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

We own a mortgaged home in an area affected by flooding. Insurance affordability, protection works and what happens after another flood are major concerns for us. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Who would pay for flood defences under different party plans: homeowners, councils or central government?

For a mortgaged home in a flood-prone area, the key election question is not just who will build the flood defences, but who will pay for them, who bears the cost if protection fails, and whether you can still afford insurance afterwards.

In New Zealand, those costs can fall on all three levels of society: homeowners, councils and central government. The important distinction for the 2026 general election is whether a party proposes a specific change to that division of costs, rather than simply promising better flood resilience.

How flood protection is funded in New Zealand today

Central government — taxpayers

The Government can contribute to regional flood-protection projects, infrastructure resilience and recovery after major disasters. Its Regional Infrastructure Fund has invested nearly $200 million in 74 flood-resilience projects, including stopbanks and drainage improvements. Flood resilience funding

Councils — mainly ratepayers

Regional and unitary councils are major funders and managers of flood-protection schemes. The Office of the Auditor-General reported that councils were spending around $175 million annually on flood protection in 2022, with a significant estimated funding shortfall for future needs. Council spending can ultimately affect household rates. How Tasman District Council and Waikato Regional Council mitigate flood risk

Homeowners — direct and indirect costs

Homeowners may contribute indirectly through rates, and directly through their own property-protection work, insurance premiums, excesses and uninsured losses. A publicly funded stopbank does not, by itself, guarantee affordable insurance or compensation if a future flood damages your home.

Sources: Flood resilience fundingHow Tasman District Council and Waikato Regional Council mitigate flood riskEligibility for essential infrastructure repair or rebuild following an emergency » National Emergency Management Agency

What the main parties' positions mean for flood-defence funding

As at 11 October 2026, the clearest documented differences concern existing government investment, the role of councils, rates, and whether a new national cost-sharing arrangement will be established. The positions below distinguish published commitments from proposals and political claims.

Party Documented approach Who may carry the cost?
National Has established the National Adaptation Framework and funded flood-resilience projects through the Regional Infrastructure Fund. Its framework leaves future cost-sharing decisions for further work. Our enduring approach to a changing climateNational Infrastructure Plan Delivered Central government and councils under existing arrangements; the future split remains unsettled.
Labour Its previous government committed substantial flood-resilience funding and advanced work on climate adaptation and managed retreat. Luxon's Government cut flood protection spending while extreme weather worsensGrant Robertson: Pre-Budget speech to BNZ business breakfastRelease: Labour releases New Zealand’s first climate manifesto Historically, a combination of central-government funding and local funding. I could not verify a current 2026 commitment specifying a new nationwide funding formula for flood defences.
Green Party Wants greater investment in resilience and argues for an enduring adaptation framework with clear cost-sharing, criticising the deferral of those decisions. Much delayed climate adaptation bill needs much more workLuxon's Government cut flood protection spending while extreme weather worsens Greater public investment is a stated priority, but the sources reviewed do not establish a final, detailed percentage split for homeowners, councils and central government.
New Zealand First Its published 2023 policy supports flood-protection schemes through the Regional Infrastructure Fund and re-establishing catchment boards focused on river management and flood protection. 2023 Election Policies Government-backed infrastructure funding and catchment-level institutions; a definitive 2026 cost-sharing formula was not verified.
ACT Its 2023 Cyclone Gabrielle recovery proposals supported variable rates that reflect flood risk and reviewing EQC's role in climate-related events. ACT New Zealand Potentially more direct costs for owners of higher-risk properties through risk-based rates. These are historical proposals, not confirmation of a 2026 nationwide policy.

For Labour, the Greens, ACT and New Zealand First, I would not treat those earlier policies or statements as a complete 2026 election manifesto. The parties' current positions may have changed.

You can check the parties' latest published policies through Policy.nz's 2026 election guide. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026

What could happen after another major flood?

The funding question also matters if the defences fail or the Government decides an area cannot be protected indefinitely.

The three questions to put to every party

Given that you have a mortgage, I would look for precise answers to these questions rather than relying on general promises about resilience.

  1. Who pays for the next flood defence?

Will central government pay a defined share of capital and maintenance costs, or can councils pass the shortfall on through rates?

  1. What happens to insurance affordability?

Does the party have a concrete proposal to improve access to cover for flood-exposed homes, or is it relying on better hazard information and market pricing?

  1. What happens if the defences fail?

Is there a defined arrangement for recovery funding, relocation or compensation? What protection, if any, would apply to an owner who still owes money on a mortgage?

One development to watch is the Government's proposed national flood map. The first public version is expected by May 2027, and is intended to help inform decisions about property risk, land use and infrastructure investment. It will provide better information, but it is not itself a promise of funding or insurance cover. New Zealand Flood Map

My overall reading of the evidence: the major unresolved issue is the long-term division of costs between central government and councils, and how much risk ultimately remains with individual homeowners. Parties differ in their approach to public investment, local rates and flood-risk management, but I could not verify a complete set of current 2026 party commitments that establishes exactly who would pay what in every scenario.

That distinction is particularly important for a mortgaged household: a defence project might protect your home physically without resolving the affordability of insurance, rates or the financial consequences of a future flood.

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

We own a mortgaged home in an area affected by flooding. Insurance affordability, protection works and what happens after another flood are major concerns for us. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Who would pay for flood defences under different party plans: homeowners, councils or central government?

Navigating property ownership in a flood-prone area with a mortgage is a high-stress position, especially regarding the compounding pressures of insurance retreat, local rate burdens, and post-disaster recovery.

In New Zealand's governance and political landscape, funding for flood defenses and risk mitigation has traditionally relied on a mixed-model co-funding approach (central government, regional/local councils, and private property owners). However, major political parties view the balance of responsibility, funding mechanisms, and urgency differently.

The following breakdown outlines how the core financial responsibilities shake out across different groups under the prevailing policy frameworks and general political alignments:

1. Central Government

  • Role in Defenses: Central government typically steps in through targeted resilience funds (such as Crown co-funding packages distributed via regional councils) and emergency infrastructure subsidies (like the National Emergency Management Agency post-disaster recovery cost-sharing, often structured around a 60:40 or similar central-to-local funding ratio for essential public assets).
  • Party Approaches:
    • Centre-to-Right parties (National, ACT) tend to emphasize fiscal constraint, targeting funding strictly toward high-benefit regional infrastructure, economic productivity projects, and streamlining consenting (e.g., through fast-track legislation) rather than open-ended underwriting. They lean toward localized cost-recovery and private-public partnerships where feasible.
    • Centre-to-Left parties (Labour, Greens) generally advocate for a more interventionist state role, favoring larger baseline public investments in climate adaptation, dedicated funding pools for vulnerable communities, and stronger central coordination to support local councils that lack the ratepayer base to fund major civil engineering works independently.

2. Local and Regional Councils (Ratepayers)

  • Role in Defenses: Regional councils (managing rivers and catchments) and local territorial authorities (managing stormwater and local drainage) are legally responsible for constructing and maintaining local flood protection schemes.
  • The Funding Crunch: Because councils rely heavily on local rates, major flood defense upgrades often get passed down to local property owners via targeted rates. Smaller or rural/provincial councils with low population bases face severe affordability ceilings, meaning they frequently petition central government for co-funding because their ratepayers cannot shoulder the entire multi-million dollar capital cost alone.

3. Homeowners (Property Owners)

  • Role in Defenses: Directly, individual homeowners do not pay for public stopbanks, regional floodwalls, or major river management schemes, though these costs filter down indirectly through council rates.
  • The Post-Flood and Insurance Burden: Homeowners bear the direct financial brunt of what happens after a flood. If a property faces repeated inundation, homeowners absorb the costs through:
    • Skyrocketing private insurance premiums or excess charges.
    • The risk of becoming uninsurable, which directly impacts mortgage terms (most New Zealand mortgage covenants require continuous building insurance).
    • Potential property buyouts, managed retreat, or unrecovered land depreciation if areas are zoned high-risk.

Key Questions to Weigh for Your Vote

When evaluating party manifestos and candidates for the 2026 election, consider asking local candidates or looking at specific party commitments regarding:

  1. Co-funding Certainty: Will the party commit to a reliable, long-term funding pipeline for regional council flood schemes, or will cash-strapped local councils and ratepayers be left to carry the majority of the debt?
  2. Managed Retreat and Property Buyouts: If an area becomes repeatedly uninsurable or uninhabitable, what are the party's policies on sharing the financial risk of property buyouts between central government, local councils, and private insurance/homeowners?
  3. Insurance Availability: Are parties proposing any regulatory frameworks, public-private partnerships, or state-backed reinsurance mechanisms to address the growing crisis of insurance withdrawal and spiralling premiums in high-risk zones?

Are you looking for how a specific political party's regional or environmental policy approaches climate adaptation in your local area?

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

We own a mortgaged home in an area affected by flooding. Insurance affordability, protection works and what happens after another flood are major concerns for us. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Who would pay for flood defences under different party plans: homeowners, councils or central government?

In New Zealand , who pays for flood defences and climate adaptation is a complex, evolving debate involving central government , local councils , and private property owners.

The general consensus across public infrastructure bodies like Te Waihanga (New Zealand Infrastructure Commission) and policy discussions centers on a mixed, shared-responsibility model rather than a single group footing the entire bill.

The general breakdown of responsibilities and how different political approaches view the distribution of costs involves the following mechanisms:

1. Central Government

  • Role under current frameworks: Central government typically funds major post-disaster recovery packages (via emergency management funding or ad-hoc buyouts/infrastructure co-funding after severe weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle), national risk-mapping tools (such as upcoming national flood mapping), and foundational legislation.

  • Political spectrum approach: Left-leaning and green parties generally advocate for a larger central government footprint, utilizing broad-based taxation and crown funding to lead national climate adaptation frameworks, fund large-scale public infrastructure, and support lower-income or heavily impacted regions. Right-leaning parties tend to emphasize fiscal restraint from Wellington, favoring targeted regional infrastructure financing (such as water storage/loans) or leveraging private-public partnerships rather than large central tax-funded capital injections for local assets.

2. Local Councils (Regional and Territorial Authorities)

  • Role under current frameworks: Regional councils traditionally lead major regional flood protection schemes (like stopbanks and major river management), while local city/district councils manage local stormwater and drainage networks. [Te Waihanga]

  • Funding mechanism: Councils fund these through rates (property taxes). Regional councils often use targeted rates assessed on the specific properties that directly benefit from a flood-protection scheme ("beneficiary-pays" targeted rates). [Te Waihanga]

  • The tension: Councils—particularly in smaller or regional areas—face severe financial constraints and debt caps, meaning heavy reliance on council funding can lead to sharp rate increases for local residents in flood-prone zones.

3. Homeowners and Property Owners

  • Role under current frameworks: Property owners indirectly pay through council targeted/general rates, directly pay for on-property mitigation, and face costs through insurance premiums.

  • The "Beneficiary/Foreseeable Risk" debate: Emerging adaptation frameworks increasingly suggest that private property owners should bear a degree of financial responsibility where risks were foreseeable or where private protection is required. However, for homeowners in already-mortgaged, flood-prone areas, this creates an affordability crisis as insurance premiums spike or coverage becomes difficult to secure.

To help narrow down how different party policies might affect your specific situation, could you tell me:

  • Which region or type of council your property is under?
  • Whether your primary concern is near-term insurance/rates relief or long-term buyouts/infrastructure protection?
Ask anything

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

AI Overviews · No location

We own a mortgaged home in an area affected by flooding. Insurance affordability, protection works and what happens after another flood are major concerns for us. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Who would pay for flood defences under different party plans: homeowners, councils or central government?

AI Overview

Under different political party plans for the 2026 election cycle, the cost of flood defences in New Zealand is divided between homeowners, councils, and central government through distinctly different funding structures.

The primary policy positions for the main political parties regarding who pays for flood infrastructure and climate adaptation are outlined below.

🏛️ The Coalition Government (National & New Zealand First)

The current government focuses on localized planning while shifting towards a "beneficiary pays" or co-investment infrastructure model.

  • Central Government vs. Councils: In July 2026, the government introduced the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill , legally requiring councils to create mandatory 30-year climate adaptation plans. However, the government explicitly deferred all final decisions on the exact funding split or cost-sharing mechanisms until the next parliamentary term.

  • National's Stance: National emphasizes targeted central funding primarily through the $1.2 billion Regional Infrastructure Fund. This fund utilizes a co-investment model where central government pays 60% of regional flood resilience projects and local/regional councils must fund the remaining 40%. National has also invested heavily in national data foundations, funding a centralized National Flood Map (slated for 2027) to provide property-level risk data.

  • NZ First's Stance: Alongside the Regional Infrastructure Fund, NZ First supports establishing a $100 million per annum Infrastructure Equalisation Fund to help councils upgrade stormwater networks. They also advocate for localized funding models by re-establishing regional Catchment Boards to manage river and flood protections directly.

  • The Impact on Homeowners: Because a comprehensive cost-sharing framework remains unlegislated, the default structure falls back heavily on regional targeted rates (councils charging specific communities for stopbanks). For property-level defences (such as raising houses or private drainage), homeowners are expected to pay 100% of the cost , as private insurance does not cover future preventative work.

🔴 Labour Party

Labour advocates for a more centralized, government-backed approach to shield homeowners from volatile local council rates and the risk of complete insurance retreat.

  • Central Government & Councils: Historically, Labour favors significant central government intervention, previously setting up dedicated multi-million dollar funds for risk mitigation and managed buyouts following severe weather events.

  • The Funding Model: Labour supports a structured, national climate adaptation framework where the Crown absorbs a higher proportion of capital infrastructure costs. They plan to utilize the proposed New Zealand Future Fund —seeded with Crown assets—to co-fund massive multi-decade infrastructure builds, including large-scale flood protections, ensuring the burden does not break smaller, poorer local councils.

  • The Impact on Homeowners: Under Labour's philosophy, greater central funding cushions homeowners from the rapid, localized premium hikes or council rate spikes seen under strict "beneficiary pays" systems.

🟢 Green Party

The Green Party heavily criticizes current cuts to central flood-protection spending and demands the largest scale of central government funding for climate defences.

  • Central Government: The Greens push for the central government to take the lion's share of the financial burden. They argue that the current government's shift to a $200 million baseline resilience pool via the Regional Infrastructure Fund is a 41% cut compared to previous allocations.

  • The Funding Model: The Greens advocate for direct, permanent, and guaranteed central funding streams for community infrastructure. They heavily support utilizing revenue from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and implementing progressive wealth taxes to fund nationwide, state-backed climate adaptation and flood defences.

  • The Impact on Homeowners: The Greens' policies aim to minimize out-of-pocket costs for low-to-middle-income homeowners by ensuring central government and local authorities fund community-wide protection barriers and managed retreats, rather than relying on private property owners to fund their own resilience infrastructure.

Summary of Funding Responsibility

Party / Bloc Central Government Role Council / Regional Role Homeowner Impact
National / NZ First (Coalition) 60% co-investment for specific regional projects; defers wider cost-sharing rules. 40% co-funding match; mandated to map 30-year risks out of local budgets. High risk of targeted council rate increases; property-level defences are privately funded.
Labour High; uses national infrastructure funds to anchor large-scale flood builds. Co-shares costs centrally to protect smaller or underfunded council districts. Shielded from extreme local rates; emphasis on preventing sudden mortgage defaults.
Green Party Maximum; demands massive increases to baseline flood resilience spending through central climate funds. Acts as delivery partners using fully funded central government grants. Highly protected; infrastructure funded via broader tax mechanisms rather than individual rates or private premiums.

If you want to dive deeper into how these policies affect your specific situation, let me know:

  • What region your home is located in?

  • Have you already experienced a private insurance premium hike or conditional terms from your bank?

  • Is your council currently proposing any local stopbank or managed retreat schemes?

Ask anything

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