The word "misinformation" is quickly becoming the most overused, and misused word of the 2020 election.
PM Jacinda Ardern first introduced to the campaign, saying in January that she hoped for a "factual" election campaign, "free from misinformation".
Since then, she has repeatedly used the word "misinformation" to dismiss claims made by National: and National has started retaliating.
The NZ Herald checks whether some key arguments have actually amounted to "misinformation" – or were simply political argy-bargy.
Misinformation Claim One: "Come clean on tax, Labour"
Labour accuses National of 'misinformation' over its tax policy
In June, Ardern accused former Opposition leader Todd Muller of spreading "blatant misinformation" when he asked if Labour would raise income taxes and implement the Green Party's wealth tax.
Ardern said Labour's policy was not even released, and Labour had no responsibility for other parties' policies so Muller's statements amounted to "misinformation".
The verdict: In the end, the first half of Muller's claims was not "misinformation" – it was, however, premature and exaggerated.
Labour's tax policy landed last week, and did indeed include an increase to income tax albeit only for those earning more than $180,000.
After that policy was announced, National's finance spokesman Paul Goldsmith said the tax increase was "just the beginning" and Labour would "eventually widen the net and come after middle-income earners".
Ardern accused Goldsmith of "misinformation".
In delivering the policy, Labour's finance spokesman Grant Robertson had explicitly stated the new tax rate for those on more than $180,000 was the only change it would make to income tax in the next term, and it would not introduce any new taxes.
However, Goldsmith continues to point to the possibility other taxes could be included after post-election negotiations – especially if Labour needed the Green Party on board.
The Green Party has said its wealth tax is a "top priority".
Judith Collins has also claimed Labour's tax policy was mild because it was a "stalking horse" to leave room for the Greens' policies.
While Ardern has said such matters would depend on the hand the voters dealt, Robertson has effectively ruled out adopting any of the Green Party's tax policies.
Asked about the wealth tax, Robertson said "No. We are committing to not implementing anything other than this if we are in Government."
Goldsmith has also mounted the political argument that even without the Greens, Labour would be unable to control its spending, "and therefore they will need more tax. So it's a question of trust."
This is not an argument based on facts - any more than Labour's earlier claims that National would have to cut public services to keep debt down.*
Misinformation claim 2: "National needs to come clean on debt".
National accuses Labour of "misinformation" over debt.
In a press release on September 10 titled "National needs to come clean on debt," Robertson claimed National's policy to set up an Infrastructure Bank to finance infrastructure was "accounting trickery" to hide debt.
That was because any borrowing by that bank to pay for billions of dollars of infrastructure would not be included in Treasury's core Crown debt figures.
That meant it would not be counted for the purposes of National's goal of getting net debt back down to 30 per cent of GDP by about 2030 (a goal National has backed away from somewhat).
Robertson said National's intention was to "magic the debt away" to make hitting that target easier by moving it from the Government books to the Infrastructure Bank.
Goldsmith claimed Robertson's suggestion was "misinformation" and "nonsense".
It is true the debt of the Infrastructure Bank would not be core Crown debt as the Government books are currently reported.
There is no mention of the accounting treatment of the bank's debt in National's policy.
Goldsmith said prior to Robertson's press release that it was not the purpose of the Bank, but it was not until after Robertson's release that he said he would instruct Treasury to include the Bank's borrowing in the debt figures so it would be taken into account.
That could be done by instructing Treasury to alter its definitions of core Crown debt.
A spokesman for Robertson said his statement followed a comment by National's Andrew Bayly to Politik in which Bayly justified using such institutions to borrow, saying that borrowing solely off the Government's books "blows debt ratios out of the water".
Robertson's claims were not "misinformation" when it came to the usual treatment of such debt, but his claim that it was National's goal to "magic" the debt off the Government's books so it was not included in the debt as a percentage of GDP ended up being incorrect.
It did, however, force National into stating it would include the bank's debt in its overall figures.
Goldsmith denied he was pushed into it by Robertson, saying he had earlier also stipulated that the NZTA's debt would be included in headline debt figures. That came after National announced plans to increase the NZTA's allowance up to $10 billion of borrowing to build roads.
Both National and Labour have allowed the NZ Transport Agency and state housing provider Kainga Ora to borrow money on their own balance sheets rather than the Government's.
* In an earlier Fact or Fiction the NZ Herald also looked at repeated claims by both Ardern and Robertson that National would run an "austerity" regime and cut spending on health, education and other public services to reduce debt by the levels National had claimed.
National had not released plans to do any of the above and Goldsmith denied it would happen.
National will release its full fiscal plan after the Pre–Election Fiscal Update is released on Wednesday.