--- title: "PF083 · Captured AI answers" publisher: "Onsomble Limited" publication: "NZBrands.ai" edition: 1 collected_on: "2026-10-05" html_url: "https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/1/questions/c6980315-8243-4258-a842-29f9e5121f57/" --- # PF083 · Captured AI answers Edition 1 · answers collected 5 October 2026. [Read on NZBrands.ai](https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/1/questions/c6980315-8243-4258-a842-29f9e5121f57/) ## Question We run a farm and live well outside a main centre. We are weighing operating costs, environmental obligations and access to local services. I am considering my vote in the 2026 New Zealand general election. How do parties compare on agricultural policy, farm regulation and biosecurity? Question ID: c6980315-8243-4258-a842-29f9e5121f57. Report reference: PF083. Issue: Rural and agricultural policy. Voter: Farming household weighing costs and environmental rules. [Source record (JSON)](https://nzbrands.ai/data/nz-election-2026/editions/1/answers/c6980315-8243-4258-a842-29f9e5121f57.json) ## How to read this evidence The answers below are shown as the assistants gave them, not a verified account or NZBrands.ai voting advice. They may contain errors or outdated claims. A recorded source association is not necessarily a link shown to the reader. Captured 5 October 2026. 4 answers were saved for this question. Missing answers have not been filled in. [Study methodology and limitations](https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/1/method.md) ## ChatGPT · asked nationally Answer ID: 93cca032-c7ca-4c5c-94ea-72376d71d33c. Captured 5 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** For a farm well outside a main centre, the most consequential differences are likely to be **how much compliance you face, who sets environmental rules, how agricultural emissions are treated, biosecurity funding/levies, and what parties propose for rural infrastructure and services**. As of **5 October 2026**, the major-party positions look broadly like this. These are policy comparisons, not a recommendation about how to vote. | Issue | National | ACT | Labour | NZ First | Greens | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | **Farm regulation** | Reduce/streamline rules; new planning system replacing RMA | Strongest emphasis on property rights and reducing regulation | More government/industry coordination and environmental regulation | Reduce red tape, favour catchment-level management | Stronger environmental regulation and limits | | **Freshwater** | Risk-based farm plans; simplify requirements; rebalance Te Mana o Te Wai | Scrap Te Mana o Te Wai; practical, locally responsive standards | Stronger environmental outcomes and climate/freshwater action | Replace Te Mana o Te Wai; catchment-based farm plans | Health of freshwater given priority | | **Agricultural emissions** | Agriculture remains outside ETS; technology/productivity approach | Permanently exclude agriculture from emissions pricing; repeal Zero Carbon Act/Net Zero target | Review ETS, including agriculture/forestry settings, with stronger alignment to Paris targets | No emissions pricing unless major trading partners adopt it | Stronger climate action and agricultural transition | | **Forestry/carbon farming** | Restrict whole-farm conversions; support productive land | Restrict carbon-farming incentives and make forest owners bear long-term costs | Review forestry's role in ETS; prevent whole-farm conversions | Protect productive farmland from carbon forestry | Much stronger emphasis on native/regenerative forestry | | **Biosecurity** | Maintain/strengthen border and surveillance system; technology and streamlined processes | Generally pro-farmer/technology approach | Partnership model with industry and government | Particularly strong emphasis on border protection and pest control | Broader ecological/biodiversity emphasis | | **Rural services** | Rural policing, RSE expansion, rural health investment, catchment support | Rural policing, healthcare access, transport/school and prescription initiatives | Public-service investment, including health and infrastructure | Regional infrastructure and productive rural regions | Public investment in communities and environmental resilience | ### National National's current position is explicitly centred on **lower compliance costs and greater flexibility for farmers**. It says it has already removed agriculture from the ETS, simplified winter-grazing and stock-exclusion requirements, limited farm-to-forest conversions and is replacing the RMA. [National is the Party of Farmers | National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/farming?utm_source=chatgpt.com) A particularly relevant change for a farm is the new **freshwater farm-plan regime**. Under the legislation now being developed, higher-risk activities will trigger certification/auditing, while lower-risk farms will still have to hold a farm plan but generally won't face the same certification and audit requirements. [Decisions on Freshwater Farm Plans released | National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20260819-hontoddmacclay?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The new Planning and Natural Environment legislation has also now passed Parliament, so this isn't merely an election promise: the regulatory framework is changing. National says the new system is intended to be faster and less costly while retaining environmental limits. [RMA era ends as new system passes Parliament | National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/260922-chrisbishop?utm_source=chatgpt.com) For rural life, National points to expanded RSE access, Rural Support Trust funding, catchment-group support, rural health investment and rural banking scrutiny. [National is the Party of Farmers | National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/farming?utm_source=chatgpt.com) **Biosecurity:** the government is also pursuing changes to the Biosecurity Act and has been investing in technology, including an AI tool for import-health-standard processing. The proposed Biosecurity Act amendments are still a developing area rather than a completely settled policy package. [Proposed amendments to the Biosecurity Act | MPI](https://www.mpi.govt.nz/consultations/proposed-amendments-to-the-biosecurity-act?utm_source=chatgpt.com) ### ACT ACT is similar to National on farm regulation but goes **further in explicitly prioritising property rights and deregulation**. Its 2026 rural policy proposes clear national standards based on actual environmental harm, removing Te Mana o Te Wai, keeping agriculture permanently outside emissions pricing, repealing the Zero Carbon Act and abolishing the Climate Change Commission. It also proposes easier access to agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines, fewer restrictions on agricultural drones, and a Rural Workforce Visa. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) For someone worried about **paperwork and consent costs**, that is an important distinction: ACT's stated approach is not merely to simplify existing rules but to reduce the scope of central government regulation of farming. ACT also has unusually detailed rural-service proposals: additional rural police hours, a rural-crime unit, broader access to 111 in areas with poor mobile coverage, spare school-bus seats for rural children, more pharmacy services and prescription e-lockers. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) On climate, ACT's position is substantially different from Labour and the Greens: it says agricultural emissions should not be priced and proposes reconsidering New Zealand's participation in the Paris Agreement if it believes the arrangements impose disproportionate costs on farmers. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/news/act-won-t-sacrifice-farmers-for-paris-targets?utm_source=chatgpt.com) ### Labour Labour's current policy direction is more focused on **environmental outcomes and climate policy**, while also trying to reduce unnecessary compliance duplication. Its earlier integrated-farm-planning policy proposed bringing environmental management, biosecurity, labour and health-and-safety requirements together into a single framework, specifically with the objective of reducing compliance costs. [Reducing costs for farmers and growers - NZ Labour Party](https://www.labour.org.nz/release-reducing-costs-for-farmers-and-growers?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The major 2026 difference is climate. Labour says it would **urgently review the ETS**, reconsider forestry's role, ensure the ETS supports New Zealand's Paris commitments, and develop rules to prevent whole-farm conversions. [Release: Labour to accelerate climate action](https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-labour-to-accelerate-climate-action/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) So, for a farmer, Labour's position isn't simply "more regulation": it combines **streamlining/coordination of farm compliance** with considerably stronger climate and environmental requirements than National or ACT. That distinction matters if your concern is both *cost* and *environmental obligations*: Labour's approach could mean less duplication in administration while retaining stronger underlying environmental objectives. ### New Zealand First NZ First's agricultural position has historically combined **strong support for primary production with opposition to emissions pricing unless trading partners adopt comparable measures**. Its published primary-sector policy supports catchment-level farm environmental plans, replacing Te Mana o Te Wai, reducing regulatory barriers to irrigation/water storage and protecting productive farmland from conversion to carbon forestry. [2023 Election Policies - NZ First](https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Biosecurity is a particularly prominent NZ First theme. Its policy calls for adequately resourced Biosecurity NZ and border agencies, greater offshore inspection, stronger post-incursion coordination, international disease-control cooperation and stronger penalties for border breaches. It also proposes a combined border-protection force. [2023 Election Policies - NZ First](https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Its more recent 2026 campaigning has also emphasised **food producers, regional infrastructure and reducing the supermarket imbalance**, including its proposal to break up the supermarket duopoly. [NZ First Campaign Policy Announcement: NZ First Will Break Up the Supermarket Duopoly, Bring Food Prices Down for Kiwis - New Zealand First](https://www.nzfirst.nz/nz_first_will_break_up_the_supermarket_duopoly?utm_source=chatgpt.com) One caveat: NZ First's readily accessible detailed primary-industry document remains its broader policy material, so I'd put less weight on claims that it has released a wholly new 2026 farm-regulation package unless a newer policy document is published. ### Green Party The Greens represent the clearest alternative if your primary concern is **environmental protection rather than minimising regulatory obligations**. Their 2026 manifesto calls for sustainable farming and forestry, healthier waterways, protection and restoration of nature, and a regenerative approach to food and fibre. It explicitly argues that intensive farming has imposed environmental costs and that agricultural policy should put people and nature first. [Manifesto 2026 - Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand](https://www.greens.org.nz/manifesto_2026?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The Greens also say they would reverse aspects of the current government's changes to environmental and conservation law and put stronger evidence-based limits on activities that harm ecosystems. [Greens commit to undoing attacks on conservation and environment laws - Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand](https://www.greens.org.nz/greens_commit_to_undoing_attacks_on_conservation_and_environment_laws?utm_source=chatgpt.com) For a farm business, that potentially means **greater environmental obligations and a greater role for regulation**, but also more public investment and policy emphasis on ecosystem restoration, freshwater and rural environmental resilience. ## What this means for the issues you mentioned ### 1. Operating costs The biggest dividing line is **regulatory compliance versus public investment**. - **National/ACT:** explicitly seek to reduce compliance, consenting and regulatory costs. - **NZ First:** generally supports less red tape and productive infrastructure, with particular emphasis on rural regions. - **Labour:** seeks to simplify compliance through integrated planning but retains stronger environmental/climate requirements. - **Greens:** place considerably more weight on environmental requirements and transition costs, alongside public investment. National's current changes to farm plans are especially relevant because they could directly affect certification and auditing costs depending on the activities and risk profile of your property. [Decisions on Freshwater Farm Plans released | National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20260819-hontoddmacclay?utm_source=chatgpt.com) ### 2. Environmental obligations There's a fairly clear spectrum: **ACT → National → NZ First → Labour → Greens** But I would *not* interpret that as a ranking. It describes the direction of their stated policy: ACT and National put greater emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens, while Labour and especially the Greens put greater emphasis on environmental/climate requirements. NZ First sits closer to National/ACT on emissions pricing while retaining a significant environmental/biosecurity component. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) ### 3. Biosecurity There is actually **more common ground here than on climate regulation**. All governments face the same underlying problem: an isolated farm can still be exposed to imported pests, diseases, livestock movements, contaminated equipment and other pathways. MPI's current biosecurity action plan explicitly treats biosecurity as a shared system involving government, industry and landowners, including long-term infrastructure, industry levies, technology and disease/pest-control tools. [The biosecurity system action plan | MPI](https://www.mpi.govt.nz/biosecurity/about-biosecurity-in-new-zealand/an-action-plan-to-strengthen-new-zealands-biosecurity-system/the-biosecurity-system-action-plan?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The policy differences are more about **how the system is funded and governed**: - National: technology, risk-based regulation and maintaining strong border protection. - ACT: generally favours streamlined regulation and faster access to technology/tools. - NZ First: particularly strong emphasis on border capacity, offshore inspection and government-funded protection. - Labour: greater emphasis on government/industry partnership and integrated farm planning. - Greens: biosecurity as part of broader biodiversity and ecosystem protection. An interesting current development is that the **Mycoplasma bovis levies have been reduced to zero**, although they remain capable of being reinstated/reviewed as circumstances change. [M. bovis pest management plan | MPI](https://www.mpi.govt.nz/biosecurity/exotic-pests-and-diseases-in-new-zealand/long-term-biosecurity-management-programmes/mycoplasma-bovis-national-pest-management-plan?utm_source=chatgpt.com) ### 4. Access to services when you're far from town This is an area where looking beyond "farm policy" is worthwhile. ACT has unusually specific proposals for **rural policing, poor mobile coverage, pharmacy access, prescription collection and rural school transport**. National emphasises rural health, RSE workers, support organisations and regional investment. NZ First puts substantial emphasis on regional infrastructure. Labour's general platform puts more weight on publicly provided health and transport services, while the Greens emphasise public/community investment and environmental resilience. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) So if you're weighing a vote specifically as a **rural household and farm business**, I'd suggest separating your decision into four questions: 1. **How much farm regulation and compliance are you prepared to accept in exchange for environmental outcomes?** 2. **Should agricultural emissions have a financial price, or should farmers primarily be encouraged to reduce emissions through technology and voluntary/industry mechanisms?** 3. **How much should the government spend on biosecurity, rural infrastructure and services versus leaving more resources with farm businesses?** 4. **Do you prefer national standards or greater local/property-owner discretion when environmental rules affect your land?** Those questions produce fairly distinct policy differences among the parties, and are probably more informative for your circumstances than party labels alone. [National's farming policy](https://www.national.org.nz/farming?utm_source=chatgpt.com) · [ACT's 2026 rural policy](https://www.act.org.nz/make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) · [Labour's 2026 policies](https://www.labour.org.nz/policy/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) · [Green Party policy](https://www.greens.org.nz/policy?utm_source=chatgpt.com) If useful, I can next turn this into a **farm-owner comparison specifically around dairy/sheep & beef/arable/horticulture**, including **likely areas of compliance cost, emissions, water, animal welfare, biosecurity levies, RSE labour and rural health/roads/telecommunications**. **End captured answer** ## Gemini · asked nationally Answer ID: b1651211-4790-48c6-93d8-673940927bfe. Captured 5 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** For rural voters living well outside main centres, the approach of the 2026 New Zealand general election brings the usual tension between operating costs, environmental stewardship, and the practical realities of compliance. Major and minor political parties differ sharply in their philosophy—ranging from deregulation and economic incentives to strict environmental boundaries and public oversight. --- ### 1. National and ACT (Centre-Right / Right) * **Core Philosophy:** Reducing red tape, protecting property rights, and relying on farmer-led solutions rather than prescriptive central government mandates. * **Farm Regulation:** Both parties emphasize slashing compliance costs. National’s approach features regulatory reduction targets (such as "two-for-one" rules on new farm regulations), streamlining Resource Management Act (RMA) replacements, and narrowing definitions like Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) and wetland rules. ACT champions "making farming fun again" by pushing back against central bureaucracy, increasing funding for local catchment groups over top-down directives, and safeguarding private property rights. * **Agricultural Emissions & Climate:** ACT maintains a firm stance against putting agriculture into an emissions pricing scheme or the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), arguing against the Zero Carbon Act targets. National balances meeting international climate obligations with a preference for practical, industry-backed frameworks (like working alongside sector groups rather than imposing punitive pricing prematurely). * **Biosecurity & Trade:** Strong emphasis on export market access, strengthening supply chains, and supporting primary sector tech innovation (including pushing for pragmatic pathways around gene technology to boost productivity). ### 2. Labour and New Zealand First (Centre / Centre-Left / Nationalist) * **Core Philosophy:** Balanced stewardship, protecting natural capital (soil and water), and ensuring that the primary sector maintains social licence while remaining economically viable. * **Farm Regulation:** Labour focuses on structured environmental bottom-lines, freshwater integrity, and protecting highly productive land from urban sprawl or indiscriminate forestry conversions. They favor planned, regulated frameworks for freshwater farm plans. New Zealand First traditionally positions itself as a pragmatic voice for provincial and rural industries, backing primary producers against excessive Wellington-based bureaucracy while maintaining a strong emphasis on domestic food security, manufacturing, and robust border biosecurity. * **Agricultural Emissions & Climate:** Historically supports holding agriculture accountable to long-term climate targets, while attempting to design a workable pricing mechanism for biogenic methane and carbon dioxide that avoids closing down productive farms but still satisfies global supply chain and export expectations. * **Biosecurity & Trade:** High priority on strict border protection to safeguard New Zealand’s unique biosecurity status (protecting against incursions like Mycoplasma bovis or foot-and-mouth disease), alongside supporting traditional and emerging export markets. ### 3. The Green Party (Left) * **Core Philosophy:** Ecological sustainability, rapid transition away from intensive fossil-fuel-reliant farming, and holding major polluters to account. * **Farm Regulation:** The Greens advocate for tighter regulatory guardrails on intensive land use, chemical applications (such as strict oversight on synthetic fertilizers and glyphosate), and rigorous freshwater standards to protect groundwater and waterways from nitrate pollution. * **Agricultural Emissions & Climate:** Firmly advocates for bringing agriculture into emissions pricing structures, accelerating the transition toward regenerative and low-emission farming practices, and reducing national herd sizes or stocking rates where environmentally necessary. * **Biosecurity & Trade:** Focuses heavily on biosecurity through an ecological lens—protecting native biodiversity from pests, restricting risky imports, and building climate resilience into local food systems. --- ### Summary Comparison for Rural Voters | Policy Area | National / ACT | Labour / NZ First | Green Party | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Regulation Style** | Deregulation, cutting compliance, local/catchment flexibility. | Structured standards, freshwater bottom-lines, protective land legislation. | Strict ecological limits, tight controls on intensive inputs and land use. | | **Emissions & Climate** | Oppose heavy-handed pricing (ACT); practical, industry-led incentives (National). | Managed transition with formal emissions targets and pricing frameworks. | Rapid inclusion under pricing schemes, shift to low-emission regenerative practices. | | **Biosecurity & Economy** | Focused on trade access, reducing red tape, and technology/genetics tools. | Strict border protection, domestic food security, and regional employment. | Eco-centric biosecurity, pest management, and climate adaptation resilience. | **End captured answer** ## Google AI Mode · asked nationally Answer ID: 34a2e7df-3a96-41f2-8965-6092daa56830. Captured 5 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** For a remote rural operation balancing the bottom line, environmental compliance, and regional services, the major political blocs offer distinct pathways. The debate centers on how much government intervention or market-driven incentives should steer land use, climate obligations, and biosecurity. Here is how the key parties contesting the 2026 general election compare on these core agricultural fronts: 1\. Climate Pricing and Emissions * * **National, ACT, and NZ First:** The current approach under the coalition government has removed agriculture from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and shelved the industry-backed _He Waka Eke Noa_ framework. National and ACT campaign on no new taxes for farmers, with ACT advocating permanently keeping agriculture out of the ETS, scrapping the Net Zero targets, and dissolving the Climate Change Commission to cut compliance overhead. * **Labour:** Maintains that emissions need to be addressed but focuses its immediate rural strategy on preventing whole-farm conversions into carbon-farming pine forests. Labour has signaled an urgent review of the ETS to disincentivize productive land being swallowed up by carbon forestry, while promising no new capital gains tax burdens on standard farming operations. [RNZ] * **The Green Party:** Stands apart by explicitly pushing to price agricultural emissions through a strengthened ETS. The Greens argue for completely separating forestry from the ETS mechanism to stop perceived structural distortions in carbon pricing. * 2\. Environmental and Freshwater Regulation * * **ACT:** Pushes for "practical environmentalism" by aiming to scrap _Te Mana o te Wai_ freshwater statements, favoring localized community catchment funding instead. They also advocate for targeted grazing access on suitable Department of Conservation (DOC) land and intensified efforts against wilding pines. [ACT NZ] * **National:** Focuses heavily on streamlining consent processes and replacing legacy resource management rules (RMA) to reduce friction for on-farm infrastructure and energy projects, aligning closely with reducing red tape for rural property owners. * **Labour and the Greens:** Emphasize tighter environmental bottom lines for waterways, nitrate run-off, and biodiversity protection. Labour leans toward structured, nationally guided limits on land-use changes (such as limiting wholesale conversions of productive food-producing land to exotic forestry), whereas the Greens prioritize ecosystem regeneration and indigenous biodiversity protection. [RNZ] * 3\. Biosecurity and Local Services * * **New Zealand First:** Traditionally centers a strong portion of its regional platform on border protection, biosecurity vigilance (protecting primary industries from incursions like _Mycoplasma bovis_ or foot-and-mouth variants), and maintaining the viability of provincial infrastructure, freezing works, and transport links. * **National and ACT:** Generally support risk-based biosecurity frameworks partnered with industry bodies, emphasizing public-private partnership models and minimizing operational hurdles for movement control. * **Labour and the Greens:** Tend to emphasize robust, well-resourced public biosecurity infrastructure backed by strict border screening, alongside regional development funding aimed at maintaining community health services, local connectivity, and reliable transport networks in remote areas. * Summary for Your Vote * * If your priority is **minimizing compliance costs, avoiding carbon-pricing on livestock, and stripping back central government regulations** like freshwater overlays, the **ACT / National / NZ First** spectrum aligns closest with those goals. * If your priority is **protecting productive pastoral land from being overtaken by carbon-credit pine forests via state intervention** , or if you favor **strict environmental bottom lines and public health/regional service investment** , you will find closer alignment with **Labour** or the **Green Party**. * You can look up specific electorate candidates and deeply compare localized party manifestos on platforms like Policy.nz. **End captured answer** ## Google AI Overviews · asked nationally Answer ID: 00d3adfd-155a-4e25-85fe-a1ca88f0da77. Captured 5 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** As you consider your vote for the **2026 New Zealand general election** , the major political parties offer distinct approaches to balancing your operating costs, regulatory burdens, and environmental obligations. The recent political debates at Mystery Creek outline how the parties intend to manage rural issues: Comparing the Major Parties Party| Agricultural Emissions & ETS| Tax & Farm Operating Costs| Environmental Regulation & RMA ---|---|---|--- **National**| Keep agriculture **out of the ETS** ; focus on technology.| **No new taxes** for farmers; 20% Investment Boost tax deduction on new assets.| Replace the RMA; roll back intensive winter grazing and water rules. **ACT**| Permanently exclude agriculture from the ETS; scrap the **Zero Carbon Act**.| **No new taxes** ; cut red tape on agricultural drones and school buses.| Remove _Te Mana o te Wai_ from resource consenting; establish catchment-specific freshwater targets. **NZ First**| **Exit the Paris Agreement** entirely.| Focus on an economic plan; committed to regional infrastructure like water storage.| Supports reducing Wellington-driven regulatory compliance. **Labour**| Refined agricultural emissions plans; will not subject family farms to a **Capital Gains Tax**.| Exempt family farms and worker accommodation blocks from CGT.| Take National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 rules to select committee for practical refining. **Green Party**| Direct source reduction; **wealth tax** targets the top 2% of corporate farms.| Restructure via taxes on high-value asset inheritance over $1 million (excluding family homes/farms).| Strict environmental standards; phase out synthetic fertilisers and intensive dairying. Farm Regulation & Environment * **National and ACT** focus heavily on reducing compliance costs. National has already streamlined winter grazing and water storage rules, and is actively replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) with a system that puts property rights first. ACT is campaigning on "making farming fun again" by stripping away Wellington-centric rules and localising freshwater targets. * **Labour** states it has "listened and learned" from its previous term, promising to refine freshwater rules via a select committee process to protect farm profitability while maintaining sustainable standards. * **The Green Party** advocates for a shift toward regenerative agriculture, proposing a phase-out of intensive farming practices and strict protection of local waterways. Operating Costs, Inflation & Infrastructure * **Taxation:** National, ACT, and Labour have all committed to no new direct taxes for family-operated farms. While Labour has proposed a Capital Gains Tax for commercial property, it explicitly exempts family farms and on-farm worker accommodation. The Green Party's proposed wealth tax would impact large corporate farming operations rather than typical family farms. * **Local Services & Support:** National is backing rural communities by expanding the RSE scheme for labor shortages, establishing a new rural medical school to train local doctors, and expanding funding for the Rural Support Trusts. NZ First is placing its emphasis on hard regional infrastructure, specifically championing funding for water storage, local irrigation, and flood protection. Biosecurity * **The Coalition Approach (National/ACT/NZ First):** Under Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard (ACT), the current focus is on practical, industry-led biosecurity measures. Funding highlights include $109 million allocated to wilding pine eradication, alongside streamlining trade infrastructure (such as securing the India FTA). * **Labour and the Greens:** Focus heavily on biosecurity as an extension of climate and ecological resilience, targeting pest control, wilding pines, and tightening border biosecurity to safeguard New Zealand's biological primary export economy. Would you like more details on how a specific party proposes to handle **rural infrastructure** and **local service access** in your region, or more depth on their **freshwater policies**? **End captured answer** ## Publication and corrections Published and funded by Onsomble Limited. NZBrands.ai takes no view on any party or policy. [Independence](https://nzbrands.ai/about/independence/) · [Corrections](https://nzbrands.ai/about/corrections/) · [Contact](https://nzbrands.ai/about/contact/)