AI public consultation theme analysis.

A long-term plan consultation can bring in thousands of submissions, some handwritten, some 40-page PDFs. AI can code them all against an agreed frame in hours. People still decide what the submissions mean.

Workflow5 min readUpdated 19 October 2026

Short answer

AI public consultation theme analysis reads every submission to a council consultation, tags each one against an agreed set of themes, pulls verbatim quotes and counts how views divide, so analysts can report to elected members in days rather than weeks. In New Zealand the Local Government Act 2002 still requires views to be considered with an open mind, so the AI organises submissions and people weigh them.

  • Analysts set the theme frame; the AI applies it to every submission and quotes its evidence.
  • Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 requires due consideration of views by the council.
  • Counts describe who wrote in, not what the whole community thinks.
  • Handwritten, organisational and te reo Māori submissions need their own checking step.

What AI theme analysis produces

AI theme analysis turns a pile of submissions into a coded dataset: for each submission, the themes it raises, its position on each consultation question, and a verbatim quote supporting each tag. From that come theme counts, a quote bank, a list of new points nobody anticipated, and a list of submissions a person must read.

Councils are already doing this. Hutt City Council reports that AI turned handwritten City Summit submissions into a detailed report in two days, a job it says could have taken weeks. It also keeps a public AI Register of its use cases.

How submissions are coded, end to end

Inputs
Online form responses, emails, PDF and handwritten submissions, hearing notes, the consultation document and its questions.
Systems
The consultation platform export, a transcription step for scans, a language model run against a fixed theme frame, and a spreadsheet or BI tool for the coded dataset.
Steps
De-duplicate and group template submissions; transcribe scans; analysts build the theme frame from a sample; the model codes every submission with quotes; quotes are checked against source text automatically; analysts review a sample and every flagged item; staff draft the report.
Human review
Analysts own the frame, check a stratified sample, read all flagged, organisational and iwi submissions in full, and write the conclusions.
Outputs
Coded dataset, theme summary with counts, quote bank, flagged list, and a methods note for the council report.
Measures
Agreement between analyst and AI coding on the sample, quote match rate, days from close to report, flagged items resolved.
Risks
Lost minority views, campaign submissions inflating counts, misread handwriting, invented quotes, and members relying on summaries alone.

Illustrative example: a long-term plan consultation

Illustrative example: a mid-sized council (synthetic figures) receives 4,200 submissions: 3,100 online, 900 email or PDF, 200 handwritten. Assumptions: manual coding averages 5 minutes a submission; 150 are from organisations; the AI flags 12% for human reading; each submission uses about 2,500 input and 400 output tokens per pass, over two passes.

Task Manual AI-assisted
Build theme frame from 300 submissions Included in coding 25 hours
Code all submissions 4,200 × 5 min = 350 hours Model run, hours not days
Check 10% stratified sample Not done 420 × 3 min = 21 hours
Read flagged submissions Not separated 504 × 4 min = 34 hours
Read organisational submissions in full Included in coding 150 × 15 min = 38 hours
Check handwritten transcriptions Not applicable 200 × 3 min = 10 hours
Staff hours About 350 About 128

Model cost: 21 million input tokens and 3.4 million output tokens comes to about US$76 at Claude Sonnet 5.5’s listed price of US$2 and US$10 per million (19 October 2026). Staff time dominates; test your own figures in the AI cost calculator.

The rules that frame the analysis

Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 sets the principles: views must be received with an open mind and given due consideration in making the decision, and submitters should get a clear record of the decisions and the material behind them. Section 82(2) requires processes for consulting with Māori. Where the special consultative procedure in section 83 applies, people must also get a chance to present views in person, so hearing notes belong in the dataset.

The Ombudsman’s October 2026 advice treats AI used to identify themes in large volumes of information as official information, prompts included. Write the methods note as if a submitter will request it.

What stays with analysts and members

The theme frame is a judgement about what the consultation is about, so analysts write it and the model applies it. Staff read organisational, iwi and hapū submissions in full and summarise them by hand, and they check model accuracy on te reo Māori text before relying on it. Recommendations and the weight given to any view belong to staff and elected members.

Where theme analysis goes wrong

Failure Why it happens Control
Campaign inflation 900 copies of one template counted as 900 arguments Near-duplicate grouping, reported separately
Lost minority view Rare points vanish into “other” A “new point” flag that a person reads
Invented quote Model paraphrases inside quotation marks Exact string match against source, or reject
Stance errors Sarcasm, conditional support, mixed answers Sample checking by question; see monitoring AI quality
Frame drift Model invents themes mid-run Fixed frame; new themes go to analysts

The AI quality review checklist is a useful template for the sampling step, and summarising documents with citations covers the quote discipline.

Running a first consultation

Pilot on a closed consultation your team already coded by hand, and compare agreement before using it live. Add the use to your AI register; our AI governance work covers that record and its review. The extraction pipeline overlaps with AI document processing, public information search and consent application completeness checks; the local government guide shows how they fit together.

Sources

  1. Local Government Act 2002 (version as at 1 October 2026), New Zealand Legislation, 2026
  2. AI at Council, Hutt City Council, 2026
  3. Advice for agencies on information requests and AI, Office of the Ombudsman, 6 October 2026
  4. Pricing, Anthropic (Claude API documentation), 19 October 2026

Written by the Levy Street team in Wellington. Last updated 19 October 2026.

Questions people ask

Is it acceptable for a council to use AI to analyse submissions?

Section 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 leaves councils discretion over how they observe the consultation principles, and some councils already use AI to organise submissions. The test that matters is whether elected members still give the views due consideration with an open mind. That means people set the themes, check the coding, read the submissions that matter in full, and members can still see the original submissions.

How do you stop form submissions from a campaign skewing the results?

Detect near-identical text before coding and report campaign submissions as a separate, clearly counted group. They are legitimate views and should be considered, but presenting 900 copies of one template as 900 independent arguments misleads the reader. The report should say how many submissions used each template and quote the template once.

Can elected members just read the AI summary instead of the submissions?

They can use it as a map, not a substitute. The summary should link every theme to the submissions behind it so members can read the originals, and the report should say plainly how the analysis was done, what the AI did, and what staff checked. Organisational and iwi submissions should be summarised by staff who have read them in full.

Is the AI’s coding of submissions subject to LGOIMA?

Yes. The Ombudsman’s October 2026 advice says information generated when an agency uses AI for official purposes, including prompts and responses, is official information. Keep the theme frame, prompts, coded dataset and checking records together, because a submitter who feels misrepresented may ask for exactly that.

Have something to build?

Tell us about the workflow. We will map where AI can change speed, margin or decision quality, and what it would take to run it in production.