--- title: "PF083 · Captured AI answers" publisher: "Onsomble Limited" publication: "NZBrands.ai" edition: 3 collected_on: "2026-10-16" html_url: "https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/3/questions/c6980315-8243-4258-a842-29f9e5121f57/" --- # PF083 · Captured AI answers Edition 3 · answers collected 16 October 2026. [Read on NZBrands.ai](https://nzbrands.ai/research/nz-election-2026/editions/3/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/3/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 They may contain errors or outdated claims.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 16 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/3/method.md) ## ChatGPT · asked nationally Answer ID: a2ae3255-00de-4aca-a105-b6d3bece4cc6. Captured 16 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** For the **7 November 2026 New Zealand general election**, the main parties differ quite sharply on the trade-off between farm operating costs, environmental regulation and biosecurity. [Elections NZ](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2026/candidate-and-party-lists-released?utm_source=chatgpt.com) One useful way to read the landscape is: **National and ACT are proposing substantially lighter/more standardised farm regulation; NZ First is also strongly focused on reducing regulatory constraints; Labour puts more weight on environmental outcomes and climate policy while proposing to simplify compliance; the Greens favour the strongest environmental constraints and a transition toward regenerative agriculture.** Te Pāti Māori has a different emphasis, particularly around Māori authority over whenua and freshwater. ### At a glance | Party | Farm regulation & compliance | Agricultural emissions / climate | Freshwater & land | Biosecurity | |---|---|---|---|---| | **National** | Reduce compliance costs; risk-based farm plans; national standards; easier consenting | Keep agriculture outside ETS; technology/sector-led methane reductions | More productive use of water; replace/rework RMA settings; rebalance Te Mana o Te Wai | Strong border protection and investment in surveillance, diagnostics and response | | **ACT** | Strongest emphasis on cutting red tape, property rights and national standards | Keep agriculture outside emissions pricing | Scraps Te Mana o Te Wai; national methodologies/standards; locally responsive rules | Faster approvals for agricultural chemicals/medicines; generally favours practical, risk-based regulation | | **NZ First** | Reduce regulatory barriers; protect existing productive activity | No emissions pricing unless major trading partners adopt it; favour mitigation research | Catchment-based farm plans; oppose regulatory impacts on productive farming; more water infrastructure | Strong border protection, offshore inspection and agency coordination | | **Labour** | Wants integrated/single farm planning to reduce duplicated compliance | Rebuild ETS; stronger emissions incentives; Paris-aligned policy | Stronger environmental regulation than current Government; freshwater protection | Emphasises well-resourced border defences and lessons from M. bovis | | **Greens** | More environmental requirements where needed to protect ecosystems | Much stronger climate action and agricultural transition | Strongest emphasis on freshwater, biodiversity, soil and ecosystem protection | Broad environmental/biosecurity approach, tied to ecological protection | | **Te Pāti Māori** | Generally frames land use through Māori authority, whenua and Te Tiriti | Climate/environment policy integrated with Māori interests | Strong emphasis on tino rangatiratanga over freshwater and whenua | Less centred on conventional farm-cost questions than the other parties | ## National National's 2026 position is explicitly centred on **increasing agricultural productivity while reducing what it regards as unnecessary compliance**. Its current programme includes raising the threshold for freshwater farm plans from 20 to 50 hectares for pastoral and arable farms, introducing risk-based certification, and moving to six-year recertification with only one audit in that period. All farms above the threshold would still prepare and hold a plan, but lower-risk farms would not need certification/auditing. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20260819-hontoddmacclay?utm_source=chatgpt.com) National is also proposing **$300 million of concessional loans for water-storage projects**, a national water-infrastructure pipeline, national standards for on-farm water storage and irrigation, and a $10 million fund aimed at securing agricultural inputs such as fertiliser. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/policies/securing-water-and-fertiliser?utm_source=chatgpt.com) On climate, National's approach is to **keep agricultural emissions outside the ETS** and rely heavily on technology and sector-led reductions. Its methane policy sets 2050 targets and anticipates technologies involving genetics, feed and farm management rather than putting agriculture directly into the ETS. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20251012-hon-todd-mcclay-government-sets-methane-targets-for-2050?utm_source=chatgpt.com) On biosecurity, the Government has continued investing in border protection, laboratories, surveillance and disease response. The new Plant Health and Environment Laboratory is a major long-term investment, while 2026 measures include additional preparedness for H5 bird flu. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20251219-new-plant-health-and-envirotnment-laboratory?utm_source=chatgpt.com) **For a farm:** the practical question is whether you value the lower compliance burden and infrastructure/productivity focus enough to accept comparatively less stringent environmental intervention. ## ACT ACT is pushing the deregulation argument further. Its 2026 rural policy calls for **national standards covering routine farming activities** such as farm plans, vegetable growing, water storage, drainage, effluent, fertiliser application, farm quarries and wetland restoration. It also wants clearer rules based on actual environmental harm and property rights. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/news/act-to-cut-red-tape-for-everyday-farming?utm_source=chatgpt.com) ACT would **scrap Te Mana o Te Wai**, establish a national methodology for freshwater limits, and continue keeping agricultural emissions outside the ETS. It also proposes recognising overseas approvals for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines and reducing restrictions on agricultural drones. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/news/act-will-make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) For rural communities specifically, ACT is proposing a **Rural Workforce Visa**, additional rural policing and measures addressing rural connectivity and transport. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/make-farming-fun-again?utm_source=chatgpt.com) On biosecurity, ACT's emphasis is more on **efficient, risk-based regulation and access to agricultural inputs** than on creating additional farm obligations. **For a farm:** ACT's policies are particularly relevant if your biggest concern is consent costs, paperwork, uncertainty from councils and restrictions on ordinary farm activities. ## New Zealand First NZ First's position is also strongly protective of primary production, but with somewhat more emphasis on **regional/catchment decision-making and productive land**. Its published primary-sector policy calls for replacing Te Mana o Te Wai in RMA planning, using **catchment-level farm environmental plans**, and reducing regulatory barriers to irrigation, water storage, managed aquifer recharge and flood protection. It also opposes emissions pricing unless trading partners—particularly the EU—adopt comparable pricing. [New Zealand First](https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Its 2026 campaigning has continued that theme. For example, NZ First has called for a pause to Waikato Plan Change 1 until the replacement planning system is operating and for future freshwater rules to include a **primary-production viability test**. [New Zealand First](https://www.nzfirst.nz/nz_first_will_not_let_waikato_farmers_be_buried_by_plan_change_1?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Biosecurity is an important part of its policy. Its published position calls for adequate resourcing of Biosecurity New Zealand and border agencies, more offshore inspection, stronger coordination before and after incursions, international cooperation on animal and plant diseases, and stronger penalties for border breaches. [New Zealand First](https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_policies?utm_source=chatgpt.com) **For a farm:** NZ First combines relatively low appetite for agricultural emissions pricing with a strong emphasis on protecting productive land and rural economies, while still advocating substantial government investment in biosecurity. ## Labour Labour's approach is different: it accepts that regulation can be burdensome but argues that the answer is to **coordinate and simplify environmental requirements rather than substantially reduce them**. Its previous integrated-farm-planning proposal was designed to put environmental, labour, biosecurity and health-and-safety requirements into a single framework, replacing overlapping reporting, auditing and consent processes. [Labour Party NZ](https://www.labour.org.nz/release-reducing-costs-for-farmers-and-growers?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The major difference is climate policy. Labour's September 2026 policy says it would **urgently review and strengthen the ETS**, make it produce genuine emissions reductions, reconsider forestry's role and prevent whole-farm conversions to forestry. It is committed to the Paris Agreement. [Labour Party NZ](https://www.labour.org.nz/news/release-labour-to-accelerate-climate-action/?utm_source=chatgpt.com) On biosecurity, Labour points to the previous Government's response to **Mycoplasma bovis**, including eradication spending and stronger border defences, as an example of the approach it wants to take. [Labour Party NZ](https://www.labour.org.nz/news-speech_chris_hipkins_values_matter?utm_source=chatgpt.com) **For a farm:** the important potential cost difference is that Labour's stronger climate and environmental settings could create more regulatory/emissions-related obligations, although its policy also aims to reduce duplicated compliance. ## Green Party The Greens are the clearest outlier on the environmental side. Their 2026 manifesto describes a **regenerative food, fibre and forestry system**, with particular emphasis on protecting waterways, soils, biodiversity and rural communities. It argues that intensive farming—particularly industrial dairying—has created significant environmental and climate pressures. [Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand](https://www.greens.org.nz/manifesto_2026?utm_source=chatgpt.com) The party's agriculture, freshwater, land-use and climate policies are therefore much more likely to favour **strong environmental limits and transition measures** than National, ACT or NZ First. The Greens explicitly put healthy freshwater and ecosystems ahead of unrestricted productive intensification. [Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand](https://www.greens.org.nz/nature_and_climate?utm_source=chatgpt.com) For a conventional intensive farm, that potentially means **higher compliance and transition costs**, but the Greens would argue that these costs are part of protecting the natural resources on which farming itself depends. ## Te Pāti Māori Te Pāti Māori is less easily captured by the conventional "farmer versus environmental regulation" divide. Its environmental policy framework places considerably more emphasis on **tino rangatiratanga, Māori authority over natural resources, whenua and freshwater**. Policy.nz records its position as supporting assertion of tino rangatiratanga over freshwater. [Policy.nz](https://policy.nz/2026/party-vote/policies/environment?utm_source=chatgpt.com) That matters most where farming intersects with Māori land, iwi/hapū decision-making, freshwater allocation and Treaty obligations. Its policy priorities therefore can have quite different implications depending on the ownership and governance arrangements surrounding a farm. ## Biosecurity deserves separate attention This is one area where there is **less ideological separation than on climate and freshwater**. All serious governing parties have an incentive to maintain strong biosecurity because an incursion can impose enormous costs on farmers, exporters and the wider economy. The current system is also moving beyond traditional border inspection toward surveillance, diagnostics and rapid response. For example, the **Mycoplasma bovis programme is now managed by OSPRI under a national pest-management plan**, and its farmer levies were reduced to zero during 2026 because existing programme funding was sufficient for the current period. [Ministry for Primary Industries](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) So when comparing parties on biosecurity, I'd look beyond slogans and ask three concrete questions: - **Who pays?** Will the cost fall on general taxation, industry levies, or individual farmers? - **How much prevention?** Border inspection and surveillance can be expensive but potentially much cheaper than an established disease. - **What happens during an outbreak?** Compensation, movement controls, culling, traceability and the speed of government response can matter enormously to an individual farm. ## For your particular concerns Since you've identified **operating costs, environmental obligations and access to local services** as the things that matter, I'd separate the parties into those questions rather than treating "agriculture policy" as one issue. - **Operating costs / regulatory burden:** National, ACT and NZ First are proposing the largest reductions or simplifications in farm regulation. ACT is the most explicit about property rights and removing routine consent requirements. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/news/act-to-cut-red-tape-for-everyday-farming?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - **Environmental obligations:** Greens propose the most extensive environmental intervention; Labour is also proposing substantially stronger climate policy than the current Government. National/ACT/NZ First favour more risk-based and production-compatible rules. [Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand](https://www.greens.org.nz/manifesto_2026?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - **Water:** National, ACT and NZ First want significant changes to the current freshwater framework, particularly Te Mana o Te Wai. Labour and the Greens place greater weight on environmental limits and freshwater quality. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20260819-hontoddmacclay?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - **Agricultural emissions:** National, ACT and NZ First oppose putting agriculture into conventional emissions pricing; Labour wants stronger carbon-market settings; the Greens favour much stronger climate action. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20251012-hon-todd-mcclay-government-sets-methane-targets-for-2050?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - **Biosecurity:** National and NZ First have particularly explicit current policies/investment around border protection and response. Labour stresses the M. bovis experience and stronger border defences. [National Party](https://www.national.org.nz/news/20251219-new-plant-health-and-envirotnment-laboratory?utm_source=chatgpt.com) - **Rural services:** This is worth treating separately from farm policy. ACT, for example, has specific rural workforce, policing, transport and connectivity proposals, while the larger parties' broader health, infrastructure and regional-development policies may have more effect on access to services in remote areas. [ACT New Zealand](https://www.act.org.nz/news/act-unveils-rural-workforce-visa-to-solve-farm-worker-shortage?utm_source=chatgpt.com) Because the election is still ahead, **some parties' policies are more fully developed than others**, and coalition negotiations could substantially alter what ultimately gets implemented. The Electoral Commission says 17 registered parties are contesting the 2026 election. [Elections NZ](https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2026/candidate-and-party-lists-released?utm_source=chatgpt.com) A useful next step is to compare **National vs ACT vs NZ First vs Labour vs Greens specifically from the perspective of a working farm**—for example, putting *fertiliser, diesel, freshwater consent costs, emissions, farm plans, water storage, biosecurity levies, rural health, roads and internet* side-by-side. That would make the differences much more tangible without telling you how to vote. **End captured answer** ## Gemini · asked nationally Answer ID: e1898faa-12d7-4bde-8054-7318b9ecdbf7. Captured 16 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** As a farmer operating well outside a main centre, weighing your operating costs, regulatory compliance, and access to services is central to how the political parties approach the primary sector in the **2026 New Zealand general election**. The major political blocs present distinct philosophies on how to balance farm profitability, environmental stewardship, and biosecurity. --- ### 1. National, ACT, and New Zealand First (Centre-Right / Right) This bloc emphasizes reducing compliance costs, easing regulatory burdens, boosting export growth, and securing on-farm inputs. * **Farm Regulation & Compliance:** Focuses heavily on cutting "red tape". National and ACT have prioritized replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA) framework to streamline rules around water storage, quarrying, and local development. They argue that environmental rules should target actual, localized risks rather than cumbersome national processes. * **Operating Costs & Emissions:** The coalition parties have kept agriculture out of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and dropped previous pricing frameworks like *He Waka Eke Noa*. Their primary focus is lowering input pressures by enhancing water security and supply chains. National has proposed specific investments, such as concessional loans for water storage infrastructure, a National Rural and Provincial Water Use Strategy, and a Critical Agri Inputs Fund to mitigate volatile global fertiliser markets. * **Biosecurity & Services:** Emphasize protecting primary export lines ($65+ billion in food and fibre exports), supporting regional development, and maintaining strong border biosecurity protocols to protect production. --- ### 2. Labour and The Green Party (Centre-Left / Left) This bloc maintains that long-term farm profitability is inextricably linked to environmental integrity, climate action, and sustainable resource management. * **Farm Regulation & Compliance:** Labour and the Greens advocate for strict environmental bottom lines—particularly regarding freshwater quality, intensive winter grazing, and biodiversity. While Labour acknowledges a "cost-of-farming crisis" and supports streamlining outdated systems (such as speeding up approvals for safer, newer agrichemicals), they insist that environmental protections cannot be overridden by unbridled development. * **Operating Costs & Emissions:** The Greens and Labour prioritize pricing or managing agricultural emissions to meet New Zealand's climate targets and maintain access to high-value, eco-conscious international markets (particularly in Europe). The Greens advocate financial support and subsidies to help farmers transition toward regenerative practices and low-impact land use. * **Biosecurity & Services:** Place a heavy emphasis on biosecurity readiness, climate resilience against extreme weather events, and protecting rural community healthcare and infrastructure. --- ### 3. Minor Parties (The Opportunity Party, Te Pāti Māori, etc.) * **The Opportunity Party (TOP):** Focuses on high-value, low-impact agricultural diversification (using models like the kiwifruit industry). They support regulatory reform where farmers are genuinely overburdened, but have proposed broader structural tax reforms (such as a land value tax paired with a citizen's income), which farm advocacy groups like Beef + Lamb New Zealand have noted would have varied, significant net impacts across different sheep and beef classes. * **Te Pāti Māori:** Focuses heavily on indigenous land rights, water sovereignty (*Te Mana o te Wai*), and shifting toward localized, sustainable food systems with tighter environmental controls on intensive farming. --- ### Summary Comparison for Remote Rural Operations | Policy Area | Centre-Right (National / ACT / NZ First) | Centre-Left (Labour / Greens) | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **Climate & Emissions** | Excluded from ETS; opposes a direct agricultural emissions tax. | Favours structured emissions pricing or clear ecological targets to protect export markets. | | **Regulation & RMA** | Streamlining consents; standardizing rules for water storage, quarrying, and land use. | Maintaining firm environmental bottom lines (freshwater, intensive grazing rules). | | **Inputs & Costs** | Focus on mitigating global supply chain volatility (e.g., fertiliser funds, water storage loans). | Focus on transition support, research into lower-impact inputs, and sustainable practice grants. | Given that you are well outside a main centre, how do you weigh the immediate relief from compliance costs and water/fertiliser security initiatives against the long-term market risks of moving away from climate and environmental regulation? **End captured answer** ## Google AI Mode · asked nationally Answer ID: 0a0c3021-5182-436e-b269-93dc812b6456. Captured 16 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** Navigating life and business well outside a main centre means balancing practical day-to-day operating realities—like compliance costs, workforce needs, and biosecurity risks—with broader environmental expectations. As the 2026 general election approaches, New Zealand's political parties present distinct ideological approaches to the primary sector. Here is how they compare across agricultural policy, farm regulation, and biosecurity: 1\. National & ACT (Centre-Right / Coalition Alignment) Both parties emphasize reducing "Wellington red tape," streamlining local council compliance, and boosting export revenue. * * **Farm Regulation:** National’s agricultural policy focuses heavily on standardising rules to bypass regional council bureaucracy. They have proposed 19 nationwide standards covering everyday activities (such as vegetable growing, drain maintenance, gravel extraction, and water storage) so farmers meeting the criteria can proceed without individual council consents. ACT similarly champions a risk-based, practical approach, pushing to simplify freshwater farm plans, remove duplicate reporting, and rely more on existing industry assurance programs. * **Environmental & Climate Obligations:** Both parties lean toward keeping agriculture out of a punitive pricing mechanism before technology or practical alternatives are ready, prioritizing economic growth and export targets (such as National's goal to double exports). * **Services & Support:** National has targeted rural infrastructure and workforce support, including backing more graduate veterinarian placements specifically for the regions. [RNZ] * 2\. Labour (Centre-Left) Labour positions its policy around structured partnership with the sector, climate transition support, and balancing environmental stewardship with economic output. * * **Farm Regulation & Environment:** Historically, Labour favors structured freshwater management and measurable catchment-level outcomes. While recognizing the economic importance of farming, they emphasize meeting long-term climate commitments and maintaining robust guardrails for water quality. They tend to prefer centralized or co-designed environmental bottom lines enforced through regional frameworks rather than wholesale deregulation. * **Services & Workforce:** Labour’s focus in rural areas traditionally leans toward supporting regional workforce transitions, training, health access, and maintaining public infrastructure resilience (such as roading and telecommunications) for isolated communities. * 3\. The Green Party (Left) The Greens place ecological health, climate action, and transition support at the core of their agricultural vision. * * **Farm Regulation & Environment:** The Green Party advocates for strict protections on freshwater and ecosystems, specifically targeting a reduction in heavy agrichemical and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use. Rather than traditional deregulation, they offer financial and technical support to help farmers transition toward regenerative agriculture and low-input practices. * **Biosecurity & Sustainability:** Their framework prioritizes long-term environmental resilience, climate adaptation, and backing research and development for farming methods that have a neutral or net-positive impact on local biodiversity and waterways. [NZKGI] * 4\. New Zealand First (Nationalist / Populist) New Zealand First positions itself as a fierce advocate for provincial New Zealand, sovereignty, and practical primary industry support. * * **Farm Regulation:** NZ First generally opposes heavy-handed, prescriptive environmental regulations originating from urban centers or international mandates. They push back against compliance burdens that impact the profitability of multi-generational family farms. * **Biosecurity & Trade:** They place heavy emphasis on robust border biosecurity to protect New Zealand’s disease-free status (such as keeping out Mycoplasma bovis or foot-and-mouth variants) and safeguarding export market integrity. They view strong biosecurity and infrastructure investment in the regions as vital national security issues. * * * * Summary Checklist for Your Vote * * **If your primary goal is cutting council red tape and fast-tracking on-farm infrastructure:** Parties like **National** and **ACT** focus heavily on standardized national rules and removing consent hurdles. * **If your primary goal is transitioning to low-input/regenerative systems with state support:** The **Green Party** centers its policy on financial and technical incentives for environmental transition. * **If your focus is balancing structured environmental standards with regional economic stability:** **Labour** offers a more regulated, compliance-oriented approach to catchment health. * **If your focus is provincial advocacy, anti-regulation of local land use, and aggressive border/biosecurity defense:** **New Zealand First** emphasizes regional protectionism and border vigilance. * To check individual party manifestos in detail as they roll out, you can review updates directly via the [RNZ Politics Section](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political) or sector-specific guides like New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers (NZKGI) Election Analysis. **End captured answer** ## Google AI Overviews · asked nationally Answer ID: 75ea0b27-c039-4947-b283-fc0084c04f89. Captured 16 October 2026. **Begin captured answer — shown as given, not verified** For the **2026 New Zealand general election** , political parties offer starkly contrasting futures for the rural sector, presenting voters with clear choices between **National** and **ACT’s** focus on reducing compliance costs and **Labour** and the **Greens’** emphasis on environmental targets. Key figures and core entities like Federated Farmers are driving the debate around the replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the return of stricter freshwater rules. Policy Comparison by Party Political Party| Farm Regulation & Red Tape| Climate Emissions & ETS| Environmental & Water Mandates| Rural Services & Support ---|---|---|---|--- **National Party**| Promises 19 national standards to bypass council consents for everyday farm tasks like track building and water storage.| Keeps agriculture entirely out of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).| Banned whole-farm conversions to forestry on Land Use Capability classes 1–5. Rebalanced _Te Mana o te Wai_.| Expands the rural vet scheme to fund **70 graduates per year**. Funding the Waikato Medical School for rural doctors. **ACT New Zealand**| Campaigns on a platform to ["make farming fun again"](https://www.act.org.nz/news/act-will-make-farming-fun-again) by blocking new compliance from central government.| Pledges to scrap the Zero Carbon Act, Net Zero target, and the Climate Change Commission.| Vows to entirely remove _Te Mana o te Wai_ from resource consenting. Shakes up Department of Conservation concessions.| Focuses heavily on reducing core public sector size to fund regional infrastructure and connectivity. **Labour Party**| Commits to ending the "repeal and replace" legislative cycle. Backs a 25% tax credit on small business technology investments.| Promises to urgently repair the ETS to raise the carbon price. Confirmed **no capital gains tax** will apply to active farms.| Plans to use the strict 2020 freshwater rules as a starting baseline for a select committee process. Reinstates _Te Mana o te Wai_.| Funds regional polytechnics. Guarantees jobs for graduate nurses to support regional health services. **Green Party**| Proposes an Agricultural Standards Framework measuring all inputs and outputs. Bans factory farming.| Demands the immediate [inclusion of agriculture in the ETS](https://policy.nz/2026/party-vote/policies/environment). Imposes steep nitrogen caps.| Bans Palm Kernel Expeller (PKE) imports. Phasing out grazing concessions on conservation land.| Advocates for community-led wealth distribution. Promises a **$6 billion economic plan** generating 284,000 green jobs. **New Zealand First**| Supports using market-led incentives rather than heavy regulatory penalties to change land-use behavior.| Rejects new farming taxes. Urges withdrawal from the international Paris Agreement.| Backs local water infrastructure pipelines and strategic regional water storage storage projects.| Focuses on a **20% small-to-medium enterprise tax rate** to boost regional business health. Core Differences for Your Farm 1\. Operating Costs and Inputs If minimizing compliance costs and input expenses is your priority, the National Party platform seeks to protect inputs by signing international trade agreements for fertilizer security. They also provide an upfront 20% tax deduction on new asset purchases. Alternatively, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand policies would heavily restrict or penalize synthetic inputs like nitrogen, which could raise current conventional baseline costs while pushing for organic transitions. 2\. Environmental Compliance The left and right blocks offer completely opposite pathways. The National-ACT coalition has removed agriculture from emissions pricing frameworks. ACT wants to completely dismantle the Zero Carbon Act. On the other side, the Labour Party will restore strict environmental accountability, utilizing David Parker’s previous 2020 freshwater guidelines to re-regulate water use and stop what they call the rapid loss of highly productive land to housing and development. 3\. Biosecurity and Local Services Biosecurity enforcement remains a common talking point across the spectrum to safeguard exports, but service delivery splits. National focuses on solving the acute shortages of rural professionals by doubling the Bonded Vet Scheme and building a specialized regional medical school. Labour focuses on broadening healthcare access via subsidized doctor visits and training funds targeting regional polytechnics. If you would like to narrow down how these policies impact your specific setup, please let me know: * Your primary **farming sector** (e.g., dairy, sheep and beef, or horticulture). * Whether you rely heavily on **irrigation or intensive fertilizer inputs**. * Your current **regional council area** to evaluate local water infrastructure rules. **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/)