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.

Gemini · No location

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: How do parties differ on government accountability, democratic rights and responses to political misinformation?

In New Zealand politics, approaches to government accountability, democratic rights, and political misinformation vary across the political spectrum. Parties diverge on how to handle the influence of money in politics, the scope of executive power, constitutional arrangements, and how to address misinformation without infringing on free speech.


1. Government Accountability and Transparency

Parties differ significantly on how to curb undue influence, manage official information, and regulate lobbying.

  • Green Party & The Opportunities Party (TOP): These parties advocate for comprehensive "clean politics" reforms. They strongly support establishing a public, searchable register of lobbyists, introducing a code of conduct for lobbying, capping political donations (e.g., the Greens propose capping individual donations at $30,000 per electoral cycle), and reforming the Official Information Act (OIA) alongside strengthening whistleblower protections. TOP also proposes an independent anti-corruption body.
  • New Zealand Labour Party & Te Pāti Māori: Both parties generally express support for greater transparency measures, including backing political donation caps and registers to reduce the power of corporate or large private interests in public policy-making.
  • New Zealand First: NZ First emphasizes national sovereignty and public interest over corporate or foreign influence. While favoring tighter rules and donation caps to curb large-donor influence, they emphasize preserving ordinary citizens' and community groups' participation. They also back binding referenda for major constitutional changes.
  • National & ACT: Generally favor fewer structural additions like independent anti-corruption bodies or dedicated lobbyist registers, focusing instead on core economic management, reducing red tape, and fiscal restraint under strict budget rules.

2. Democratic Rights and Constitutional Frameworks

Varying philosophies exist around voting rights, parliamentary sovereignty, and protections for democratic processes.

  • Green Party: Advocates for progressive expansion of democratic rights, including lowering the voting age to 16, restoring the right to vote for all people in prison, and permitting enrolled voting up to and including election day. They also support entrenching Māori seats and utilizing citizens' assemblies.
  • Te Pāti Māori: Focuses heavily on constitutional transformation, calling for broader national dialogue around a new constitution for Aotearoa that elevates Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the supreme framework of governance.
  • New Zealand First: Emphasizes strict parliamentary sovereignty, equal citizenship, and ensuring that voting in national elections is strictly reserved for New Zealand citizens. They routinely push back against co-governance initiatives, arguing for formal equality under a single standard of citizenship.
  • ACT & National: Place strong emphasis on "one person, one vote" and equality before the law. ACT, in particular, campaigns heavily on limiting race-based provisions in public policy and government frameworks, viewing them as a division of democratic rights. National focuses on practical measures in law and order (such as targeted sentencing reforms) and parliamentary processes.

3. Responses to Political Misinformation

The debate over political misinformation sits at the intersection of protecting public discourse, maintaining election integrity, and safeguarding freedom of speech under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

  • Centre-Left and Progressive Parties (Labour, Greens, TPM): Tend to view unchecked online misinformation and disinformation as a threat to public health, social cohesion, and democratic trust (particularly noted during public health crises or elections). They generally support institutional measures, media literacy programs, and regulatory frameworks for digital platforms to curb the spread of harmful falsehoods.
  • Centre-Right and Libertarian Parties (National, ACT, NZ First): Express deep caution regarding government-led interventions or regulatory bodies targeting misinformation, framing them as a slippery slope toward state censorship and a threat to free speech. They lean heavily toward protecting individual liberties and the open contest of ideas, arguing that political misinformation is best countered by transparent public debate, independent fact-checking, and voter discernment rather than state-administered restrictions.

Would you like to explore the specific policy manifestos or stances of a particular party regarding any of these democratic issues?

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

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: How do parties differ on government accountability, democratic rights and responses to political misinformation?

As New Zealand approaches the general election on 7 November 2026, political parties hold distinct positions on how the state operates, how open and protected public participation should be, and how to address the societal challenges posed by inaccurate or misleading digital content.

Because official policy manifestos and institutional approaches vary across the political spectrum, the major parties approach these themes through different lenses:

  • Government Accountability and Transparency :

  • The National Party (and the current governing configuration) frames accountability largely through fiscal discipline, economic performance, and streamlining public services, while historically criticizing opponents for using parliamentary majorities to restrict opposition access or select committee briefings.

  • The Labour Party frequently emphasizes traditional institutional checks—such as strict adherence to the Public Finance Act, robust use of the Official Information Act (OIA), and oversight by the Auditor-General—arguing that transparency in public spending and clear ministerial justifications are foundational to maintaining public trust.

  • The Green Party and the ACT Party take contrasting auxiliary approaches: the Greens typically advocate for tighter rules on political donations and greater corporate/lobbying transparency to counter influence, whereas ACT often pushes for smaller government footprint and deregulation as the ultimate check on state overreach.

  • Democratic Rights and Civil Liberties :

  • Parties across the spectrum position themselves as defenders of democratic participation, but they weigh rights differently during social friction.

  • Left-leaning and progressive groups like the Labour Party and the Green Party place a strong emphasis on protecting the right to peaceful protest, human rights frameworks (such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act), and inclusive civic engagement, often expressing concern when law-and-order policy proposals challenge traditional civil liberties (e.g., specific restrictions on assembly or changes to legal processes).

  • Center-right and libertarian entities like the National Party and the ACT Party prioritize individual property rights, economic freedoms, and public safety/law enforcement, occasionally supporting firmer legislative measures in areas like crime or public order that critics argue press against absolute civil liberties.

  • Responses to Political Misinformation :

  • New Zealand’s formal institutional approach to misinformation and disinformation has generally been anchored in building societal resilience and media literacy rather than state censorship or heavy-handed regulation (coordinated historically through agencies like the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet).

  • Mainstream and governing parties generally favor agency-backed public resilience, independent fact-checking frameworks, and self-regulation by digital platforms, wary of state-enforced truth arbiters.

  • Opposition and minor parties often express caution regarding any government involvement in defining or policing "misinformation," frequently arguing that state-backed definitions risk infringing on free speech or political dissent. Concurrently, political parties routinely accuse one another in public discourse of utilizing misleading campaign messaging or political spin, relying on bodies like the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to adjudicate disputed political advertising claims.

Ask anything

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