 billion.

Willis said Labour had announced a $5.5 billion tax rise on business by cancelling Investment Boost. She said Labour leader Chris Hipkins ruled out extra borrowing on Wednesday morning. That closes off one of the three broad options for filling any gap: tax, borrow or reprioritise.

Labour rejects the claim. Finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds said "The bill doesn't exist". Labour said it will lay out its fiscal plan after the pre-election update on the government's books, which was published on Tuesday.

Labour has run critical lines on Willis's numbers before. In March 2024 it said she had broken her promise to remove the "app tax" she campaigned against, according to Labour. In April 2024 it said Treasury had produced a report for Willis titled 'Discontinuation of the National Resilience Plan', according to Labour. In June 2025 it accused Willis of misleading on job numbers, saying the claimed 240,000 jobs were due to population growth rather than her Budget, according to Labour.

For context, those earlier clashes sit apart from the current claim. They go to credibility and record. The present dispute is narrower. It turns on what each side counts as a promise, how it prices that promise over the four-year forecast period, and what it counts as planned revenue to offset it.

On timing, Labour has tied its full fiscal plan to the pre-election update. National has published its costing before that plan appears. That is standard pre-election practice. One side totals the other side's public announcements using the costings available at the time, like adding up a shopping list from the prices on the shelf.

The broader context here is that gap exercises stay contestable until both baselines are published. What counts as a firm commitment, what counts as an aspiration, and what tax policy is assumed to apply all change the total. A per-household figure sharpens the politics. It does not settle the accounting. For Press Gallery regulars, the test will be line-by-line reconciliation once Labour releases its fiscal plan: the day-to-day operating and one-off capital parts, the revenue offsets including Investment Boost, and the borrowing track against the update published on Tuesday.

In my view, the next step is procedural rather than rhetorical. Labour can reconcile each item National has listed, dispute the costing, or dispute that the item is policy at all. Edmonds has signalled the third course with her rejection. Until that document is public, the $18.8 billion figure remains National's claim, not an agreed baseline, and should be reported as such.