Evidence · NZ Election 2026 · Edition 8

Every question and original answer

Read the 174 questions and 789 answers recorded on 2 November 2026, with the cited websites and tables behind the findings.

questions
174
answers saved
789
collected
2 November 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, text, collectionSetting, askedFrom, capturedOn, cellCompletedAt, parameters, scanId, textOrigin, timingOrigin

  • 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

  • Statements and sentiment assessments

    claims.csv

    Saved sentiment assessments of statements about parties, with answer references and quotations from the original answers where available.

    claimId, answerId, entityId, role, tone, claimText, quote, nativeQuoteVerified, origin, quoteStart, quoteEnd

  • 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.

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

  • Original party assessments

    all-native-party-associations.csv

    All original party assessments, including subject statements and passing comparisons.

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

  • Assessments excluded from the sentiment bars

    unanchored-subject-assessments.csv

    Original assessments without an exact supporting passage, retained for inspection.

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

  • Sources recorded with each answer

    sources.csv

    One row per answer, listing its cited websites, visible links and whether source information was available.

    answerId, capture, domains, urls, literalUrls, origin

  • 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

  • Answer review coverage

    report-evidence.csv

    One row per saved answer, with its recorded review coverage and evidence references.

    key, answerId, interpretation, text

  • 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, propositionFamily, reviewer, review_scope, fullAnswer, answerSha256, collectionSetting, additionalSources

  • 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, value, denominator, statement, summary, evidence, evidenceLinks

  • What the voting-guidance answers did

    behaviour-coding.csv

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

    edition, result_id, draft_id, platform, boundary, conditional, shortlist, elicitation, unconditional, evidence, rationale, reviewer, reviewed_on, review_scope, question_id, region, full_answer, answerId, questionId, assistant, collectionSetting, explicit_choice_boundary, conditional_party_or_bloc_alignment, prioritised_shortlist, elicits_additional_user_information, unconditional_single_party_vote_instruction, calibration_note

  • What changed for each voter

    case-decisions.csv

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

    case, headline, previous_summary, current_summary, what_changed, what_stayed, previous_excerpts, current_excerpts, previous_answer_id, previous_full_answer, current_answer_id, current_full_answer, question_id, draft_id, reviewer, reviewed_on, review_scope, scope_limit, previous_party_ids, current_party_ids, party_set_changed

  • Answers compared across editions

    pairs.csv

    One row per comparison of the same question, AI assistant and location in Editions 7 and 8.

    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

  • Party counts by edition

    party-count-tables.csv

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

    edition, panel, assistant, entityId, named, eligible, sharePct

  • Party counts by topic

    issue-tables.csv

    One row per topic and edition, counting all saved answers in that edition.

    edition, panel, assistant, issue, entityId, named, eligible, sharePct

  • Location comparisons by edition

    regional-tables.csv

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

    edition, panel, assistant, collectionSetting, entityId, named, eligible, sharePct

  • Websites cited across editions

    source-reach-tables.csv

    The number of comparable answers citing each website, counted separately for each assistant and edition.

    edition, panel, assistant, domain, answersCiting, eligible, sharePct, publisherType

  • Answer length by assistant

    platform-tables.csv

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

    edition, panel, assistant, answers, anyParliamentaryNamed, allSixParliamentaryNamed, someParliamentaryOmitted, omissionSharePct, allSevenNamed, noTrackedPartyNamed, meanDisplayedPartyCount, partyCounts

  • Changes between repeated answers

    pair-metrics.csv

    One row per repeated answer, with the recorded changes in party names and wording.

    assistant, pairs, changedDisplayedPartySet, changedTrackedPartySet, changedSharePct, movements

  • Location comparison totals

    location-summary.csv

    Counts for the nationwide and local answers available on each date.

    edition, collectionSetting, pairs, changedDisplayedPartySet, sharePct

  • Location comparisons across editions

    location-pairs.csv

    The nationwide and local answer comparisons recorded on each date.

    edition, questionId, assistant, collectionSetting, nationalAnswerId, localAnswerId, nationalParties, localParties, addedLocally, absentLocally, changedDisplayedPartySet

  • Party-name context checks

    party-identity-decisions.csv

    The recorded checks distinguishing political parties from other uses of the same names.

    answerId, entityId, counted, rationale, excerpts, review_basis, reviewer, reviewed_on, full_answer, questionId, draftId, assistant, collectionSetting, reviewedOn, answer_sha256

  • Sentiment counts by party

    tone-tables.csv

    Statement assessments by party and assistant, retaining the original sentiment categories.

    edition, panel, assistant, entityId, subjectAssessments, strong_positive, positive, neutral, hedged_mixed, negative, strong_negative

  • 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

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: What do parties propose about transport, water and infrastructure funding, and which decisions belong to councils?

2026 New Zealand election: transport, water and infrastructure

The central political divide in the 2026 election is who should pay for infrastructure, what infrastructure should be prioritised, and how much control should sit with central government versus councils.

The parties broadly agree that New Zealand needs substantial investment in ageing roads, water networks, housing infrastructure and public transport. They differ on how to fund it and what projects deserve priority.

The election is scheduled for 7 November 2026. The policies below are campaign proposals, not enacted commitments. Where the parties stand on transport | The Chartered Institute of Logistics and TransportKnow Your Vote

1. Transport: roads versus public transport

Party Main transport direction
National Prioritise roads, freight connections and major transport projects. Continue investment in strategic highways and regional connections.
Labour Make public transport more affordable, with a $20 weekly fare cap.
Greens Prioritise public transport, rail, walking and cycling, including major urban and intercity rail improvements.
ACT Favour road-focused transport investment, private-sector involvement and more cost-effective infrastructure delivery.
NZ First Emphasise regional transport, roads, freight and long-term infrastructure investment.
TOP Support transport reform and greater investment in efficient, sustainable transport.
Te Pāti Māori Emphasise accessible transport, regional equity and investment that benefits Māori communities.

Some important differences:

  • National has committed to projects including Mill Road Stage One in Auckland and the Belfast-to-Pegasus and Woodend bypass in Canterbury.
  • Labour proposes a $20 weekly cap on bus and train fares.
  • The Greens support intercity passenger rail, including Auckland–Wellington overnight services and Christchurch–Dunedin passenger rail.
  • Labour and the Greens place greater emphasis on making public transport affordable and accessible.

Election policy tracker: what the parties are promisingPolicies for Party vote - NZ Election 2026Labour's 2026 Election Policies2026 Election Policy

2. Water: who owns it, manages it and pays?

Water is particularly important because New Zealand has moved away from the previous Three Waters reform model towards Local Water Done Well.

Under the current framework:

  • Councils retain ownership of drinking-water, wastewater and stormwater assets.
  • Councils must establish financially sustainable water services.
  • They can choose how services are delivered, including through council-controlled organisations or other shared arrangements.
  • Water quality and economic regulation are increasingly handled nationally, including by Taumata Arowai and the Commerce Commission.

Sector summaries: Water and wastewater | National Infrastructure PlanLocal Water Done Well

Where the parties differ

Party General direction on water
National Retain the Local Water Done Well framework, with financially sustainable water services, regulatory oversight and council-led delivery choices.
Labour Has supported stronger public accountability and investment in water infrastructure. Its detailed 2026 campaign emphasis is less clearly defined than its transport proposals.
Greens Stronger drinking-water and freshwater protections, lower nitrate limits for drinking water and greater transparency about water quality.
ACT Favours financially disciplined water services, local accountability and regulatory settings that avoid unnecessary costs.
NZ First Emphasises regional water infrastructure, water storage and flood protection.
TOP Supports better long-term infrastructure planning and sustainable investment.
Te Pāti Māori Emphasises Māori authority and rights concerning freshwater, alongside protection of waterways.

An important distinction: water infrastructure and freshwater environmental policy are not the same thing.

For example:

  • A council deciding how to replace a wastewater treatment plant is making an infrastructure decision.
  • Setting national drinking-water standards is a regulatory decision.
  • Setting rules to protect rivers and lakes involves environmental legislation and regional planning.

The Greens and Te Pāti Māori place particularly strong emphasis on freshwater protection and Māori interests. National and ACT put greater emphasis on regulatory and financial settings.

Election policy tracker: what the parties are promisingKnow Your VoteElection Survey 2026 - National Council of Women of New Zealand

3. Infrastructure funding: who pays for the big projects?

This is arguably the biggest long-term issue.

New Zealand has a substantial infrastructure renewal and investment challenge. The disagreement is less about whether investment is necessary and more about the funding model.

Party Funding approach and emphasis
National Fiscal restraint, prioritised investment, private-sector participation and user-pays mechanisms. Major roads and regional infrastructure are important.
Labour A New Zealand Future Fund to help finance long-term infrastructure and innovation.
Greens Greater public investment in sustainable infrastructure, public transport, renewable energy and resilient communities.
ACT Stronger project cost-benefit assessments, protection of road-maintenance funding, tolling and private investment.
NZ First Proposes a long-term infrastructure fund of up to $100 billion, with regional infrastructure and strategic investment priorities.
TOP Supports better infrastructure planning and alternative funding mechanisms.
Te Pāti Māori Emphasises equitable investment, Māori-led development and community infrastructure.

Some notable proposals:

  • National has announced $1.75 billion for Mill Road Stage One.
  • Labour proposes establishing a Future Fund with seed funding for infrastructure and innovation.
  • NZ First proposes a multi-decade infrastructure fund of up to $100 billion.
  • ACT wants major transport projects to publish a lower-cost safe alternative alongside the preferred option.
  • The Greens want more investment in intercity passenger rail and urban rapid transit.

Election policy tracker: what the parties are promisingElection policy tracker: what the parties are promisingKnow Your VoteInfrastructure New Zealand releases Election 2026 Manifesto

The main funding mechanisms

There are several ways infrastructure can be paid for:

  1. General taxation: Central government pays from tax revenue.
  2. Council rates: Local property owners contribute to local infrastructure.
  3. User charges: Road tolls, water charges and other direct fees.
  4. Development contributions: Developers contribute towards the infrastructure needed to support new developments.
  5. Borrowing: Councils or central government borrow to spread costs over time.
  6. Public-private partnerships: Private organisations help finance or deliver infrastructure under agreed contracts.

The trade-off is important: keeping rates and taxes down can mean slower investment, while borrowing and user charges can shift costs to future users or particular households.

New Zealand also has an existing Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, which helps finance transport, water and flood-management infrastructure needed to support housing development. Infrastructure Acceleration Fund | National Infrastructure Funding and FinancingElection Policy Comparison

4. Which decisions actually belong to councils?

This is crucial when deciding what a general election can change directly.

New Zealand has two main levels of local government: territorial authorities (city and district councils) and regional councils.

Pedestrian crossing costs: Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown says Auckland Transport is wasting money - NZ Herald

City and district councils

Generally responsible for:

  • Local roads, footpaths and cycleways.
  • Drinking-water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
  • Local parks, libraries and community facilities.
  • District planning, building consents and local development.
  • Council rates and local infrastructure budgets.

Queenstown bus & ferry timetables | Orbus — brought to you by Otago Regional Council

Regional councils

Generally responsible for:

  • Regional public transport planning and contracting.
  • Rivers, flood management and regional drainage.
  • Water quality and environmental monitoring.
  • Regional land-use and environmental planning.
  • Some regional infrastructure and natural-resource management.

North Auckland's Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway now open

Central government

Generally responsible for:

  • State highways and national transport strategy.
  • National Land Transport Fund settings.
  • National drinking-water and environmental standards.
  • Major national infrastructure funding.
  • Legislation governing councils and their powers.
  • National planning and infrastructure frameworks.

About local government in New ZealandSector summaries: Water and wastewater | National Infrastructure PlanLocal government system improvements - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport

Examples: who makes the decision?

Decision Main responsibility
Repair a local street City/district council
Build a new state highway Central government/NZTA
Set local bus routes Regional council, with relevant local arrangements
Decide local water-service delivery model Council or agreed water-service organisation
Set drinking-water standards Central government regulators
Build a new local wastewater plant Local water-service provider
Set regional flood-management priorities Regional council
Decide local rates City/district council
Set national transport funding priorities Central government

There are important overlaps. For example, central government can provide funding for a council project, but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes every local delivery decision.

5. An important change: councils' powers and responsibilities

The 2026 election is taking place after significant local-government reforms.

The Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Act 2026 has refocused councils on core services and cost-effective infrastructure.

Core services include:

  • Network infrastructure.
  • Public transport.
  • Waste collection and disposal.
  • Civil defence and emergency management.
  • Libraries, parks and community facilities.

Councils retain their broader legal powers, but must give particular consideration to these priorities when making financial decisions.

National's approach is to keep councils focused on essential services and affordable rates. Other parties have different views about the appropriate scope of local government and its ability to support wider community, environmental and social objectives. Local government system improvements - Our work - Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport2026 Election Policy Scorecard

6. What are the biggest choices for voters?

Here is a simplified comparison of the political philosophies behind the policies.

Question Broad political divide
Roads or public transport? National and ACT lean towards roads; Greens favour public transport and rail; Labour takes a mixed approach.
Who should fund infrastructure? National and ACT emphasise fiscal discipline and user-pays; Labour favours public investment funds; NZ First proposes a very large infrastructure fund.
Who should control water? National emphasises the existing council-led framework; other parties differ on public accountability, regulation and Māori authority.
How much power should councils have? There is disagreement about local autonomy, central oversight and council financial responsibilities.
How should growth be funded? Options include rates, development contributions, borrowing, taxation and private investment.

7. Where to compare the actual policies

These are useful independent and official resources for checking the detail before voting:

Bottom line

Three things are worth remembering when assessing election promises:

  1. Transport: Central government has considerable influence over national transport funding, but councils and regional councils make many local transport decisions.
  2. Water: Councils retain substantial responsibility for water infrastructure, although national government sets important regulatory requirements.
  3. Infrastructure funding: The biggest question is whether future investment should come primarily from taxpayers, ratepayers, users, developers, borrowing or private investors.

A party can promise to fund infrastructure, but that doesn't automatically mean it can decide where every local road, bus route, water pipe or wastewater plant gets built. Some decisions remain with elected councils and regional authorities.

Ask anything

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

Captured 2 November 2026 · shown as ChatGPT gave it, not a verified account

Gemini · No location

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: What do parties propose about transport, water and infrastructure funding, and which decisions belong to councils?

For the 2026 New Zealand general election, political parties have drawn distinct lines around how the country funds its transport and physical infrastructure, manages the ongoing overhaul of water services, and defines the division of responsibilities between central government and local councils.


1. Transport Policies

  • National Party: Focuses heavily on roads of national significance, public transport security (such as establishing dedicated transport policing units like the Auckland Transport Police Team), and targeted additions to major arterial routes (e.g., advancing Mill Road Stage One).
  • Labour Party: Emphasizes cost-of-living relief tied to transit through structured public transport caps (proposing weekly fare caps of $20 in major centers like Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and $10 elsewhere) and a three-year fuel tax freeze.
  • The Opportunity Party & Other Progressive/Green-aligned voices: Promote major structural shifts such as permanent free public transport, broader network electrification, and long-term 30-year infrastructure alignment to curb transport emissions.
  • ACT Party: Advocates for market-driven solutions, private sector tolling/delivery frameworks, and ensuring transport investments align closely with direct economic demand and user-pays principles.

2. Water and Infrastructure Funding

  • Water Services ("Local Water Done Well"): Building on the legislative framework established to replace the previous government's Three Waters reforms, the debate centers on council-led or regional multi-council corporate models backed by specialized financing arrangements. Right-of-center parties emphasize local asset ownership and ring-fenced balance sheets without forced amalgamation, while others push for stronger central standards and structured financial backstops.
  • Infrastructure Funding & System Reform: Sector bodies like Infrastructure New Zealand have heavily influenced the 2026 discourse by arguing that New Zealand's core issue is structural inefficiency rather than a pure lack of capital. Parties are responding to pressures for:
    • Longer-term, bipartisan infrastructure pipelines to prevent stop-start project cancellations.
    • Innovative funding tools (such as value capture and growth infrastructure funds) to ease the burden on traditional council rates.
    • Adjustments to regulatory frameworks (like the Commerce Act and resource management laws) to allow infrastructure providers to build ahead of demand, particularly for energy and high-growth urban areas.

3. Decisions Belonging to Councils vs. Central Government

The boundary between local council autonomy and central government intervention remains a major flashpoint:

  • Core Services vs. "Woke" Spending: Centre-right parties (such as National) strongly emphasize keeping rates affordable by refocusing local councils strictly back onto core local services (such asing local roads, three waters, and waste management) while discouraging expenditure on non-core social or cultural programs.
  • Mandates and Standardisation: Central government increasingly sets national direction or compliance mandates—particularly around resource management reform, climate adaptation, and drinking water/stormwater quality standards—leaving councils responsible for local implementation, asset management, and day-to-day delivery.
  • Funding Constraints: A persistent point of debate is whether councils have the fiscal tools (given their heavy reliance on property rates) to fund major growth infrastructure, prompting ongoing policy discussions around giving local authorities a share of regional taxes (like GST or tourism levies) or expanding central co-funding mechanisms.
Ask Gemini

Gemini is AI and can make mistakes.

Captured 2 November 2026 · shown as Gemini gave it, not a verified account

Google AI Mode · No location

For the 2026 New Zealand general election: What do parties propose about transport, water and infrastructure funding, and which decisions belong to councils?

For the New Zealand general election cycle, political party platforms and public policy discussions centre around balancing central government funding, regional roading versus public transport, and local versus national decision-making authority for water and infrastructure.

An overview of what parties and general policy frameworks propose regarding transport, water and infrastructure funding, and council decision-making includes the following:

1. Transport Policies

  • Roading vs. Public Transport: Major parties diverge on whether funding should prioritize traditional state highways and road maintenance or mass rapid transit and active/public transport. Right-leaning and centrist approaches (such as National and ACT) tend to emphasize roads of national significance, fixing potholes, and focusing the National Land Transport Fund heavily on road infrastructure. Left-leaning and progressive parties (such as the Green Party and Labour) propose heavy investments in mass rapid transit, rail, and bus networks, alongside fare caps or free public transport initiatives for specific groups.

  • Funding Mechanisms: Debates continue around fuel excise taxes, road user charges (RUCs)—including transitioning electric vehicles to RUCs—and potential alternative funding models like congestion pricing or public-private partnerships (PPPs) to finance large transport networks.

2. Water and Infrastructure Funding

  • Water Services Delivery: Following the repeal of the previous government's "Three Waters" legislation, current regulatory paths allow or compel councils to manage water services under new local/regional aggregation models or compliance requirements (often branded under local-led water delivery rules). Parties debate whether central government should underwrite water infrastructure upgrades or if councils must solely rely on specialized Water Organisation structures, borrowing, or water pricing.

  • Infrastructure Financing: Proposals to tackle the national infrastructure deficit include establishing independent infrastructure-funding pipelines, raising large-scale capital (with some proposals discussing raising billions through dedicated financing bonds or specialized urban development authorities), and streamlining the Resource Management Act (RMA) replacement laws to fast-track consents.

3. Decisions Belonging to Councils vs. Central Government

  • Local Autonomy vs. Central Mandates: The division of power between local authorities (city and district councils) and Wellington remains a major friction point.
  • Central government intervention often manifests in nationally mandated housing density rules, directives on local spending caps or rates restraint (with some political proposals suggesting instructing or capping annual council rate increases), and setting regional transport priorities.
  • Decisions traditionally belonging to councils include local roading maintenance, local zoning and district plans, community facilities, and local water/stormwater network operations—though central oversight and standard-setting via entities like the Taumata Arowai (Water Services Regulator) heavily influence council compliance.
Ask anything

Captured 2 November 2026 · shown as Google AI Mode gave it, not a verified account