Evidence · NZ Election 2026 · Edition 4

Every question, every answer, every source

All 174 questions and the 776 answers produced on 19 October 2026. For the other 44 planned combinations, Google produced no AI Overview or AI Mode answer.

questions
174
answers saved
776
collected
19 October 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

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

    questions.csv

    One row per question, unchanged since 5 October.

    id, text, reference, axes, collectionSettings, enabled

  • Answers

    answers.csv

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

    id, questionId, assistant, collectionSetting, askedFrom, text, words

  • Sources by answer

    source-associations.csv

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

    answer id, question id, assistant, domain, publisher

  • Checks against official sources

    checks.csv

    One row per selected statement and assistant, including those where the statement was not made.

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

  • Who to vote for: what each answer did

    behaviour-coding.csv

    One row per voting-guidance answer read in full, with each behaviour marked. Behaviours overlap; the original answers supply the evidence.

    prompt_id, draft_id, platform, region, explicit_choice_boundary, conditional_party_or_bloc_alignment, prioritised_shortlist, elicits_additional_user_information, unconditional_single_party_vote_instruction, excerpts, rationale, reviewer, reviewed_on, answerId

  • Location and national answers

    place-pairs.csv

    One row per national and location pair in this edition.

    question id, assistant, place, national answer id, place answer id, national entities, place entities, same entities

  • Changes between editions

    party-change-tables.csv

    One row per answer and earlier edition, with the parties named then and now.

    earlier_edition, earlier_result_id, current_result_id, prompt_id, platform, region, draft_id, block, scenario_id, scenario, issue, priority, same_text, same_party_set, earlier_parties, current_parties, added, removed

  • Changes across editions

    trajectory-tables.csv

    One row per pair of editions, with how many of the same 776 answers changed their party line-up.

    earlier_edition, current_edition, denominator, changed_all17, changed_seven

  • Party counts by edition

    party-count-tables.csv

    One row per comparison, edition, assistant and party, with the answers naming the party.

    panel, edition, platform, entity_id, party, numerator, denominator

  • Parties entering and leaving answers

    party-mention-flows.csv

    One row per party and assistant: answers that gained, lost or kept the party since 16 October.

    entity_id, platform, denominator, earlier, current, gained, lost, retained

  • Parties named by issue

    topic-presence-tables.csv

    One row per issue and party, with the answers naming the party.

    issue, entity_id, numerator, denominator

  • Location comparisons by edition

    regional-tables.csv

    One row per national and location pair, comparison and edition.

    panel, edition, prompt_id, platform, region, draft_id, block, scenario_id, scenario, issue, priority, complete, national_result_id, location_result_id, same_party_set

  • Answer length by assistant

    platform-tables.csv

    One row per comparison, edition and assistant, with answer length and the answers naming all six parties in Parliament.

    panel, edition, platform, answers, median_words, all_six_parliamentary

  • Voting guidance changes between editions

    guidance-change-tables.csv

    One row per voting-guidance answer and behaviour, on 16 and 19 October.

    draft_id, platform, measure, earlier_result_id, result_id, earlier, current, changed

  • What changed for each voter

    case-assessments.csv

    One row per voter: what changed in the answer to their main question.

    case, transition, earlier_quote, quote, assessment

  • Statements selected for checking

    check-register.csv

    One row per statement selected for checking, with why it was chosen and its primary source.

    checkId, claimToTest, category, whyChecked, primarySourceUrl, answerId

  • Answers paired with Edition 3

    pairs.csv

    One row per answer, with the 16 October answer to the same question, assistant and location.

    earlierAnswerId, answerId, questionId, assistant, collectionSetting, askedFrom

  • Source capture by answer

    sources.csv

    One row per answer, with whether its sources were captured and the websites recorded.

    answerId, capture, domains, urls, literalUrls, scope

  • Websites by reach

    source-reach-tables.csv

    One row per website, with the answers associated with it.

    domain, answers, denominator

  • Websites by issue

    topic-source-tables.csv

    One row per issue and website, with the answers associated with it.

    issue, domain, answers, denominator

  • Party matches reviewed in context

    party-identity-decisions.csv

    One row per possible party match read in context, with whether it counted and why.

    result_id, party, include, state, reason, reviewer, reviewed_on, review_basis, contexts

  • Parties found in each answer

    codings.csv

    One row per answer, party and comparison, with whether the party counted and the passage that shows it.

    comparisonId, answerId, entityId, kind, measure, counted, quote, reason, evidence

  • Comparisons each answer is in

    memberships.csv

    One row per answer and comparison.

    comparisonId, answerId, rowKey, included

  • Claims Onsomble recorded

    raw-native-claims.csv

    One row per claim, with the parties it is about and its stance on each.

    claimId, claimText, quote, stance, platform, region, promptId, brands, sources, drivers, sourceResultId

  • Answers read in full

    semantic-review-ledger.csv

    One row per answer and question a reviewer read in full, with the decision and the passage.

    result_id, dimension, state, decision, rationale, excerpt, reviewer, reviewed_on

  • Passages quoted in the analysis

    report-evidence.csv

    One row per answer passage the analysis quotes, with its reading.

    key, answerId, interpretation, text

  • Analysis findings

    findings.csv

    One row per finding in the analysis, with its figure and the table it comes from.

    id, value, denominator, statement, summary, caveat, evidence, reportFile

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 voter who finds political jargon difficult and hasn't voted before. I want clear explanations without being talked down to. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties differ on helping people see a doctor or get hospital treatment? Keep it clear and practical.

New Zealand 2026 election: How parties differ on healthcare

If you're voting for the first time, healthcare is a useful issue to compare because party differences can affect practical things: how long you wait to see a GP, what you pay at the doctor's office, and how quickly you get hospital treatment.

The key is to look at what each party proposes to change, who would benefit, and how the change would be funded — rather than relying on campaign slogans.

There are two main parts to understand:

  • Getting care early: seeing a general practitioner (GP), getting prescriptions, having tests and accessing community health services before a problem becomes serious.
  • Getting hospital care: being referred to a specialist, receiving planned surgery, getting cancer treatment and accessing emergency services.

These are connected, but a policy that makes GP visits cheaper does not automatically shorten hospital waiting lists.

1. The main parties' approaches

As of 18 October 2026, some major health policies have been announced, but not every party has published a full plan. The comparison below focuses on documented proposals, not promises that have already been delivered.

Will National Party Finish 2nd in New Zealand's 2026 Election?

National

Main approach: increase services and improve delivery within the public system.

National points to additional funding for GP and hospital care, more planned treatments, shorter waiting-time targets, recruitment of doctors, and expanded access to medicines. Its 2026 Budget allocated more than $5.8 billion in new operating funding across the forecast period. Record health funding with patients at the centreBuilding the future GP workforce with overseas-trained doctors

What this could mean for you: the emphasis is on getting more appointments, tests and treatments delivered, rather than making a set number of GP visits free for everyone.

South Island Election Conference 2026

Labour

Main approach: reduce the cost of everyday healthcare.

Labour proposes three free GP visits a year for everyone through a new Medicard, removing the $5 prescription charge from July 2027, and making cervical screening and maternity scans free under specified eligibility and start dates. It says the measures would be funded by a targeted tax on gains from investment property, excluding the family home and several other assets. Labour's Cost of Living PlanLabour's 2026 Election Policies

What this could mean for you: a more predictable reduction in some out-of-pocket costs. Three free GP visits would not mean every visit or every kind of healthcare is free.

Green Party NZ (@NZGreens) on X

Green Party

Main approach: make primary healthcare more affordable and expand access.

The Greens support free GP visits for everyone and free dental care, with community clinics prioritised in areas of greatest need. Their proposed approach is broader than Labour's three-free-visits policy, and includes a wealth tax to help fund it. Health Policy: Where NZ Parties Stand in 2026Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026

What this could mean for you: less direct cost when seeking care, if the proposals are implemented. The practical effect would also depend on having enough clinicians and appointments available.

New Zealand Legislative Election Winner 2026 Odds | Polymarket

ACT

Main approach: increase the supply of appointments and give providers more flexibility.

On 18 October, ACT announced an additional $400 million for general practice over four years, aimed at retaining and recruiting doctors and increasing appointment availability. It also supports wider use of pharmacy services and changes to medical registration processes. ACT New ZealandHealth Policy: Where NZ Parties Stand in 2026

What this could mean for you: the focus is on making it easier to get an appointment, rather than promising a fixed number of free GP visits for every person.

What about New Zealand First and Te Pāti Māori?

Their health policies are also worth comparing before you vote. The available material I found did not establish enough detail about their full October 2026 GP and hospital proposals to give a fair, specific comparison here. You can check their latest positions alongside the other parties using Policy.nz's 2026 health policy guide. Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026The main parties vying to form New Zealand's next government

New Zealand legislative election winner? Predictions & Od... 2026 | Polymarket

New Zealand First

Main approach: prevent illness before people need hospital treatment.

Its September 2026 health plan emphasises metabolic health (such as factors linked to diabetes and heart disease), nutrition, prevention, reducing paperwork for GPs and bringing health coaches into general practice. NZFirst Campaign Announcement: The Plan to “Make NZ Healthy”The Plan to “Make NZ Healthy”

What this could mean for you: more emphasis on preventing long-term illness and supporting GPs. The published plan does not yet give a comparable promise for a set number of free GP visits.

New Zealand Legislative Election Winner 2026 Odds | Polymarket

Te Pāti Māori

Main approach: address unequal access to healthcare and wider barriers to good health.

The party supports wealth-based tax changes, and health equity is part of its policy agenda. However, I could not verify enough detail from the current material to accurately summarise its specific GP fees, staffing and hospital-waiting-list commitments. The main parties vying to form New Zealand's next governmentElection 2026: Will parties’ tax policies support public health and equity?

What this could mean for you: check its latest published health plan for specific service commitments, funding and timelines before comparing it with the other parties.

2. What do the differences mean in everyday life?

If your main concern is… The policy difference to examine
Paying to see a GP Labour's three free visits versus the Greens' proposal for free GP care more broadly.
Finding an available appointment National's investment in service capacity versus ACT's newly announced GP funding and workforce measures.
Waiting for surgery or a specialist Compare each party's planned treatment numbers, staffing commitments and waiting-time targets.
Getting medicines Compare National's additional medicines funding with Labour's plan to remove the $5 prescription charge.
Avoiding serious illness Compare New Zealand First's emphasis on prevention with parties' commitments to screening, early diagnosis and ongoing care.

Sources: party policy announcements and the independent New Zealand Resident Doctors' Association's 2026 election policy summary. Labour's Cost of Living PlanACT New ZealandRecord health funding with patients at the centre2026 Election Policy SummariesThe Plan to “Make NZ Healthy”

3. A practical point about hospital waiting lists

A party can promise more hospital procedures, but that doesn't necessarily mean every patient will be treated sooner.

For example, National's September 2026 update reported that 72.6% of patients received elective treatment within four months in April–June 2026, compared with 63.9% in the same quarter a year earlier. These are government-reported figures, and they describe progress during the current term, not a guarantee of what will happen after the election. Health targets: five out of five moving in the right directionElection 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

When comparing promises, ask three questions:

  • How many additional patients will actually be treated?
  • Where will the doctors, nurses, operating theatres and hospital beds come from?
  • What date does the party promise to achieve its target by?

Also check whether a party proposes using private hospitals to treat publicly funded patients. That can add treatment capacity without requiring every procedure to happen in a public hospital, but the details of funding and staffing matter.

4. How to decide what matters most to you

You don't need to understand every health policy to make an informed choice. Start with the issue that would make the biggest practical difference to your life.

One final thing to remember: in New Zealand's MMP system, you have two votes — a party vote, which determines each party's share of seats in Parliament, and an electorate vote, which helps choose your local MP. Parties may need to negotiate with other parties to form a government, so their ability to implement health policies depends partly on those agreements. How does New Zealand's electoral system work and does it favour coalitions?Policies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026

For a fuller side-by-side comparison, Policy.nz's 2026 election guide lets you explore individual health proposals and check which parties have committed to them.

Ask anything

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Captured 19 October 2026 · shown as ChatGPT gave it, not a verified account

Gemini · No location

I'm an eligible voter who finds political jargon difficult and hasn't voted before. I want clear explanations without being talked down to. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties differ on helping people see a doctor or get hospital treatment? Keep it clear and practical.

Welcome to voting! It is completely normal to find political terms confusing, and it's great that you are looking for clear, practical information to help make your decision.

When it comes to healthcare—seeing a doctor (primary care) and getting hospital treatment—New Zealand’s political parties generally disagree on who should pay, how much the government should step in, and whether private hospitals should be used to clear public waitlists.

Here is how the main parties approach these issues in plain terms:


1. Seeing a Doctor (GP and Primary Care)

The main debate here is whether seeing a family doctor should be heavily subsidized (or free) for everyone, or targeted to specific groups.

  • Labour: Focuses on making primary care more affordable universally. Their policy includes introducing a system (like a "Medicard") to give every New Zealander a set number of free GP or nurse visits per year, alongside removing certain prescription fees.
  • The Greens: Propose going further by making all GP visits completely free for everyone, funded through new taxes on high wealth. They also want free dental care.
  • National (and the current Government): Focus on strengthening overall primary care capacity and funding through targeted investments rather than blanket free visits. They generally argue that universal free schemes for everyone (including higher-income earners) are too costly and "uncooked", preferring to direct resources carefully.
  • ACT: Prefers a model where the government acts as a "purchaser" rather than a direct provider. They have floated ideas around health savings accounts or financial incentives for people to opt out of the public health system and arrange private cover instead.
  • Te Pāti Māori: Focuses heavily on targeted support, such as free primary care for lower-income whānau (e.g., under $60,000) and a specialized Māori Health Card linking funding directly to patients.

2. Hospital Treatment and Waitlists

The main issue here is how to handle public hospital wait times for surgeries and specialist treatments.

  • National & ACT (The Coalition Government approach): Actively use the private sector to help clear public waitlists. For example, they have contracted private hospitals through programs like the "Elective Boost" to perform publicly funded surgeries (such as hip or knee replacements) to speed things up. ACT generally favors expanding private sector involvement long-term.
  • Labour, The Greens, and Te Pāti Māori: Generally oppose relying on private hospitals. They argue that sending public money to private providers drains resources away from the public system, and that the focus should instead be strictly on building up public hospital staffing, beds, and direct funding so the public system can handle the demand itself.
  • NZ First: Generally focuses on resourcing the public system adequately, reducing waitlists through targeted funds, and emphasizing regional access and rapid diagnostics.

Summary Checklist to Help You Decide

As you think about your vote, ask yourself which of these philosophies you lean toward most:

  1. Universal Free Access: Do you want the government to make visiting the doctor free or heavily subsidized for everyone, funded by taxes? (Look at Labour, Greens)
  2. Targeted Support: Do you want government help focused primarily on lower-income families or specific health needs?
  3. Private Sector Partnerships: Do you support using private hospitals to get people off public surgery waitlists faster, even if it uses private businesses? (Look at National, ACT)
  4. Strictly Public Building: Do you believe all health funding should stay strictly within the public system to build its long-term capacity? (Look at Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori)

Is there a specific part of the healthcare system—like mental health support, prescription costs, or getting care in rural areas—that is most important to you?

Ask Gemini

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Captured 19 October 2026 · shown as Gemini gave it, not a verified account

Google AI Mode · No location

I'm an eligible voter who finds political jargon difficult and hasn't voted before. I want clear explanations without being talked down to. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties differ on helping people see a doctor or get hospital treatment? Keep it clear and practical.

When looking at how New Zealand’s political parties approach healthcare and seeing a doctor, the core debate comes down to how money should be spent —whether to directly subsidize the cost of visits for patients, or to focus heavily on funding and expanding the medical workforce and infrastructure.

Below is an overview of how the main parties running in the 2026 general election propose to handle access to doctors and hospital treatments, based on their stated policy platforms.

The National Party

  • Approach: Focusing on overall system investment, boosting funding for medicines, and delivering more elective surgeries through existing public and regional channels.
  • Access to Doctors & Treatment: National points to its record of multi-billion-dollar baseline funding into health and delivering additional elective procedures. Rather than making broad free GP schemes, their focus is on increasing support for Pharmac to fund more medical treatments and cancer drugs, alongside working through regional hospital capacity and surgery waitlists. [NZ Herald]

The Labour Party

  • Approach: Directly reducing out-of-pocket costs for everyday healthcare through targeted universal subsidies, funded via tax changes like a capital gains tax.
  • Access to Doctors & Treatment: Labour is campaigning on introducing a "Medicard" system to provide three free GP visits per year for eligible people, alongside free prescriptions and free regular cervical screening starting in 2027, and free maternity scans by 2028. They also pledge guaranteed graduate nursing jobs to shore up public staffing. [NZ Labour Party]
  • Criticism: Opposing parties argue that subsidizing visits without dramatically increasing doctor numbers first could lead to longer wait times or overwhelmed clinics. [NZ Herald]

The ACT Party

  • Approach: Fixing workforce shortages by directly investing in recruiting, retaining, and incentivizing doctors.
  • Access to Doctors & Treatment: ACT has proposed committing $400 million over four years ($100 million a year) specifically aimed at retaining doctors in New Zealand, attracting doctors from overseas, and giving financial incentives for offering more appointments. ACT argues that the primary barrier to seeing a doctor is a lack of workforce capacity rather than a lack of subsidies, asserting that paying for free visits does no good if there aren't enough clinicians available to see patients. [NZ Herald]

The Green Party

  • Approach: Prioritizing public service funding, free or low-cost holistic care, and addressing social determinants of health (like poverty and food security).
  • Access to Doctors & Treatment: The Green Party's manifesto emphasizes expanding accessible public healthcare services and significantly boosting mental health and disability support access. They advocate for a stronger public health infrastructure funded by higher taxes on corporations and high-wealth individuals, aiming to make community-based care and mental health services free or low-cost at the point of need. [Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand]

Summary of the Choices

  • If you want direct financial relief at the clinic: Parties like Labour focus on lowering immediate costs (free or cheaper GP visits and prescriptions).
  • If you prefer fixing the doctor shortage first: Parties like ACT focus money directly on training, importing, and retaining more doctors to increase appointment availability.
  • If you want emphasis on public system scale and medicine funding: Parties like National focus on funding hospital procedures, surgical volumes, and Pharmac drug budgets.
  • If you want wider public service expansion and mental health access: Parties like the Greens focus on overhauling public health delivery through increased funding for public health networks and specialized support services.

You can explore detailed, side-by-side policy comparisons using the Policy.nz Health Guide or read broader breakdowns on platforms like RNZ Election Coverage.

Ask anything

Captured 19 October 2026 · shown as Google AI Mode gave it, not a verified account