Every question, every answer, every source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 · ACT's 2026 rural policy · Labour's 2026 policies · Green Party policy

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.