Search studies, brands and more…⌘ KExplore research

Evidence · NZ Election 2026 · Edition 2

Every question, every answer, every source

All 174 questions and the 793 answers produced on 12 October 2026. The 27 remaining cells produced no AI Overview.

questions
174
answers saved
793
collected
12 Oct 2026

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 unchanged question.

    id, draft, text, voterCode, issue, towns

    174rows

    Download questions (CSV)

  • Answers

    nz-election-2026-answers.csv

    One row per produced answer, with its complete original text.

    result id, prompt id, draft id, scenario id, platform, region, words, parties, literal url answer, associated source answer, temporal pair, common four platforms, response text

    793rows

    Download answers (CSV)

  • Sources by answer

    nz-election-2026-sources.csv

    One row per website associated with an answer; repeated citations count once.

    answer id, question id, assistant, region, domain, publisher

    4,137rows

    Download sources by answer (CSV)

  • Checks against official sources

    nz-election-2026-checks.csv

    One row per reviewed proposition, retaining both answers, extracts and the reviewed change.

    check, draft id, platform, claim, verdict, assessment, source url, source label, source date, checked date, old result id, new result id, old excerpt, new excerpt

    15rows

    Download checks against official sources (CSV)

  • Who to vote for: coding

    nz-election-2026-guidance.csv

    One row per manually reviewed guidance answer. Codes overlap; original answers supply the evidence.

    draft, assistant, q, voter, a, declined, matched, shortlist, asked, chose, extract

    31rows

    Download who to vote for: coding (CSV)

  • Location and national answers

    nz-election-2026-towns.csv

    One row per matched national/location pair, with both editions.

    prompt id, draft id, scenario id, issue, platform, city, edition 1 same party set, edition 1 national result, edition 1 city result, edition 2 same party set, edition 2 national result, edition 2 city result

    124rows

    Download location and national answers (CSV)

  • Changes between editions

    nz-election-2026-comparisons.csv

    One row per identical question, assistant and location across the two collections.

    prompt id, draft id, scenario id, scenario, issue, platform, region, old result id, new result id, old words, new words, same party set, old parties, new parties, added parties, removed parties, literal same domains, literal old domains, literal new domains, literal added domains, literal removed domains, associated same domains, associated old domains, associated new domains, associated added domains, associated removed domains

    793rows

    Download changes between editions (CSV)

  • No AI Overview produced

    nz-election-2026-coverage.csv

    One row per planned cell where no AI Overview was produced.

    prompt id, platform, region, draft id, block, scenario id, scenario, issue, priority, question, cause, availability

    27rows

    Download no ai overview produced (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

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: How do parties differ on benefits, work obligations and reducing poverty?

New Zealand 2026 election: Benefits, work obligations and poverty

The main difference between New Zealand’s political parties is how they balance income support, personal responsibility, getting people into work, and addressing the underlying causes of poverty.

There are three particularly important questions to compare:

  • Benefits: Should benefit rates increase, remain broadly as they are, or be reduced through changes to eligibility and support?
  • Work obligations: How strongly should beneficiaries be required to look for work, accept suitable jobs, meet appointments and face sanctions for non-compliance?
  • Reducing poverty: Should the priority be higher incomes and public services, employment and economic growth, targeted financial assistance, or a combination?

One important distinction: helping people into work is not the same as reducing poverty among everyone. Some beneficiaries cannot work because of disability, illness or caring responsibilities; some people in paid work still experience poverty because of housing costs, low wages or family expenses.

1. How the main parties compare

The following comparison reflects published policies and party positions available as of 11 October 2026. The election is scheduled for November 2026, so not every party has necessarily published its complete final programme.

Party Benefits and income support Work obligations Main approach to poverty
National Target assistance to those considered most in need; emphasise affordability of welfare. Strong obligations, work-readiness expectations and sanctions. Employment, training, incentives and reducing long-term benefit receipt. Firm, fair, affordable welfareTargeting financial assistance to those most in need
Labour Emphasises household living costs, public services and support for working families; its full current benefit-rate position should be checked separately. Emphasises creating jobs, apprenticeships and training; the policies reviewed here do not establish a complete alternative sanctions regime. Better-paid work, housing construction, health services and lower essential costs. Labour's 2026 Election PoliciesStart Work Now
Green Party Proposes a guaranteed minimum income and a fairer tax system. Opposes punitive benefit sanctions and favours ensuring people have sufficient income and support. Directly lifting incomes, reducing inequality and ensuring people can afford essentials. Manifesto 2026National's welfare policy is cruel
ACT Retains a safety net but proposes tighter health and disability assessments and managed payments for some long-term jobseekers. Strong emphasis on personal responsibility and steps towards employment. Moving people towards work and independence, with taxpayer-funded assistance directed towards essentials. ACT New ZealandACT New Zealand
New Zealand First Supports a safety net for genuine need; has opposed raising the superannuation age and means-testing NZ Super. Its published policy proposes a lifetime limit of two years on Jobseeker Support for work-ready recipients, followed by community work for a wage if further assistance is needed. Employment, self-reliance, training and reducing long-term welfare dependence. The two-year limit is a published policy position, not confirmation that every detail has been re-announced for 2026. Winston Peters - “Seniors Sole Defender”Our PrinciplesPolicy Announcement: Capped Time-Period For Job Seeker Beneficiaries
Te Pāti Māori Advocates higher incomes, stronger welfare and support for whānau. Emphasises culturally grounded, whānau-centred support rather than making punishment the centre of welfare policy. Housing, fairer taxation, Māori-led services and addressing structural barriers affecting Māori communities. PolicyTe Pāti Māori is the assertion of our mana motuhake and our liberation

The distinction is not simply that some parties support benefits and others do not. All these parties describe some form of safety net. The major disagreements concern how generous that safety net should be, who qualifies, how long support lasts, and what conditions recipients must meet.

2. Benefits: who wants to change the safety net?

National and ACT: more conditions and targeting

National's newly announced October 2026 welfare plan proposes random drug testing as part of work-readiness, a longer non-entitlement period for people who repeatedly leave employment without good reason, and extending the residency requirement for main benefits from two to five years. ACT proposes independent medical certification for health-related benefits and mandatory electronic money management for work-ready Jobseeker recipients after four months. Firm, fair, affordable welfareACT New Zealand

The central principle is that support should be conditional on meeting responsibilities, with additional scrutiny intended to focus public spending.

Labour: jobs and household affordability

Labour's published 2026 programme emphasises job creation, apprenticeships, social housing and improving access to essential services. Its Start Work Now plan includes public-building repairs and housing construction intended to create employment. Labour's 2026 Election PoliciesStart Work Now

That is a different emphasis from tightening benefit eligibility, but these policies alone do not establish exactly how Labour would change every benefit rate or sanction rule.

Greens: a guaranteed income floor

The Greens' 2026 manifesto promises a decent income for everyone, funded through a fairer tax system. Their Income Guarantee proposal has specified minimum after-tax incomes and is intended to prevent people falling below a basic standard of living. Manifesto 2026National's welfare policy is cruel

This approach puts greater emphasis on income adequacy and reducing hardship directly, rather than relying primarily on stricter work conditions.

Te Pāti Māori: stronger whānau support

Te Pāti Māori calls for higher incomes, stronger welfare, affordable housing and a fairer tax system, alongside Māori-led health, disability and other services. Its stated approach is to ensure families are not penalised for being poor. PolicyTe Pāti Māori is the assertion of our mana motuhake and our liberation

Its emphasis is on the adequacy and accessibility of support as well as the wider social and economic conditions that create hardship.

New Zealand First occupies a somewhat different position: its published two-year limit on work-ready Jobseeker Support is a particularly explicit proposal to limit the duration of benefit receipt, while it also defends existing NZ Super eligibility rules. Winston Peters - “Seniors Sole Defender”Policy Announcement: Capped Time-Period For Job Seeker Beneficiaries

3. Work obligations: how strict should the system be?

This is one of the clearest dividing lines in the election.

  • National: Work-ready beneficiaries are expected to meet job-search obligations. Its October 2026 proposals would extend certain consequences for repeatedly leaving work without good reason. National says this promotes employment and fairness to taxpayers. Firm, fair, affordable welfareTraffic light system proves results
  • ACT: Goes further in proposed oversight of some recipients, including independent assessments of health-related benefits and restricted electronic spending for work-ready Jobseeker recipients who have been on a benefit for more than four months. ACT New ZealandACT New Zealand
  • New Zealand First: Its published proposal sets a two-year lifetime limit for work-ready Jobseeker Support, followed by community work for a wage if further assistance is needed. Policy Announcement: Capped Time-Period For Job Seeker Beneficiaries2023 Election Policies
  • Labour: Its current published emphasis includes job creation, apprenticeships and training. These measures aim to increase employment opportunities, although they do not by themselves tell us precisely how its benefit-sanction rules would differ.
  • Greens: Oppose punitive sanctions and argue that people need sufficient income and practical support, particularly when jobs are unavailable or personal circumstances make compliance difficult. Manifesto 2026National's welfare policy is cruel
  • Te Pāti Māori: Emphasises whānau-centred support, disability services and removing policies that penalise people for poverty and survival. PolicyTe Pāti Māori is the assertion of our mana motuhake and our liberation

The underlying policy question is whether stronger conditions help people enter sustainable employment, or whether they risk worsening hardship when people cannot find work or cannot meet requirements.

4. Reducing poverty: what would each approach try to change?

Approach A: Make employment the main route out of poverty

National · ACT · New Zealand First, with different policies

Focus on job-search expectations, employment incentives, training and moving people off long-term benefits. The intended result is greater independence through earnings and reduced welfare expenditure.

A key consideration is whether suitable jobs are available and whether wages cover housing and other essential costs.

Approach B: Create jobs and reduce household costs

Labour

Focus on employment opportunities, apprenticeships, housing construction, healthcare and measures intended to reduce the cost of living. Labour's Start Work Now plan links public investment to jobs and community infrastructure. Labour's 2026 Election PoliciesStart Work Now

A key consideration is how quickly the jobs and savings reach households experiencing hardship.

Approach C: Establish a stronger income floor

Green Party

Focus on guaranteed minimum incomes, a fairer tax system and ensuring everyone can afford basic necessities. This approach treats poverty as an income and inequality problem, not just an employment problem. Manifesto 2026National's welfare policy is cruel

A key consideration is the design, funding and interactions of an income guarantee with existing benefits and employment income.

Approach D: Strengthen whānau and community wellbeing

Te Pāti Māori

Focus on higher incomes, housing, Māori-led services and fairer access to resources. This approach puts particular emphasis on structural disadvantage and the circumstances affecting Māori whānau. PolicyTe Pāti Māori is the assertion of our mana motuhake and our liberation

A key consideration is how proposed services and income measures would be funded and delivered.

5. What does the poverty evidence tell us?

The latest official figures provide important context for judging these competing approaches.

Children living in households experiencing material hardship

14.3%

2024/25, compared with 13.3% in 2017/18

Children below the fixed-line, after-housing-costs poverty threshold

17.8%

2024/25, compared with 22.8% in 2017/18

Source: Ministry of Social Development, official child poverty reduction targets. Progress to date on the child poverty reduction targets

These are two different measures. Material hardship means going without essentials, while the after-housing-costs measure tracks low household income after housing expenses. The fact that they move differently illustrates why poverty cannot be assessed through benefit numbers alone. Progress to date on the child poverty reduction targetsPriority 2 – Reducing child material hardship

When comparing parties, it is worth asking whether their proposals are likely to affect:

  • Immediate hardship: Can households afford food, electricity, rent and medicines?
  • Working poverty: Can people in paid employment meet essential costs?
  • Long-term disadvantage: Do children have stable housing, adequate nutrition and access to education and healthcare?
  • Employment outcomes: Are people moving into sustainable jobs, and are they better off financially once they do?

6. Where to compare the full 2026 policies

For the most current policy detail, these sources are useful:

In summary: National, ACT and New Zealand First put greater emphasis on work obligations, conditions and reducing long-term benefit dependence, although their proposals differ. Labour emphasises jobs and household affordability. The Greens put greater emphasis on a guaranteed income floor, while Te Pāti Māori emphasises income support, housing and whānau-centred services.

The crucial distinction is between reducing the number of people receiving benefits and reducing the number of people experiencing poverty. Those outcomes can overlap, but they are not the same thing.

Ask anything

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Captured 12 October 2026 · shown as ChatGPT gave it, not a verified account

Gemini · No location

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: How do parties differ on benefits, work obligations and reducing poverty?

In New Zealand's political landscape, approaches to benefits, work obligations, and poverty reduction divide into two distinct ideological philosophies: a right-of-centre focus on strict work incentives, economic growth, and fiscal restraint versus a left-of-centre and progressive focus on raising income floors, expanding state support, and addressing structural inequalities.

1. Benefits and Income Support

  • National and Right-of-Centre Parties (e.g., ACT):
    • Focus on fiscal control, incentivizing movement off welfare, and ensuring targeted support.
    • Emphasize that benefit dependency should be actively managed through strict eligibility criteria and monitoring to curb state spending and direct taxpayer funds toward economic productivity.
  • Labour and Progressive Parties (e.g., Green Party, Te Pāti Māori):
    • Argue that main benefit levels are too low to cover basic living costs and housing.
    • Propose lifting baseline income support, increasing indexation to match the real cost of living, and expanding targeted abatements or supplementary assistance (such as Working for Families adjustments or cost-of-living supports) to prevent low-income households from falling into severe hardship.

2. Work Obligations and Sanctions

  • National and Right-of-Centre Parties:
    • Strongly favour strict work obligations, active case management, and robust sanctions for beneficiaries who fail to meet work-search or readiness criteria.
    • Position these measures as "tough love" necessary to push jobseekers into available employment, address labor shortages, and ensure accountability for welfare recipients.
  • Green Party and Labour:
    • Oppose punitive benefit sanctions, arguing that they worsen poverty, increase stress, and fail to address the structural barriers preventing people from working.
    • Advocate for supportive employment services, addressing health and transport barriers, and removing punitive frameworks in favor of enabling better job retention and training.

3. Strategies for Reducing Poverty

  • Right-of-Centre Approach:
    • Emphasizes that the most effective antidote to poverty is economic growth, job creation, and reducing the cost of living through broad fiscal management, tax relief, and business incentives. The objective is to make work "pay more than welfare."
  • Left-of-Centre and Progressive Approach:
    • Focuses on structural and systemic drivers of poverty, advocating for direct government intervention, higher minimum wages indexed to inflation, investment in public housing, accessible healthcare, and comprehensive tax reform (such as wealth or capital gains taxes) to redistribute wealth and directly lift families above the poverty line.
Ask Gemini

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Captured 12 October 2026 · shown as Gemini gave it, not a verified account

Google AI Mode · No location

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: How do parties differ on benefits, work obligations and reducing poverty?

For the November 2026 New Zealand general election, political parties present distinct philosophies and policy approaches regarding welfare benefits, work requirements, and the most effective ways to address poverty and hardship.

The National Party

  • Approach to Benefits & Work Obligations: National states that employment is the most reliable path out of hardship and emphasizes individual responsibility within the welfare system. Their platform focuses on strengthening work expectations and compliance for beneficiaries. For the 2026 election campaign, National announced plans to introduce random drug testing for Jobseeker Support recipients to ensure work-readiness, alongside earlier, more intensive employment support for long-term jobseekers and stricter expectations for those on benefits past two years.
  • Approach to Reducing Poverty: National argues that growing the economy and creating jobs—alongside fiscal discipline—is the best way to lift people out of financial difficulty, maintaining that welfare must balance a safety net with affordability for taxpayers.

The Labour Party

  • Approach to Benefits & Work Obligations: Labour’s policy platform emphasizes removing structural barriers for families trying to upskill or transition into part-time work. Child poverty and advocacy groups (such as the Child Poverty Action Group) have highlighted and welcomed Labour's specific pledges to reinstate the Training Incentive Allowance for sole parents pursuing tertiary education and to ease abatement thresholds so that part-time earnings are less aggressively deducted from benefit payments.
  • Approach to Reducing Poverty: Labour focuses on targeted cost-of-living and public health interventions, such as expanded access to free healthcare (doctor visits and prescriptions), public transport caps, and adjustments to family assistance and abatement levels to support low-income households.

The Green Party

  • Approach to Benefits & Work Obligations: The Greens view punitive work obligations and benefit sanctions as harmful and counterproductive, arguing they deepen hardship and hunger. Rather than enforcing stricter compliance on jobseekers, the Green Party proposes state-backed employment initiatives, such as a "Jobs for Young People" program aimed at guaranteeing employment through local councils and community infrastructure projects when the private market falls short.
  • Approach to Reducing Poverty: The Green Party advocates for a sweeping "Green Income Guarantee" (setting minimum weekly net incomes for individuals, couples, and sole parents) to ensure all households can afford essentials. They propose funding this safety net through dedicated wealth and capital taxes on high-income earners. [Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand]

The ACT Party

  • Approach to Benefits & Work Obligations: ACT emphasizes fiscal restraint, reducing government spending, and lowering public debt. Their policy framework looks to rein in social spending and welfare outlays, featuring proposals that target reductions in specific benefit categories (such as adjustments and cuts to disability support spending) to ease the tax burden on working New Zealanders.
  • Approach to Reducing Poverty: ACT contends that broad-based economic growth driven by lower taxes, reduced government debt, and deregulation is the proper mechanism for national prosperity, rather than increased government-funded welfare transfers. [ACT NZ]
Ask anything

Captured 12 October 2026 · shown as Google AI Mode gave it, not a verified account