Search studies, brands and more…⌘ KExplore research

Evidence · NZ Election 2026 · Edition 3

Every question, every answer, every source

All 174 questions and the 793 answers produced on 16 October 2026. The 27 remaining cells produced no AI Overview.

questions
174
answers saved
793
collected
16 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. Parties covers all 17 tracked parties; displayed parties covers the seven charted parties.

    result id, prompt id, draft id, scenario id, platform, region, words, parties, displayed parties, literal url 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

    4,275rows

    Download sources by answer (CSV)

  • Checks against official sources

    nz-election-2026-checks.csv

    One row per reviewed claim and assistant, including cells where the assertion was not stated.

    checkId, claimToTest, category, answerId, questionId, assistant, assertionPresent, assertion, verdict, whatTheSourceSays, checkedOn, evidence

    18rows

    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 in this edition.

    edition, prompt id, platform, city region, national result id, city result id, same party names, same text

    123rows

    Download location and national answers (CSV)

  • Changes between editions

    nz-election-2026-comparisons.csv

    All 17 tracked parties; one row per identical question, assistant and location across the 12 and 16 October collections. Earlier coding restated after the 20 October identity correction.

    earlier edition, prompt id, platform, region, draft id, block, scenario id, scenario, issue, priority, earlier result id, current result id, same party set, added, removed, earlier parties, current parties

    792rows

    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.

    questionId, assistant, collectionSetting, askedFrom, availability

    27rows

    Download no ai overview produced (CSV)

  • Party-identity corrections

    nz-election-2026-party-identity-corrections.csv

    Ten reviewed false matches removed from the restated Edition 2 and current Edition 3 comparisons; original answer text is unchanged.

    edition, result id, party, before present, include, reason, reviewer, reviewed on

    10rows

    Download party-identity corrections (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 rent with my partner and work rostered hours that change from week to week. Our pay can drop unexpectedly, but rent and bills don't. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Which parties would change rules around guaranteed hours, casual work and sick leave, and what are the trade-offs?

For the 7 November 2026 New Zealand general election, the most important thing to know is that the rules are already in transition: the current Government has passed the Employment Leave Act 2026, but most of it does not take effect until 6 August 2028. So your vote could matter to whether that framework is retained, amended, or replaced. MBIE

Given your situation—rostered hours that fluctuate, with income that can fall while rent and bills stay fixed—the key distinction is between flexibility and income/leave security.

The basic choice

Party Guaranteed/secure hours Casual work Sick leave / leave rules Main trade-off
National Retains the Government's current framework More scope for genuinely casual/additional hours Supports the new hours-based Employment Leave Act More flexibility and simpler payroll rules, but less protection for people whose income comes from variable hours
ACT Broadly supports the Government's business-friendly employment reforms Favour flexibility for employers Supports the new system Emphasises hiring/business flexibility over stronger statutory worker protections
NZ First Coalition partner that supported the Employment Leave Act No clear separate 2026 proposal I found to substantially tighten casual-work rules Supported the Act More worker-focused positions in some areas, but on these particular rules its parliamentary record is aligned with National/ACT
Labour Would amend the new framework in a more worker-protective direction Opposes features it says incentivise casualisation Would change the new leave framework, particularly the treatment of hours beyond "standard" hours Greater protection for variable-hour workers, potentially at the cost of simplicity/flexibility for employers
Greens Supports stronger guaranteed-hours protections Wants stronger limits on insecure/casualised work Opposed the Employment Leave Act's treatment of part-time/casual workers Stronger worker security, but potentially less employer flexibility
Te Pāti Māori Opposed the Employment Leave Act alongside Labour and Greens Opposes aspects that it considers disadvantage vulnerable workers Supported amendments to strengthen leave outcomes Stronger statutory protection, with similar flexibility/cost trade-offs

The parliamentary record is unusually useful here: when the Employment Leave Bill was voted on, National, ACT and NZ First voted for it, while Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori voted against it. Hansard

What the new law actually does

This is particularly relevant to you.

From August 2028, the new Act divides hours into standard hours, additional hours and casual hours. "Casual hours" are hours where the employer isn't required to offer work and the employee isn't required to accept it. Legislation New Zealand

For workers on additional or casual hours, instead of accruing annual and sick leave on those hours, the employer generally pays a 12.5% leave compensation payment on those hours. Sick and annual leave accrue against standard hours. MBIE

That creates a potentially important issue for someone like you.

Example: suppose your employment agreement guarantees 20 hours, but you normally pick up another 10–15 hours of rostered work. Under the new framework, those extra hours can be classified separately. You receive the 12.5% compensation as you work them, rather than accumulating leave based on those extra hours.

That can mean more money in each ordinary pay packet, but potentially less paid leave available when your income drops or you get sick. The Government's case is that the system is simpler and makes leave easier to calculate; Labour and the Greens argued that it can give different leave outcomes to workers doing essentially the same job. National Party

Guaranteed hours are probably the most important issue for you

New Zealand's existing employment rules already distinguish guaranteed hours from availability. An employer generally can't require you to be available for work outside your guaranteed hours unless the agreement has a valid availability provision, including genuine reasons and reasonable compensation. Legislation New Zealand

The practical question isn't therefore simply:

"Does this party support flexible work?"

It's:

"If I regularly depend on extra rostered hours, how much of that income should the law allow my employer to leave uncertain?"

The Greens have the clearest published commitment I found to strengthening guaranteed-hours rights: their 2026 manifesto calls for implementation of employment-rights measures including guaranteed hours. Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

Labour has not published a comparably simple standalone "guaranteed X hours" pledge in the material I found, but its parliamentary position is clear: it opposed the new system partly because it believes classifying hours as standard versus additional/casual can disadvantage workers. Deloitte's 2026 election analysis likewise says Labour is expected to amend rather than simply scrap the Employment Leave Act. Deloitte

Sick leave is a slightly more complicated trade-off

The new system isn't simply "more sick leave" versus "less sick leave."

The current law gives eligible workers a statutory sick-leave entitlement after meeting the relevant eligibility requirements. The new Act instead makes sick leave hour-based, with accrual from the beginning of employment and leave taken in hours. Employment New Zealand

For someone with stable hours, that can make considerably more intuitive sense: your sick leave corresponds more closely to the amount of work you actually normally do.

For someone whose income consists substantially of extra rostered shifts, however, the distinction matters. The extra hours don't generate the same sick-leave accrual; instead, the 12.5% compensation is paid while those hours are worked. Labour and Green MPs specifically criticised this aspect as potentially disadvantaging part-time and casual workers. Hansard

So there is a genuine policy trade-off:

  • Government parties' approach: simpler rules, clearer categories and more immediate compensation for casual/additional hours.
  • Labour/Green approach: less reliance on categorising hours as "extra" and stronger protection against workers losing leave entitlements simply because their roster varies.

How I'd translate that into your situation

Without telling you how to vote, these are the questions that seem most useful for comparing the parties against your actual circumstances:

  1. How many hours are guaranteed in your employment agreement?
    If it's substantially below what you normally work, guaranteed-hours policy is particularly consequential.

  2. How much of your normal income comes from extra shifts?
    If your household budget depends on them, the treatment of "additional hours" matters much more than it would for somebody with a fixed 40-hour week.

  3. Could you cope with losing several shifts next week?
    If the answer is "not without going into debt or missing bills", policies that constrain unpredictable scheduling become economically significant.

  4. Do you value the ability to refuse shifts?
    Casual work isn't purely negative: genuine casual employment can give workers freedom to accept or reject work. Employment New Zealand describes casual employees as having no guaranteed or predictable hours. Employment New Zealand

  5. Would you rather receive some leave compensation in every pay packet or accumulate more paid leave?
    The new 12.5% model essentially moves some of the value toward current pay rather than future paid time off.

One particularly important wrinkle

You don't necessarily have to wait until the election to get an answer about your own position. Your employment agreement and actual working pattern matter. Someone who is labelled "casual" on paper but works regular, predictable shifts can have a different legal position from a genuinely casual worker.

And because the Employment Leave Act doesn't begin its main provisions until August 2028, the rules applying to you today are still the existing Holidays Act system. Employment New Zealand

If you'd like, I can next do a side-by-side comparison of National, Labour, Greens, ACT, NZ First and Te Pāti Māori specifically on workers' rights, wages, rent/housing and cost of living, using their 2026 election policies—not just the three employment issues above.

Ask anything

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Captured 16 October 2026 · shown as ChatGPT gave it, not a verified account

Gemini · No location

I rent with my partner and work rostered hours that change from week to week. Our pay can drop unexpectedly, but rent and bills don't. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Which parties would change rules around guaranteed hours, casual work and sick leave, and what are the trade-offs?

Navigating irregular hours, changing rosters, and income volatility while trying to keep up with fixed costs like rent and bills is a significant financial stress. In New Zealand’s political landscape, different parties take fundamentally contrasting approaches to how employment laws, guaranteed hours, casual work, and sick leave should be regulated.

The major political blocs generally fall into two distinct philosophical camps regarding these issues.

1. National, ACT, and NZ First (The Current Government Approach)

The current legislative framework—including the newly enacted Employment Leave Act (which replaces the Holidays Act)—was shaped and passed by the National-led government alongside ACT and New Zealand First.

  • Stance on Casual and Irregular Work: The framework maintains distinct definitions for standard, additional, and casual hours. For casual workers (where neither the employer is required to offer work nor the employee to accept it), and for irregular or additional hours, the system utilizes a 12.5% upfront leave compensation payment instead of traditional continuous leave accruals.
  • Stance on Sick Leave & Flexibility: The rules aim to simplify payroll complexity for businesses by shifting calculations to an hourly basis.
  • Trade-offs:
    • Pros: Designed to provide administrative certainty for businesses, reduce compliance costs, and encourage employers to take on casual or variable-hour staff without fearing unmanageable leave liabilities. For some workers, getting an immediate 12.5% loading on extra hours provides instant cash rather than banked leave.
    • Cons (for workers with fluctuating income): Unions and opposition parties argue that this framework disadvantages workers with irregular rosters. Critics point out that variable-hour workers can end up with less overall predictability or lower effective leave protections when hours drop, leaving them more vulnerable during low-income weeks because hourly-based accruals fluctuate directly with hours worked.

2. Labour, the Green Party, and Te Pāti Māori (The Opposition Approach)

The Labour Party, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori generally advocate for stronger worker protections, collective bargaining, and tighter restrictions on casual or precarious employment.

  • Stance on Guaranteed Hours and Roster Volatility: These parties have historically pushed back against unrequested roster changes and "zero-hour" or overly flexible casual arrangements where workers bear all the scheduling risk. They tend to support mechanisms (such as previous Fair Pay Agreement frameworks or strengthening personal grievance and employment standards) that give workers more security and input into predictable hours.
  • Stance on Leave: They strongly oppose changes that they argue reduce leave rights for part-time or shifting schedules, pushing instead for universal, baseline protections that ensure sick leave and annual leave cannot be eroded by fluctuating weekly rosters.
  • Trade-offs:
    • Pros: Focuses on income security, ensuring that workers whose hours drop unexpectedly still have robust safety nets, robust sick leave, and legal avenues to challenge unfair roster cuts or exploitative scheduling.
    • Cons (for employers and business flexibility): Business groups and center-right parties argue that tightening rules around rosters and restricting casual work increases labor costs, reduces economic flexibility, and makes businesses hesitant to create entry-level or student-friendly jobs with variable hours.

Summary of Trade-offs for Your Situation

  • If you vote for parties favoring deregulation and business flexibility (National, ACT, NZ First): You are backing a system focused on lowering business compliance costs and using transparent hourly/percentage loading (like the 12.5% casual loading). The trade-off is that it prioritizes employer adaptability, which can leave workers with variable rosters more exposed to the direct financial impact of a sudden drop in hours.
  • If you vote for parties favoring increased labor regulation and worker security (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori): You are backing a system aimed at curbing precarious work, protecting leave entitlements regardless of roster shifts, and enforcing stricter scheduling rules. The trade-off is that businesses argue this can stifle hiring flexibility and increase costs, which can sometimes indirectly affect total job availability in industries reliant on flexible rostering.

Are you looking for how these party policies might specifically impact a particular industry, or would you like to explore other cost-of-living policies (like accommodation support or tax changes) that affect renting households?

Ask Gemini

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Captured 16 October 2026 · shown as Gemini gave it, not a verified account

Google AI Mode · No location

I rent with my partner and work rostered hours that change from week to week. Our pay can drop unexpectedly, but rent and bills don't. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Which parties would change rules around guaranteed hours, casual work and sick leave, and what are the trade-offs?

Navigating rostered, variable hours with fixed living costs is a major stressor. In the context of New Zealand's political landscape and the recent passing of the Employment Leave Act 2026 (which replaces the Holidays Act from 2028), the major political parties present contrasting approaches to variable hours, casual work, and leave entitlements.

1. Labour, the Green Party, and Te Pāti Māori (Centre-Left / Left)

These parties generally favour stricter regulation of work arrangements to protect workers with irregular or non-standard hours.

  • Guaranteed Hours & Casual Work: They tend to support tightening the definitions around casual and rostered work to prevent the misclassification of permanent workers as "casual" or "on-call" without security. They argue that regular rostered patterns should legally default to permanent, guaranteed minimum hours.

  • Sick Leave & Holidays: They strongly opposed the recent overhaul of leave laws (such as the Employment Leave Act passed under the current coalition), arguing that pro-rating or changing calculations for variable-hour and part-time workers results in a cut to entitlements. Their policy direction aims to ensure sick leave and annual leave accrue fairly and aren't diluted for irregular workers.

  • The Trade-Offs:

  • For workers: Greater income stability, stronger predictability in weekly earnings, and better access to paid sick leave when hours drop.

  • For businesses / economy: Employers—particularly in hospitality, retail, and healthcare—argue that rigid hour mandates increase labour costs and reduce operational flexibility. Business groups claim this can make employers hesitant to take on staff with fluctuating demand, potentially reducing total available entry-level or flexible jobs.

2. National, ACT, and NZ First (Centre-Right / Right)

These parties focus on flexibility, reducing compliance costs for businesses, and market-led employment arrangements. They supported the recent Employment Leave Act 2026 to simplify complex payroll and leave accounting.

  • Guaranteed Hours & Casual Work: They favour maintaining flexibility for both employers and employees who prefer variable or casual arrangements (such as students or those balancing other commitments). They resist prescriptive legislation that forces employers to lock in fixed hours when demand fluctuates weekly.

  • Sick Leave & Holidays: Support systems that calculate leave based on clear hourly frameworks (including 12.5% leave compensation payments for extra/casual hours rather than complex rolling averages). They argue this provides certainty and removes massive administrative burdens for small-to-medium businesses trying to interpret legacy holiday laws. [RNZ]

  • The Trade-Offs:

  • For businesses / economy: Higher operational flexibility, simpler payroll compliance, and a lower risk of unintentional historical holiday-pay liabilities. This is intended to encourage business confidence and job creation.

  • For workers: Less income predictability from week to week. Workers with variable rosters may experience fluctuating take-home pay, and alternative leave/pay structures for irregular hours can sometimes result in lower accumulated security during low-work weeks. [RNZ]

To help narrow down which approach aligns best with your household budgeting:

  • Are you and your partner classified as permanent part-time or casual on your agreements?
  • Is your primary frustration the unpredictability of weekly hours or not having paid leave when you're forced to stay home sick?
Ask anything

Captured 16 October 2026 · shown as Google AI Mode gave it, not a verified account

AI Overviews · No location

I rent with my partner and work rostered hours that change from week to week. Our pay can drop unexpectedly, but rent and bills don't. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. Which parties would change rules around guaranteed hours, casual work and sick leave, and what are the trade-offs?

AI Overview

For the upcoming 2026 New Zealand general election on Saturday, November 7 , workplace relations—particularly how sick leave and irregular hours are handled—is a defining battleground. The parties are split into two distinct paths that directly impact renters and rostered workers with variable incomes.

1. The Incumbent Coalition (National, ACT, NZ First)

The current government has focused on increasing labor market flexibility and reducing compliance burdens for businesses.

  • The Policy: In August 2026, the coalition passed the Employment Leave Act 2026, which will replace the Holidays Act 2003 starting in August 2028.

  • Changes to Sick Leave & Hours: Rather than lump-sum day/week allocations, annual and sick leave will accrue purely in hours from day one based on an employee’s "standard or guaranteed hours". Sick leave will accrue at 0.0385 hours per standard hour worked (up to a 160-hour cap).

  • Impact on Casual/Rostered Work: If you work variable or additional hours beyond your guaranteed baseline, those extra hours do not accrue time off ; instead, they receive an upfront 12.5% leave compensation payment. Additionally, leave will be paid out at your base hourly wage, meaning variable income like overtime or rostered premiums are excluded from leave calculations.

2. The Opposition (Labour, Green Party, Te Pāti Māori)

The centre-left opposition block is running a joint "change campaign" backed heavily by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU), promising to roll back the coalition's reforms.

  • The Policy: Opposition parties pledge to repeal the Employment Leave Act 2026 before its core provisions take effect in 2028.

  • Changes to Sick Leave & Hours: They intend to restore or strengthen minimum block entitlements (e.g., a baseline of 10 days of sick leave and 4 weeks of annual leave) that apply broadly, ensuring workers with fluctuating rosters are protected. They want leave pay calculations to reflect a worker's true average earnings, including variable rostered hours and overtime.

  • Broader Protections: The Green Party is pushing further to expand regular paid annual leave to 5 weeks and introduce automatic union opt-ins to give rostered workers more leverage to negotiate predictable schedules.

Direct Trade-Off Comparison

Policy Path Pros for Rostered/Casual Workers Cons/Trade-offs for Rostered/Casual Workers
Coalition Approach (National / ACT / NZ First) • You get immediate cash via the 12.5% pay premium on extra hours instead of waiting to accrue time off.
• Lower costs for businesses may encourage them to offer more casual shifts. • If your roster drops to baseline hours, your sick leave balance will be smaller because it only tracks standard hours.
• Taking time off pays less, as variable shift allowances are excluded.
Opposition Approach (Labour / Greens / Te Pāti) • Stronger safety net; sick leave covers you fully even if your scheduled hours fluctuate.
• Leave pay reflects your actual earnings, helping you cover fixed expenses like rent. • Increased regulatory overhead and costs for businesses.
• Employers facing higher compliance expenses might limit total rostered hours or reduce casual hiring during tight economic periods.

If you want to evaluate how other parts of their platforms affect your household budget, would you like to look into what these parties are proposing regarding rental housing laws or tax brackets?

AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

Copied to clipboardFailed to copy to clipboard. Try again later.

CopiedFailed to copyCopy

Share

Good response

Bad response

More

About this response

Ask anything

Captured 16 October 2026 · shown as AI Overviews gave it, not a verified account