Blog post
March 24, 2026

Answering your questions from the AI as a stakeholder webinar

AI has become a powerful stakeholder in its own right — from being just another ‘technological advancement’ to an active contributor to modern-day communications, that’s massively changed the media landscape today.

Isentia hosted an essential conversation with Lisa Main (Director, Main Bureau), Dr Nici Sweaney (Founder and Director, AI Her Way), Prashant Saxena (Isentia’s VP of Revenue and Insights, SEA), and Ngaire Crawford (Isentia’s Director of Insights, ANZ). Together, they explored how AI reshapes the world of communications and corporate affairs all the while figuring out how to manage and strategically engage with it.

In this session, we covered:

  • Understanding AI’s behaviour and influence as a digital stakeholder.
  • Navigating the unique challenges and opportunities AI presents as a new “audience.”
  • The long-term impact of AI and LLMs on the industries central to modern communicators.

Following the webinar, our panellists took the time to answer the most insightful questions from our attendees that we couldn’t get to during the live session. Here are their expert perspectives.

Ethical governance and human-centric adoption: perspectives from Dr Nici Sweaney

As the Founder and Director of AI Her Way, Dr Nici Sweaney advocates for a strategic approach to AI that prioritises human intent over technical capability. The questions directed to her focused on the ethical foundations of AI, how organisations should structure their internal AI strategy, and practical ways to start using agents today.

Q: Could you please shed a little light on what ethical AI in your language means?

Ethical AI, to me, is about two things working together: avoiding harm and actively doing good. It’s not just “don’t break anything” — but genuinely asking, does this create value for the business, for the people using it, and for the broader world? Transparency, equity, and accountability are the pillars. Transparency means being honest with your audience and colleagues about when AI is involved. Equity means asking who this helps and who it leaves behind, as AI scales existing biases. Finally, accountability means humans stay in the loop. AI should inform decisions, not make them. When the “why” is clear — like saving a team time to focus on strategy — you are using AI with integrity.

Q: Should AI adoption be owned by IT or Internal Communications? I see staff intranets being overtaken by AI and this has implications for how employees are communicated with.

My answer is probably not what IT wants to hear. AI is part of your infrastructure, so IT must be involved for security and guardrails. However, the strategy behind adoption is fundamentally a human problem, not a technical one. I advocate for a cross-functional “coalition” that brings IT, HR, communications, and strategy to the same table. If you create a dedicated AI leadership role, that person should sit closer to human-centric functions like HR and communications. The hardest part of adoption isn’t the technology; it’s the people, the culture, and the narrative you build around it internally.

Q: What are the most effective ways to address colleagues’ concerns about using AI agents in the workplace — particularly around trust, accuracy, and job security?

First, acknowledge that the fear is real; it is a biological response to an unprecedented rate of change. Trust is built through honesty. Pretending AI won’t displace roles destroys trust, so be honest about how the landscape is shifting. What actually moves people is showing, not telling. Show them how AI can solve their specific “pain points” — the tedious, joyless tasks that don’t add value. When people see AI as an “empowered choice” that uplifts their work rather than replacing their judgment and strategic thinking, buy-in follows. Build confidence with small wins first.

Q: What are some simple AI agents that you would recommend communications professionals experiment with setting up?

Most professionals don’t need complex autonomous agents yet; they need custom bots and automated workflows. The magic is in understanding your process first. Some practical starting points include:

  • Daily Briefings: A task that pulls from your calendar, email, and news to deliver a summary each morning.
  • Meeting Prep: Automated notes that pull context and past correspondence before a meeting, and transcription tools that turn recordings into action items afterwards.
  • Content Repurposing: A custom bot trained on your “voice” that can turn one talk or newsletter into 15+ social media assets and blog snippets.
Q: Our team members are using AI daily, but I know this is not safe as data is transferred back and forth. Should we create rules and ask people to sign IP protection?

Answer: Your instinct is right. If your team uses free consumer tools, your data may be used to train future models. You should move to enterprise-grade tools like Claude for Teams, Microsoft Copilot, or ChatGPT Enterprise, which offer contractual data protections. You should also build an AI Usage Policy that defines which data is public, internal, or restricted, and map AI rules to those classes. In Australia, we recommend aligning with the EU AI Act — the most comprehensive framework available — to future-proof your organisation.

Synthetic authenticity and the new media ecosystem: Perspectives from Prashant Saxena

Prashant Saxena, Isentia’s VP of Revenue and Insights for SEA, approaches AI through the lens of psychological bonding and media structural shifts. His insights address the changing role of media and the technical ways we must now communicate to satisfy AI as a new audience.

Q: Given that trust in media is dropping and media themselves are using AI more, what is the role or value media can have now?

Media’s value is shifting from being the “trusted narrator” for humans to being the “training signal” for AI. When AI models generate answers, they weight authoritative media sources much more heavily than random web content. Even as human trust erodes, media’s structural influence on AI-generated information is growing. For communicators, “earned media” now serves two audiences simultaneously: the humans who read it and the machines that learn from it. Publications with strong editorial standards become more valuable because AI systems use domain authority and editorial signals as quality proxies.

Q: How does AI rank or prioritise its sources and how do you see this shaping the earned media strategy for brands?

AI models don’t “rank” sources like Google does. They weight information based on source authority, recency, consistency, and structured data quality. If five credible outlets report the same fact, that fact becomes a “high-confidence training signal.” This means volume across credible sources matters more than a single “big hit.” For your strategy, consistency of messaging across all placements is vital because AI looks for corroboration. Factual, entity-rich statements will be picked up more reliably than narrative-heavy feature writing.

Q: With the question of trust — where does the psychology come into it when AI uses a cute nickname or ‘remembers’ your day? Is it harder to remain dispassionate?

This is the core of my PhD research. It is what I call “synthetic authenticity.” AI systems deploy cues like warmth and memory that we evolved to interpret as human. These trigger “parasocial bonding” — the same mechanism that makes you trust a friend’s recommendation. The danger is that cognitive awareness (knowing it’s AI) doesn’t override the emotional feeling. We need a new kind of literacy that teaches people to recognise when their “trust response” is being activated by design rather than by a genuine relationship.

Q: Should we be changing the format of communications to cater for AI as an audience, such as media releases in Q&A format?

Yes. This is a very practical move. AI models extract information more reliably from structured formats. A Q&A format gives the AI clear question-answer pairs that map to how people query systems. You should also focus on “AI-readable claims” — entity-rich, factual statements. Instead of saying “We are committed to sustainability,” say “Our Singapore operations reduced carbon emissions by 34% between 2023 and 2025.” The second version is a verifiable fact an AI can actually use and cite.

Q: PR professionals traditionally monitor media coverage through agencies like Isentia to gauge sentiment. With AI as a stakeholder, how do we monitor ‘its sentiment’?

This is the new frontier. Traditional monitoring tracks what humans publish; AI sentiment monitoring tracks what AI systems say about your brand when asked. Since there is no single “AI sentiment” (ChatGPT, Grok, and Claude all give different answers based on their training), you need to monitor across platforms. We are developing capabilities to systematically query these platforms to see how their narratives change over time and identify which source materials are driving those answers.

Q: Regarding ethics and agendas in AI learning — what are the differences between models like ChatGPT and Grok, and how does this affect our brand narrative?

Every model reflects the values, training data choices, and alignment decisions of its creators. ChatGPT (OpenAI) tends towards cautious, balanced responses with strong content guardrails. Conversely, Grok (xAI) was explicitly designed to be less filtered, sometimes surfacing perspectives that other models suppress. Claude (Anthropic) prioritises honesty and nuance. For communicators, this means your brand’s narrative varies by platform; you must monitor across multiple models because the same question about your brand will receive materially different answers depending on which tool is used.

Q: With many major news organisations blocking AI crawlers, how should we navigate content creation to ensure we still influence AI-generated answers?

Major publishers like the New York Times and Reuters have blocked AI crawlers, creating a gap in training data. When authoritative journalism is unavailable, AI models may fill that gap with lower-quality content or brand-owned content. For communicators, this means your “owned content” — such as your website, blog, and structured data — carries proportionally more weight in AI-generated answers. Your media targeting strategy now needs to account for which outlets are AI-accessible, as they will be disproportionately influential in shaping your narrative.

Analytical interrogation and the search for authority: Perspectives from Ngaire Crawford

Ngaire Crawford, Isentia’s Director of Insights for ANZ, emphasises the role of the analyst. Her approach is characterised by a “rhythm of interrogation,” arguing that the most effective way to use AI is through constant questioning and a focus on high-authority inputs.

Q: Is AI already part of your daily work or habit? If so, how are you using it and what are your best practices?

I was initially very sceptical, but it is now part of my every day. I use models like Claude and Gemini to workshop conference outlines, plan education programmes, update code, and structure strategic thinking. My best practice advice is to develop a “rhythm of interrogation.” Don’t just accept the first answer; ask for evidence and challenge the output. While AI saves time on technical tasks like coding, for strategic work it simply shifts the “mental load.” You spend the same amount of time, but the depth and quality are significantly improved because you aren’t starting from a blank page.

Q. PR professionals traditionally monitor media coverage through agencies like Isentia to guage what stakeholders think about a brand. How do we monitor ‘AI sentiment’ and the information that feeds these models?

It’s important to know that models are optimised to give the most useful answer, not necessarily the most accurate one. They are pattern-completing, not fact-checking. Because model responses are not fixed and change based on the conversation, I suggest focusing on the “controllable inputs” that feed them. This includes your own website, company material, Wikipedia data, and review sites (including employee reviews). Ensuring these bases are telling the intended story is the absolute best starting point for managing AI “sentiment.”

Q: How does AI prioritise its sources and how does this shape earned media strategy?

There is no “PageRank” to reverse-engineer here. Models are shaped by what was prominent and widely cited in their training data. Practically, this means a shift from volume to authority. A hundred pieces of low-quality coverage do less work than ten pieces in genuinely credible outlets (major mastheads, industry publications, or your own well-structured site). The question for the modern communicator isn’t “did we get coverage?”, it’s “does the coverage that exists, taken as a whole, tell a coherent and credible story?” AI reads the whole picture, not just the highlights reel.

Q: Now that OpenAI is opening up advertising, how much will it cost for a sentiment boost?

Honestly? We don’t know yet. The commercial layer of AI is being figured out in real time. The moment someone wonders if they are getting the “best” answer or a “sponsored” one, trust erodes. However, we still click Google ads, so it will likely happen. What’s important is that organisations that “earned” their reputation through authoritative presence before the ad market caught up will be in a much stronger position than those trying to buy a shortcut later.

The path forward for the modern communicator

The insights from our panellists make one thing clear: AI is no longer a tool of the future; it is a stakeholder of the present. To lead with credibility in this new era, communicators must pivot from chasing volume to building authority. Whether it is through adopting a rigorous ethical framework, optimising content for AI readability, or maintaining a “rhythm of interrogation” with the tools we use, the goal remains the same: ensuring our brand narratives are coherent, credible, and human-led.

The tools have finally caught up to the ambitions of our industry. Now, it is up to us to provide the architect’s blueprint for how they are used.


Interested in viewing the whole recording? Watch our webinar here.

Alternatively, contact our team to learn more insights into meaningful measurement, KPIs and communicating using the right dataset.

Share

Similar articles

object(WP_Post)#8035 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(50464) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-10-19 01:20:16" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-19 01:20:16" ["post_content"]=> string(32656) "
A weekly tracker tracing the stories, figures and policies driving media and social coverage in the 2026 New Zealand General Election across Online News, TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums. This edition covers conversations and coverage from 8th - 15th October, highlighting what’s shaping the election conversation.

1. Election Conversation

18,417
total mentions this week
4,479 media13,938 social

Media = news coverage. Social = all public posts across X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums - everyone posting, not just media outlets.

2. Media Issue of the Week

Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs Draw Criticism Over Meeting With Mongrel Mob Members

Greens / Te Pāti Māori112 media items · 116 social posts

Candidates and sitting MPs from the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori attended a meeting with Mongrel Mob members at a gang address. When photographs from the meeting were shared on social media, the response from commentators and rival parties was swift and largely critical.

This was not the week's highest-volume story, accounting for only 112 of 4,479 media items (2.5%, after filtering out unrelated international content) and 116 of 13,938 unique social posts (0.8%, after collapsing retweet/repost duplicates down to one count per message), well below the volume generated by ongoing leaders' debate coverage, which totalled 1,125 media items. Two independent methods nonetheless support treating it as a genuine, separable story: an exact keyword count aligns closely with an unsupervised clustering analysis of the entire media population, which identified it as a distinct 47-item cluster - smaller than general campaign coverage and several specific policy announcements, but clearly distinguishable from them. What sets the story apart is the intensity of the reaction rather than its scale: 72% of social commentary on the topic was negative, the most one-sided sentiment recorded for any subject this week, and the average post attracted roughly 5.7 times the typical level of engagement. Taken together, these figures point to a genuine public reaction concentrated on social platforms, and the episode provides National and ACT with a law-and-order narrative that may continue into coming weeks. It has not been linked to a tracked party policy below, as it reflects a matter of conduct rather than a policy position.

3. What's happening across media and social?

4,479 media items · 13,938 social items · share of each channel's own conversation, so the two bars are directly comparable

"Social" is all public posts across X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums - not just media organisations' own accounts.

MediaSocial
Issues
Cost of Living
Media
15.8%
Social
22.7%
Economy & Jobs
Media
19.4%
Social
17.5%
Health
Media
11.7%
Social
9.9%
Infrastructure & Transport
Media
11.4%
Social
5.2%
Law & Order
Media
5.3%
Social
10.6%
Parties
National
Media
30.9%
Social
27.5%
Labour
Media
25.3%
Social
21.6%
NZ First
Media
14.7%
Social
21.5%
Greens
Media
14.1%
Social
20.4%
ACT
Media
6.8%
Social
6.4%

The most active commentary this week came from Sean Plunket, the Chris Chang and Tova O'Brien pairing, and John MacDonald.

By follower reach, the most prominent social accounts posting about the election this week were major outlets' own accounts - the New Zealand Herald, 1News, RNZ, Stuff and Radio Tarana - alongside the official Labour Party account. Individual leaders' personal accounts posted actively but with smaller followings than these outlet and party accounts.

The Greens continue to receive disproportionately greater attention on social media relative to traditional news coverage, accounting for 20.4% of social party conversation compared with 14.1% in media coverage - roughly 1.4 times the media share.

Law and order shows a similarly pronounced gap between channels this week, accounting for 10.6% of social conversation compared with 5.3% in the news. This is consistent with the public reaction to the Mongrel Mob meeting, which appears to have generated considerably sharper engagement on social platforms than mainstream coverage volume alone would suggest.

4. Party Share of Conversation

1. National33.1%
2. Labour26.6%
3. NZ First20.6%
4. Greens19.7%

Shown for the four largest parliamentary parties (National, Labour, Greens, NZ First); ACT, Te Pāti Māori and TOP are tracked elsewhere in this report but not included in this chart, so these shares sum to 100% of the four shown, not of all tracked parties. Share of conversation measures attention and mentions only - it is not polling and should not be read as an indication of electoral success.

5. Top candidates this week

1. Winston Peters1,931
2. Christopher Luxon1,631
3. Chris Hipkins1,466
4. David Seymour916
5. Chloe Swarbrick561

Winston Peters leads the rankings this week, a shift driven primarily by a widely circulated moment in the minor-party leaders' debate in which he described diversity as "a weakness rather than a strength" while delivering a pointed critique of the left-leaning bloc. Christopher Luxon and Chris Hipkins follow closely behind as the campaign moves into its final weeks, while David Seymour and Chloe Swarbrick complete the top five, each drawing attention largely through their parties' own policy announcements this week.

6. Election Issues

Top 4 themes this week

Economy & Jobs3,014
Cost of Living2,901
Health1,789
Infrastructure & Transport1,508

What's driving conversation about each party?

Each major party's top-ranked issues this week, by real topic volume in their social conversation (after excluding other parties' names, individual people, and procedural or horse-race chatter), with how that conversation leaned

NegativeNeutralPositive
National
Cost of living · 86 items
Neg 46.5%Neu 31.4%Pos 22.1%
Tax reform · 34 items
Neg 44.1%Neu 52.9%Pos 2.9%
Fiscal plan · 42 items
Neg 38.1%Neu 57.1%Pos 4.8%
Labour
Cost of living · 88 items
Neg 30.7%Neu 36.4%Pos 33%
Fiscal plan · 47 items
Neg 55.3%Neu 34%Pos 10.6%
Economy · 70 items
Neg 34.3%Neu 48.6%Pos 17.1%
Greens
Wealth tax · 41 items
Neg 53.7%Neu 34.1%Pos 12.2%
Cost of living · 43 items
Neg 27.9%Neu 41.9%Pos 30.2%
Jobs · 112 items
Neg 34.8%Neu 33.9%Pos 31.2%
ACT
Fiscal plan · 24 items
Neg 50%Neu 37.5%Pos 12.5%

Volume and sentiment above are based on social media data only.

7. Issues to Watch

  • The meeting between Green and Te Pāti Māori representatives and Mongrel Mob members represents a reputational risk for both parties heading into the final weeks of the campaign. Whether National and ACT are able to sustain this as a law-and-order narrative through to the 7 November election is worth monitoring closely.
  • Labour's fiscal plan issue recorded the most negative social sentiment of any tracked policy this week, at 55.3% negative, followed by Greens' wealth tax at 53.7% and ACT's fiscal plan at 50.0%. All three touch on tax, spending or fiscal policy specifically, suggesting the fiscal debate is where social sentiment is running most negative across the board this week, rather than any one party facing an isolated problem.
  • Social media discussion of the Greens continues to centre on polling performance and tactical voting considerations rather than policy substance. Coalition and tactical-voting framing accounts for 12.7% of their social conversation this week, compared with just 2.2% focused specifically on their wealth tax proposal - a pattern that has now held for three consecutive weeks. Whether that balance shifts as the campaign enters its final stretch would be worth tracking.

If you want to find out more about how Isentia can help you understand the NZ media landscape, please reach out to us here.

" ["post_title"]=> string(83) "NZ Election 2026: Mongrel Mob Controversy, Fiscal Policy and Greens on social media" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(156) "Explore New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation, from the Mongrel Mob meeting controversy and law and order to reactions to Labour’s capital gains tax." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(49) "nz-election-2026-mongrel-mob-fiscal-policy-greens" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-10-19 01:20:22" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-19 01:20:22" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50464" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
NZ Election 2026: Mongrel Mob Controversy, Fiscal Policy and Greens on social media

Explore New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation, from the Mongrel Mob meeting controversy and law and order to reactions to Labour’s capital gains tax.

object(WP_Post)#7804 (24) { ["ID"]=> int(50341) ["post_author"]=> string(2) "75" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 11:53:50" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-08 11:53:50" ["post_content"]=> string(26341) "

A weekly tracker tracing the stories, figures and policies driving media and social coverage in the 2026 New Zealand General Election across Online News, TV, Radio, Newspaper, Magazine, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Threads and Forums. This edition covers conversations and coverage from 1st – 8th October, highlighting what’s shaping the election conversation.

1. Election Conversation

21,637
total mentions this week
4,360 media17,277 social

2. Media Issue of the Week

National Proposes Drug Testing and Benefit Cuts for Jobseekers

National29 media items

National announced a five-point welfare policy: random drug testing for JobSeeker recipients (with sanctions for repeat failures), reduced payments for long-term beneficiaries, and a doubled stand-down period for repeatedly leaving jobs without good reason. Labour and the Greens called it "punching down" and "cruel"; ACT proposed going even further; Luxon defended it as "fairness" for taxpayers.

The single largest media cluster this week (183 of 600 sampled items) was generic "campaigning intensifies as election day nears" coverage. This welfare policy, while smaller by volume (29 items), is a genuine flashpoint: a specific, controversial announcement that sharply divided every major party and will likely keep generating reaction into next week.

3. What's happening across media and social?

4,360 media items · 17,277 social items · share of each channel's own conversation, so the two bars are directly comparable

MediaSocial
Issues
Cost of Living
Media
15.8%
Social
24.5%
Economy & Jobs
Media
19.4%
Social
13.4%
Housing
Media
10.5%
Social
7.7%
Health
Media
8.5%
Social
9.3%
Infrastructure & Transport
Media
9.8%
Social
7.1%
Education
Media
8.2%
Social
8%
Parties
National
Media
25.5%
Social
31.3%
Labour
Media
18.9%
Social
25.9%
NZ First
Media
18.3%
Social
17.2%
Greens
Media
10.3%
Social
20.8%
ACT
Media
11%
Social
3.9%

The Greens get more than twice the relative attention on social media as in the news. On social, the Greens are 20.8% of party conversation; in the news, they're 10.3%.

Health is a top-four issue on social but not in the news this week - Infrastructure takes its place in media's top four instead. Social conversation is tilting toward the health system while media coverage stays on economy, cost of living and infrastructure announcements.

4. Party Share of Conversation

1. National33.7%
2. Labour26.7%
3. NZ First20.7%
4. Greens18.9%

Share of conversation measures attention and mentions only - it is not polling and should not be read as an indication of electoral success.

5. Top candidates this week

1. Christopher Luxon2,301
2. Chris Hipkins2,058
3. Winston Peters1,446
4. David Seymour757
5. Chloe Swarbrick609

Luxon and Hipkins remain close at the top as the campaign enters its final stretch. Peters follows, still driven by coalition speculation. Seymour moves up to fourth on the back of ACT's economic-reform push (including floating a higher superannuation age), overtaking Swarbrick, whose fifth-place mentions continue to track the Greens' polling strength.

6. Election Issues

Top 4 themes this week

Cost of Living3,584
Economy & Jobs3,359
Housing1,846
Infrastructure & Transport1,709

How are policies landing for each party?

Each major party's most prominent specific policy, and how social conversation reacted to it

NegativeNeutralPositive
National
Infrastructure investment · 53 items
Neg 42.3%Neu 36.5%Pos 21.2%
Labour
Capital gains tax (incl. farms) · 70 items
Neg 85.5%Neu 14.5%Pos 0%
Greens
Wealth tax · 67 items
Neg 17.9%Neu 65.7%Pos 16.4%
ACT
KiwiSaver tax removal · 23 items
Neg 4.3%Neu 4.3%Pos 91.3%

Volume and sentiment above are based on social media data only.

7. Issues to Watch

  • National's welfare drug-testing policy is a fresh, sharply divisive flashpoint - the "punching down" framing from Labour and the Greens, and ACT signalling it wants to go further still, both point to more reaction next week.
  • Labour's capital gains tax remains the week's clearest negative outlier (85.5% negative on social). National's own infrastructure pledge is also net-negative this week (42.3% vs 21.2% positive), despite infrastructure announcements usually landing on safer ground than tax policy. ACT's KiwiSaver policy, by contrast, remains clearly positive (91.3%).
  • On social, discussion of the Greens is mostly about polling results and tactical voting rather than their own policy: 14% of their social conversation is coalition/tactical-voting framing (which bloc to "party vote" for), versus just 2% specifically about their wealth tax policy - their polling surge is driving attention more than their platform is.

If you want to find out more about how Isentia can help you understand the NZ media landscape, please reach out to us here.

" ["post_title"]=> string(71) "NZ Election 2026: Welfare, Greens and the policies driving conversation" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(152) "What’s shaping New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation? Explore the key policies, parties and issues driving media and social discussion this week." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(69) "nz-election-2026-welfare-greens-and-the-policies-driving-conversation" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2026-10-19 07:37:01" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2026-10-19 07:37:01" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=50341" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }
Blog
NZ Election 2026: Welfare, Greens and the policies driving conversation

What’s shaping New Zealand’s 2026 election conversation? Explore the key policies, parties and issues driving media and social discussion this week.

Ready to get started?

Get in touch or request a demo.