Evidence · NZ Election 2026 · Edition 6

Every question and original answer

All 174 questions and the 783 complete answers recorded on 26 October 2026. Source lists and sentiment assessments are included, alongside the unchanged original answers.

questions
174
answers saved
783
collected
26 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, with its original wording.

    id, text, reference, enabled, axes, collectionSettings

  • Complete answers

    answers.csv

    One row per saved answer, including its original text.

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

  • Answers included in each comparison

    memberships.csv

    One row per answer and comparison, showing which results were counted together.

    comparisonId, answerId, rowKey, included

  • Party names found in answers

    codings.csv

    One row per answer, party and comparison, with the recorded decision and evidence.

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

  • Sources recorded with each answer

    sources.csv

    One row per answer, with its recorded websites, source-list status and visible links.

    answerId, capture, domains, urls, literalUrls, origin

  • What the voting-guidance answers did

    behaviour-coding.csv

    One row per guidance answer, with the recorded behaviours and supporting passages.

    answerId, draft_id, platform, explicit_choice_boundary, conditional_party_or_bloc_alignment, prioritised_shortlist, elicits_additional_user_information, unconditional_single_party_vote_instruction, rationale, evidence, review_provenance

  • Checks against official sources

    checks.csv

    One row per selected statement checked in an answer.

    checkId, claimToTest, category, answerId, questionId, assistant, assertionPresent, assertion, verdict, evidence, whatTheSourceSays, assessment, checkedOn, paragraphs, previousCheckId, earlierAnswerId, earlierAssertion, trajectory

  • Statements selected for checking

    check-register.csv

    One row per selected check, with its reason and official source.

    checkId, claimToTest, category, whyChecked, primarySourceUrl, answerId

  • Research findings

    findings.csv

    One row per finding, with its figure and supporting records.

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

  • Evidence behind the findings

    findings-evidence.csv

    One row per finding, with the records supporting it.

    findingId, rows

  • What changed for each voter

    case-decisions.csv

    One row per voter situation, with the earlier and later readings.

    case, transition, quote, assessment, draft_id, scenario, earlier_result_id, result_id, earlier_quote, earlier_assessment, earlier_review_provenance, current_review_provenance

  • Answers read in detail

    report-evidence.csv

    One row per answer included in the detailed research readings.

    key, answerId, interpretation, text

  • Party counts by edition

    party-count-tables.csv

    One row per comparison, edition, assistant and party, with its answer count and total.

    panel, edition, platform, party, numerator, denominator

  • Answer length by assistant

    platform-tables.csv

    One row per comparison, edition and assistant, with the recorded answer lengths.

    panel, edition, platform, answers, median_words, total_words

  • Location comparisons by edition

    regional-tables.csv

    One row per national-and-location comparison and edition.

    edition, prompt_id, platform, city, draft_id, block, scenario_id, scenario, issue, priority, common_5_6, complete, national_result_id, city_result_id, same_text, same_party_set, same_displayed_party_set

  • Changes by topic

    issue-tables.csv

    One row per topic, showing answer totals and changes in party names.

    issue, current_answers, matched, changed_party_sets, changed_displayed_party_sets

  • Links visible in answers

    literal-source-evidence.csv

    One row per answer, with the web links present in its text.

    edition, result_id, literal_urls, literal_domains, associated_capture

  • Separate website reference totals

    aggregate-references.csv

    One row per website in the separate reference summary; these totals do not identify which answer used it.

    domain, citationCount, referenceCount, promptCount, urlTotal, trendTotal, platforms

  • Answers compared with 23 October

    pairs.csv

    One row per answer with an earlier counterpart to the same question, assistant and location.

    earlierAnswerId, answerId, questionId, assistant, collectionSetting, askedFrom

  • Checks across editions

    edition-checks.csv

    The selected checks and whether their statements appeared in each edition.

    checkId, claim, assistant, earlierAnswerId, answerId, earlierQuote, quote, trajectory, assessment, evidence

  • Statements and sentiment assessments

    claims.csv

    The saved assessments of statements about tracked parties, with their answer references and verified extracts where available.

    claimId, answerId, entityId, role, tone, quote, nativeQuoteVerified, origin

  • Original saved statement assessments

    raw-native-claims.csv

    One row per saved statement, with its original wording and party assessments. These are automated results, not independently checked facts.

    quote, brands, stance, claimId, claimText, sourceResultId

  • Original saved source records

    raw-native-sources.csv

    Every saved source record, distinguishing citations from other references. The source rankings count citations only.

    answerId, url, domain, metadata, domainType, citationKind

  • Sources by answer

    source-associations.csv

    One row per answer and website; repeated references to the same website count once.

    answer id, question id, assistant, domain, publisher

  • National and location answers

    place-pairs.csv

    One row per complete national-and-location pair in this edition.

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

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: Healthcare, explained

If you're voting for the first time, healthcare is a useful issue to compare because parties can agree that people need timely medical care but disagree about how to make it happen, what to spend money on, and who should provide the treatment.

For your vote, I'd focus on two everyday questions:

  • Seeing a doctor: How easy and affordable would it be to get a GP appointment, especially if you're on a tight budget or live somewhere with few doctors?
  • Getting hospital treatment: How would a party reduce waiting times for specialist appointments, scans and planned operations, while making sure urgent patients receive care?

One important distinction: a party announcing a target is not the same as it having a funded plan that achieves that target. It's worth comparing both the promise and how it would be delivered.

The main differences between parties

The summary below reflects published 2026 election policies and health-policy reporting available as of 26 October 2026. These are party proposals, not guarantees of what will happen. The New Zealand Medical Journal's election review discusses the main choices and the practical challenge of delivering them. Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and deliveryElection 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

1. Getting to a GP and paying for the appointment

South Island Election Conference 2026

Labour

Labour proposes three free GP visits a year for people eligible for publicly funded healthcare, using a new Medicard. It also promises to restore free prescriptions from 1 July 2027 and offers a loan scheme to help doctors buy into GP practices. Labour's 2026 Election PoliciesLabour's 2026 Election Policies

Practical question: Would three free visits cover your needs, and would you be able to get an appointment when you need one?

Policy: Labour's healthcare proposals

Green Party NZ (@NZGreens) on X

Green Party

The Greens emphasise more public investment, accessible primary care, prevention and a larger health workforce. Their 23 October announcement proposes an extra $3 billion a year for health for four years, including more staff and stronger hospital, emergency and community services. Manifesto 2026Greens to deliver more staff, shorter wait times and a healthier country with significant health investment

Practical question: How would additional funding translate into affordable GP appointments and more doctors available locally?

Policy: Greens' 2026 manifesto

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

National

National emphasises expanding treatment capacity, measurable health targets, medicines and more ways to access care, including online and after-hours services. Its approach includes using both public hospitals and private providers to deliver additional planned treatments. 2026 Election PolicyElection 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

Practical question: Will these measures give you an affordable GP appointment and improve access in your part of New Zealand?

Policy: National's policies

New Zealand Legislative Election Winner 2026 Odds | Polymarket

ACT

ACT focuses on reducing delays, improving efficiency and accountability, expanding patient choice and allowing pharmacies and private providers to do more. It also prioritises access to medicines. ACT New ZealandElection 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

Practical question: Would greater use of different providers improve access, and what would it mean for the cost of your care?

Policy: ACT's health policy

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

New Zealand First

Its health priorities include access to medicines, reducing waiting lists, recruiting health workers from overseas and prevention. Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

Practical question: What specific improvements would be made to your local GP and hospital services, and by when?

Policy: New Zealand First

New Zealand Legislative Election Winner 2026 Odds | Polymarket

Te Pāti Māori

Its approach emphasises Māori-led healthcare, culturally appropriate services and reducing unfair differences in health outcomes. Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

Practical question: How would its proposals improve access for Māori and other people who face barriers to healthcare?

Policy: Te Pāti Māori health policy

The Opportunities Party (TOP)

Its published health approach includes a long-term, cross-party approach to health policy, aiming to give workforce planning and service improvements more continuity beyond a single parliamentary term. Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

Practical question: What concrete funding and staffing commitments would support that long-term plan?

Policy: TOP's website

2. Getting hospital treatment sooner

Hospital access is about more than how many operations a government promises. It includes seeing a specialist, getting tests and scans, receiving an operation, and getting emergency care.

Approach What it means in practice
National Sets measurable targets and uses public and private capacity to increase the number of treatments delivered.
Labour Combines its GP affordability proposals with an emergency department recovery plan, including more GP appointments and nurses and faster emergency care.
Greens Emphasises increased public funding, more health workers and stronger hospital, emergency and community care.
ACT Emphasises reducing delays through efficiency, accountability and a wider range of providers.
New Zealand First Emphasises reducing waiting lists, access to medicines and recruiting health workers.
Te Pāti Māori Emphasises Māori-led care and addressing unequal health outcomes.
TOP Emphasises long-term planning across political terms.

Sources: New Zealand Medical Journal's 2026 health-policy review, Labour's health policies, ACT's health policy and the Greens' health announcement. Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and deliveryLabour's 2026 Election PoliciesACT New ZealandGreens to deliver more staff, shorter wait times and a healthier country with significant health investment

One important consideration is staffing. More funding or more hospital facilities will not automatically mean shorter waits if there are not enough doctors, nurses, specialists and other health workers to provide treatment. The medical journal identifies workforce shortages as a challenge across the health system. Election 2026 and health: promises, priorities and deliveryElection 2026 and health: promises, priorities and delivery

3. What should you look for when comparing promises?

These are practical questions you can use with any party, without needing to understand political jargon.

What will I pay?

Will GP appointments, prescriptions, tests or other care cost less? Are any free services limited to a certain number of visits or a particular group of people?

How long will I wait?

Does the party have a specific target for GP appointments, specialist assessments or planned operations? How will progress be measured?

Who will provide the care?

Will the plan train or recruit more health workers, expand existing services, or use private providers as well as public hospitals?

How will it be paid for?

Is there a clear funding plan? Would the party raise taxes, redirect existing spending or rely on savings elsewhere?

For context, New Zealand introduced a new primary-care target on 1 July 2026: more than 80% of people should be able to access a general practice appointment within one week. The first national results are expected in late 2026, so there is not yet a published national result against this new target to use as a baseline. Primary care health target

4. A simple way to decide what matters most to you

You do not need to understand every policy in a party's manifesto. Start with the problem you most want the next government to address.

Your vote is yours to make. The aim is to find out which parties' actual commitments match the changes you want to see, rather than relying on slogans or assuming that a promise will automatically deliver the result.

Ask anything

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Captured 26 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.

Navigating healthcare costs and wait times can be tough, especially if you haven't voted before. In the 2026 general election, political parties differ significantly on how to make seeing a doctor affordable and how to handle hospital treatment and waitlists.

The core approaches break down across the political spectrum:


1. Making Doctor Visits (Primary Care) Affordable

The cost of seeing a General Practitioner (GP) is a major hurdle for many New Zealanders. Parties propose very different solutions:

  • Labour: Proposes a "Medicard" to give every New Zealander three free GP visits per year, alongside free prescriptions and free maternity scans. They plan to fund this through a capital gains tax.
  • The Green Party: Wants to go further by working toward unlimited free GP visits and free dental care for everyone, funded by a wealth tax.
  • Te Pāti Māori: Supports free primary care and dental care for whānau earning under $60,000, alongside Māori-led health services.
  • The Opportunity Party (TOP): Focuses on age-based support, proposing free primary healthcare, mental health, and dental care for under-30s through a "Teal Card", alongside a long-term cross-party health plan.
  • National (and the current Coalition government): Generally opposes universal free GP visits (calling them untargeted). Instead, they focus investment on building general practice capacity, workforce training, and specific disability access.
  • ACT: Disagrees with government-provided universal schemes. They lean toward a model where the government acts as a "purchaser" rather than a direct provider, proposing health savings accounts and private options (such as incentives for people to opt out of public health entirely).

2. Hospital Treatment and Waitlists

Public hospital wait times, emergency department pressures, and surgical backlogs are a major focus for voters. Parties split on how to fix them:

  • National-led Government approach: Emphasizes using targets, boosting workforce numbers, and partnering with the private sector. For example, they have used multi-year contracts with private hospitals to outsource surgeries (like the Elective Boost programme) to clear waiting lists faster.
  • Labour & The Greens: Strongly criticize heavy reliance on private outsourcing. Labour has pledged immediate reviews of hospital wait times, bed shortages, and ED safety, arguing that funding should instead be pumped directly into strengthening public hospital staffing, retention, and infrastructure. The Greens view private outsourcing as a temporary fix that diverts essential resources away from public systems.
  • New Zealand First: Focuses heavily on dedicated funding funds for waitlist reductions and ensuring that healthcare access is strictly based on clinical need rather than ethnicity or background.
  • ACT: Prefers shifting structural reliance away from a centralized state-run health provider (like Health NZ) toward a competitive model that encourages private healthcare infrastructure to share the load.

Summary to Help You Decide

  • If you want government-subsidized or free doctor visits paid for by taxes on higher wealth/property, you tend to look toward parties on the left (Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori).
  • If you want tax dollars focused on building public capacity, clinical targets, and utilizing private hospitals to cut surgical waitlists more immediately, you tend to look toward the current governing parties (National, ACT, NZ First).

Is there a specific part of the healthcare system—like prescription costs, mental health support, or regional doctor shortages—that matters most to your household?

Ask Gemini

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Captured 26 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.

Welcome to voting! It is completely normal to find political talk confusing or overwhelming, especially when it is your first time.

When it comes to seeing a doctor, visiting a clinic, or getting hospital care, New Zealand's political parties generally agree that the health system is under a lot of strain. However, they differ quite a bit on how to fix it—specifically whether to focus on making visits directly free/cheaper for patients, or on reforming the system behind the scenes and using other health professionals (like pharmacists) to take the pressure off.

Here is a clear, practical breakdown of how the major parties approach getting you to a doctor or hospital treatment, based on their policy platforms for the 2026 general election.


The Labour Party

According to Labour's 2026 Election Policies, their main focus is directly lowering the cost barrier so people visit the doctor earlier before small health issues become big hospital problems.

  • Free GP Visits (Medicard): Labour proposes introducing a "Medicard" that gives every person entitled to publicly funded healthcare three free general practitioner (doctor) consultations each year (though some visits may be with a nurse practitioner).

  • Free Prescriptions: They also plan to restore universally free prescriptions.

  • Doctor Support & Hospitals: To stop clinics from becoming completely overwhelmed by free visits, they propose a "Family Doctor Loan Scheme" to help new doctors and increase clinic capacity, alongside a focus on hospital repairs and an emergency department (ED) recovery plan.

The National-Led Government / National Party

According to policy breakdowns on Policy.nz and medical sector summaries, the National-led approach focuses less on blanket universal free visits and more on practical capacity, targets, and shifting tasks to other professionals.

  • Practical Capacity & Workforce: National's strategy leans toward maximizing funding through subsidized medicines and expanding the roles of other trained professionals—like pharmacists and physician associates —so you can get minor treatments or advice faster without needing to wait for a traditional doctor's appointment. [Policy.nz]

  • System Efficiency & Targets: They emphasize strict health targets for wait times and managing acute demand within hospitals, arguing that making things universally free without first building up the physical workforce and appointment slots will just clog up the system further. [RNZ]

Other Parties (Green, ACT, NZ First, Te Pāti Māori, etc.)

  • The Green Party generally aligns with a broader left-wing goal of moving towards fully free healthcare, pushing for free GP visits, mental health sessions, and dental care.

  • ACT tends to focus on structural efficiency, choice, and private-public partnerships to clear hospital waitlists rather than government-mandated price controls.

  • New Zealand First and minor parties focus on regional health access, making sure rural and provincial areas have physical doctors available, rather than just urban clinics. [Policy.nz]


How to Compare Them Practically

When you are looking at these choices as a voter, ask yourself which problem you think needs solving first:

  1. The Cost Approach (e.g., Labour, Greens): Focuses on making the immediate visit cheaper or free so money doesn't stop you from going. The criticism is whether the clinics will have enough physical doctors to handle the rush.
  2. The Workforce & System Approach (e.g., National, ACT): Focuses on training more staff, using pharmacists for minor care, and fixing hospital waitlists. The criticism is that visiting the doctor still costs money out of pocket in the meantime.

If you want to dive deeper and compare specific candidates or local policies in your exact area, you can use Policy.nz to see side-by-side breakdowns. [Policy.nz]

Ask anything

Captured 26 October 2026 · shown as Google AI Mode gave it, not a verified account