Search studies, brands and more…⌘ KExplore research

Evidence · NZ Election 2026

Every question, every answer, every source

Everything the study collected, as it was collected on 5 October 2026. Read any answer in full, or download the tables behind every figure in the study.

questions
174
voters the questions were written as
32
answers collected, of 820 planned
815
answers compared like for like
800
pairs of national and town answers
124
answers with sources recorded
774
answers that showed a link
304

01

Every question, with its answers

Each question was written as a voter would ask it and went to all four assistants. Some were also asked from a town. Open a question to read every answer to it in full.

Showing 20 of 174 questions

Show all 174

02

The tables behind the study

Every figure on the study page comes from these tables. They are CSV files, which open in any spreadsheet.

  • Questions

    nz-election-2026-questions.csv

    One row per question.

    Question id, report reference, question, voter, issue, towns it was also asked from, answers per assistant

    174rows

    Download questions (CSV)

  • Answers

    nz-election-2026-answers.csv

    One row per answer, with its full text.

    Answer id, question id, assistant, town, words, parties named, showed a link, websites recorded as sources, compared like for like, full text

    815rows

    Download answers (CSV)

  • Sources by answer

    nz-election-2026-sources.csv

    One row for each website recorded as a source of an answer.

    Answer id, question id, assistant, town, website, publisher type

    4,216rows

    Download sources by answer (CSV)

  • Checks against official sources

    nz-election-2026-checks.csv

    One row per statement checked.

    Check, answer id, assistant, what the answer said, verdict, what the source says, source, date

    17rows

    Download checks against official sources (CSV)

  • Who to vote for: coding

    nz-election-2026-guidance.csv

    One row per answer to the eight questions that asked who to vote for.

    Answer id, question id, assistant, what the answer did, the words that show it

    32rows

    Download who to vote for: coding (CSV)

  • Location and national answers

    nz-election-2026-towns.csv

    One row per question asked both nationally and from a location, for each assistant.

    Question, town, assistant, both answer ids, parties named nationally and from the town, same parties

    124rows

    Download location and national answers (CSV)

Use these tables to trace findings back to the original questions and answers. The full text of each answer is also on this page, under its question.

03

Read in full and checked

Some answers were read in detail or checked against official sources. Those appear on the study page, beside the findings they support.

ChatGPT · No location

I'm an eligible New Zealand voter living overseas and considering returning. I am comparing job opportunities, housing costs and New Zealand's international outlook. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties differ on New Zealand's international relationships, defence and regional security?

As of 5 October 2026, the main divide is less about whether New Zealand should have international relationships—it is about how closely to align with Australia/US and other Western security structures, how much to spend on defence, and how independent New Zealand should remain in great-power competition.

The 2026 election is on 7 November 2026; overseas voting opens 21 October, and eligible overseas voters must be enrolled by midnight 25 October NZ time. 2026 General Election | Vote NZ

At a glance

Party International relationships Defence Pacific & regional security
National Stronger alignment with Australia, Five Eyes, US and other partners; broaden Indo-Pacific relationships Major expansion; current plan reaches 2%+ of GDP in early 2030s Strong emphasis on deterrence, Australian interoperability and a more integrated ANZAC force
ACT Strongest push for Western/allied alignment and capability Supports 2% of GDP; argues NZ must contribute materially to alliances Security through strong alliances; greater interoperability
NZ First “National interest”, sovereignty and diversified relationships; active diplomacy Supports 2% of GDP by 2030 Strong Pacific focus, but coupled with greater strategic competition and defence capability
Labour Independent but engaged; maintain Australia/Five Eyes while balancing US and China Wants capability based on actual needs rather than a spending target Pacific autonomy, diplomacy, development and avoiding militarisation
Greens Independent, non-aligned, multilateral and strongly sceptical of AUKUS Emphasis on conflict prevention/peaceful resolution rather than alliance-driven expansion Pacific-led, climate/security/development approach
Te Pāti Māori Military neutrality; Pacific and Indigenous relationships at centre Refocus NZDF on territorial protection, disaster response and Pacific support Explicitly opposes military alignments that it sees as undermining sovereignty

National

National is pursuing the most substantial rearmament and alliance-integration programme among the governing parties. Its 2025 Defence Capability Plan commits $12 billion over four years and puts defence spending on a path to 2% of GDP by 2032/33, including greater strike capability, surveillance and an increasingly integrated ANZAC force. Defence Capability Plan released | Ministry of Defence website

Internationally, National places particular weight on Australia as New Zealand's formal defence ally, Five Eyes and a wider network of Indo-Pacific relationships. Christopher Luxon's current position is explicitly to continue the capability plan and prioritise interoperability with Australia, while also deepening relationships with India, Singapore, ASEAN and NATO's Indo-Pacific partners. Speech: Securing New Zealand’s future in a more volatile world | National Party

So the National approach is broadly: more military capability + deeper allied interoperability + a wider Indo-Pacific diplomatic network.

One important distinction: this does not automatically mean joining AUKUS. The government's position has been to explore AUKUS Pillar II rather than commit New Zealand to it; official documents show that participation has been under consideration. AUKUS Pillar II: Developments and Proposed Next Steps | Ministry of Defence website

ACT

ACT is similarly strongly oriented toward alliances and deterrence, but its rhetoric is particularly explicit about the proposition that New Zealand needs to "pull its weight" militarily.

ACT has long advocated 2% of GDP for defence, describing defence spending as insurance and arguing that alliance relationships depend on actual military capability. ACT New Zealand

Its outlook puts considerable weight on the US, Australia and other Western democracies, with stronger Five Eyes interoperability and openness to AUKUS-style cooperation. In practical terms, ACT is therefore the party among the larger parliamentary parties most clearly associated with increased defence capability and closer military alignment with partners.

New Zealand First

NZ First occupies an interesting middle position.

It is not isolationist: its policy describes New Zealand as needing an active international role, diverse trading relationships and cooperation with other countries. It has also advocated extending the "Pacific Reset" into the wider Indo-Pacific. 2023 Election Policies - NZ First

But it puts considerably more emphasis than Labour or the Greens on sovereignty, national interest and strategic resilience. Its published defence policy calls for defence spending to reach 2% of GDP by 2030, together with a dedicated capital fund. 2023 Election Policies - NZ First

As a current coalition partner, NZ First has also supported engagement with AUKUS Pillar II, although the party's broader foreign-policy language stresses independence and national interest. AUKUS Pillar 2 — should New Zealand join? — NZ Politics Promise Tracker

So its position could be summarised as active diplomacy and Pacific engagement, but backed by substantially greater hard-power capability and a strong sovereignty lens.

Labour

Labour's position is substantially different from the government's despite retaining several important relationships.

Labour says Australia remains New Zealand's closest ally and Five Eyes remains valuable, while arguing that New Zealand should retain freedom to disagree with its partners. It explicitly describes both the US and China as important relationships and wants a more balanced approach between them. Release: A Labour Government will not join AUKUS

The clearest dividing line is AUKUS: Labour has committed that a Labour government would not join either Pillar I or Pillar II. Release: A Labour Government will not join AUKUS

On defence spending, Labour's current position is less target-driven than National/ACT/NZ First. Its September 2026 foreign-policy statement says the question should be what capabilities New Zealand actually needs, particularly given changes in drones, cyber, AI and space, rather than deciding spending as an abstract percentage of GDP. It also questions whether traditional platforms are always the right investment for a country of New Zealand's size. Speech: New Zealand; an independent voice in the world

For the Pacific, Labour puts unusually strong emphasis on Pacific autonomy. It argues the region should not simply become an arena for US-China strategic competition and favours peacebuilding, development, climate resilience and closer Pacific economic integration. Speech: Labour's foreign policy

So Labour's broad model is strong relationships without automatic alignment; capable defence without a predetermined spending target; and a more diplomatic, Pacific-led regional policy.

Greens

The Greens go further than Labour toward strategic independence and military non-alignment.

Their foreign-policy position is explicitly opposed to New Zealand joining any AUKUS pillar, including the technology-focused Pillar II. They argue that New Zealand should retain an independent foreign-policy voice and prioritise diplomacy, conflict prevention, climate, human rights and multilateral institutions. NZ must pursue independent foreign policy - Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Their formal policy describes defence in terms of protecting Aotearoa while promoting conflict prevention and peaceful conflict resolution. Democracy and International Relations - Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

The important practical difference from Labour is therefore not that the Greens reject international engagement—they advocate substantial international engagement—but that they are much more sceptical of military alliances and great-power competition as the organising principle of regional security.

Te Pāti Māori

Te Pāti Māori has the most explicit position of military neutrality.

Its June 2026 policy calls for Aotearoa to become militarily neutral, to reset foreign policy around Māori values, Pacific and Indigenous relationships, and to review or withdraw from military alignments it believes undermine sovereignty. It would refocus the Defence Force on protection, disaster response and Pacific support. Military neutrality - Te Pāti Māori

It therefore represents a much more fundamental departure from the current security architecture than Labour's proposal. Its foreign-policy emphasis is Pacific sovereignty, Indigenous solidarity, international law, diplomacy and peace, rather than integration into Western military structures.

The biggest questions for your comparison

Given that you're thinking about returning to New Zealand, I'd separate the international-policy differences into four questions rather than treating "foreign policy" as one issue:

  1. How closely should NZ align with Australia and the US?
    National and ACT favour considerably deeper defence integration. NZ First is broadly supportive of strong security relationships but puts more emphasis on sovereignty. Labour wants close relationships while preserving greater freedom of action. Greens and Te Pāti Māori favour much greater military independence.

  2. Should New Zealand spend substantially more on defence?
    National's existing plan reaches 2%+ of GDP; ACT supports 2%; NZ First has a 2%-by-2030 policy. Labour is resisting a simple percentage target and instead emphasises capability choices. Greens and Te Pāti Māori place substantially less emphasis on military expansion. Defence Capability Plan released | Ministry of Defence website

  3. How should NZ manage the US-China relationship?
    Labour is particularly explicit that both countries matter and that New Zealand should not be forced into choosing one. National is developing a broader Indo-Pacific network while strengthening traditional security relationships. The other parties put varying degrees of emphasis on sovereignty and avoiding great-power bloc politics. Speech: Labour's foreign policy

  4. What does "Pacific security" mean?
    This is a particularly significant philosophical divide. The current government treats defence capability and deterrence as central to regional security. Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori put much greater weight on Pacific agency, climate change, development, disaster response and avoiding militarisation, although Labour still supports a capable NZDF. Defence strategy | Ministry of Defence website

One useful piece of context is that Australia is the one point of unusually broad agreement: Australia is New Zealand's only formal defence ally, and even parties advocating a much more independent foreign policy generally continue to regard the relationship with Australia as important. Australia | New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

If you're weighing this alongside jobs and housing, it may be useful to compare the parties next on (1) economic/trade outlook and employment, (2) housing and cost of living, and (3) international/defence policy, in one neutral 2026 election matrix—with the specific policies that could affect someone deciding whether to return to NZ.

Ask anything

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Captured 5 October 2026 · shown as ChatGPT gave it, not a verified account

Gemini · No location

I'm an eligible New Zealand voter living overseas and considering returning. I am comparing job opportunities, housing costs and New Zealand's international outlook. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties differ on New Zealand's international relationships, defence and regional security?

As an overseas New Zealand voter weighing up a return for the 2026 general election, understanding how political parties view New Zealand’s place in the world is a vital part of your decision. New Zealand’s foreign policy traditional consensus—independent yet aligned with traditional democratic partners—has faced sharper debates over defense spending, geopolitical alignment in the Indo-Pacific, and relations with traditional allies versus emerging economic partners.

Here is how the major political parties represented in Parliament differ on international relationships, defense, and regional security:

1. The Governing Parties (National, ACT, NZ First)

  • National Party: Generally prioritizes strengthening traditional security alliances (such as with Australia, the US, and the Five Eyes network) while aggressively pursuing pragmatic economic diplomacy and trade diversification in Asia. National leans toward increasing or modernizing defense capabilities to meet strategic pressures in the Indo-Pacific, viewing strong economic ties and security partnerships as mutually reinforcing.
  • ACT Party: Tends to take a robustly pro-Western stance on international security. ACT strongly advocates for deepening intelligence and strategic defense cooperation with traditional democratic allies (like the US, Australia, and the UK) and often pushes for a more explicitly values-based foreign policy that aligns closely with Western geopolitical strategies.
  • New Zealand First: Emphasizes a fiercely independent, "whatever is in New Zealand's best interest" approach, often described as pragmatic or nationalist. While acknowledging traditional alliances, NZ First historically cautions against foreign entanglements that compromise sovereign decision-making, placing high emphasis on border security, regional stability in the South Pacific, and a well-resourced New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) focused primarily on domestic and immediate regional sovereignty.

2. The Opposition Parties (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori)

  • Labour Party: Supports a traditional independent foreign policy framework underpinned by multilateralism, international law, and the rules-based international system. While in government, Labour initiated New Zealand’s first National Security Strategy and stepped up engagement with Pacific neighbors and traditional partners. Labour balances cooperation with partners like the US and Australia while maintaining independent diplomatic channels, particularly concerning trade and climate change in the Asia-Pacific region.
  • Green Party: Focuses heavily on internationalism, climate justice, nuclear-free positioning, and peace-building. The Greens frequently advocate for an independent foreign policy that keeps New Zealand out of broader military pacts (such as potential pillars of AUKUS), calling instead for resources to be redirected toward humanitarian aid, international climate finance, and diplomatic conflict resolution rather than traditional military expansion.
  • Te Pāti Māori: Approaches international relations through an indigenous lens (Mana Motuhake), emphasizing global solidarity with indigenous peoples, decolonization, and an independent, peace-oriented foreign policy. They strongly critique militarization and tend to support non-alignment and independent diplomatic stances on global conflicts.

Summary of Core Spectrum

  • Right / Center-Right (National, ACT): Favors deeper alignment with traditional Western security partners, modernization of defense capabilities, and leveraging alliances for strategic stability.
  • Center / Centrist (Labour, NZ First): Balances independent foreign policy and regional Pacific focus with adherence to traditional partnerships and multilateral institutions.
  • Left (Greens, Te Pāti Māori): Advocates for strict military non-alignment, a heavier focus on climate and humanitarian aid, and skepticism toward major military pacts.

As an overseas voter, what specific aspects of New Zealand's foreign posture or defense commitments matter most to your decision to return?

Ask Gemini

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Captured 5 October 2026 · shown as Gemini gave it, not a verified account

Google AI Mode · No location

I'm an eligible New Zealand voter living overseas and considering returning. I am comparing job opportunities, housing costs and New Zealand's international outlook. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties differ on New Zealand's international relationships, defence and regional security?

As you weigh up your options for the 7 November 2026 general election and consider moving back to New Zealand, understanding where the political parties stand on foreign affairs, defence, and regional security provides a window into how they view Aotearoa’s place in a tense and shifting global landscape.

While New Zealand generally maintains a long-standing consensus around an independent foreign policy, a nuclear-free stance, and a core focus on the Pacific, the parties exhibit distinct differences in tone, defence spending priorities, alignment with traditional western partners, and how they approach major powers like the US and China.

Major Party Positions and Approaches

  • National-led Coalition (National, ACT, NZ First):
  • International Outlook & Diplomacy: The current governing configuration places a heavy emphasis on traditional Western partnerships (the US, Australia, the UK, and the EU) alongside robust economic and trade engagement in Asia. Led heavily by NZ First’s Winston Peters as Foreign Minister, the approach is strongly pragmatic, focusing on stabilizing rules-based trade, calling out security challenges in the Indo-Pacific, and maintaining active diplomatic ties across Southeast Asia and the Pacific.
  • Defence & Security: The coalition has pushed for a significant step-up in military investment. This includes a multi-billion dollar commitment (aiming to scale defence spending toward 2% of GDP over the next decade) to modernize the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), extend key international deployments, and ensure combat-readiness amid rising global tensions.
  • Labour Party:
  • International Outlook & Diplomacy: Labour champions a traditional "independent foreign policy" that balances active multilateralism (through the UN and Pacific Islands Forum) with strong advocacy for international human rights and climate change mitigation in the Pacific. Labour tends to emphasize independent diplomatic mediation and adherence to international rules, while carefully managing relations with both Beijing and Washington without over-aligning with any single bloc's strategic competition.
  • Defence & Security: Labour supports funding a professional, capable NZDF geared heavily toward humanitarian assistance, disaster relief in the Pacific, and maritime surveillance. However, they typically approach proposals for deeper military integration or security-pact realignments (such as discussions around Pillar 2 of AUKUS) with greater caution and parliamentary scrutiny than the National-led block, emphasizing consensus and regional trust.
  • Green Party:
  • International Outlook & Diplomacy: The Greens advocate for an independent, peace-focused foreign policy that explicitly decouples New Zealand from aggressive major-power blocs. They place climate change at the center of national security, viewing climate destabilization in the Pacific as the single greatest threat to regional safety. They are critical of closer military alignments with the US or joining frameworks like AUKUS, preferring robust non-aligned diplomacy and independent humanitarian aid.
  • Defence & Security: The Greens favor redirecting state resources away from combat capability expansion and high-end military hardware, prioritizing instead civil defense, climate adaptation aid for Pacific neighbors, and peace-building initiatives.
  • Minor & Emerging Parties (e.g., ACT, New Zealand First, The Opportunities Party, Alliance):
  • ACT generally supports a harder-nosed realist approach to foreign policy, tightly coupling security with free-market trade and strongly backing interoperability with traditional democratic allies (the US, Australia, and the UK).
  • New Zealand First fiercely guards a traditional nationalist, independent-minded foreign policy, emphasizing that New Zealand must never compromise its sovereignty while prioritizing South Pacific bilateral relations.
  • The Alliance and other minor left/independent groups advocate a sharp pivot away from US-centric security frameworks, arguing for strict military non-alignment and independent pacifism.

Key Questions to Guide Your Vote

  • The Pacific vs. Global Projections: Do you favor a party that spends more capital on direct Pacific climate and economic resilience, or one that invests heavily in hard-power interoperability with Western military allies further afield?
  • Defence Funding: Do you support the recent bipartisan or coalition pushes to ramp up defence spending toward 2% of GDP to meet modern geopolitical strain, or do you lean toward prioritizing domestic spending and non-military diplomatic solutions?

You can track specific policy updates and party manifestos on platforms like Policy.nz and review formal electoral milestones through the official Elections NZ portal as voting approaches.

Ask anything

Captured 5 October 2026 · shown as Google AI Mode gave it, not a verified account