Open Letter:
Request for Policy Clarification.
We write on behalf of the combined groups of Groundswell New Zealand, NZ Farming, and the Methane Science Accord, representing over 424,000 members and followers.
Collectively, our organisations represent rural communities and grassroots farmers across New Zealand who are seeking a practical and common-sense coalition party in government following the next general election. Rural New Zealand is under increasing pressure, and we are seeking clarity on where your party stands on several issues of fundamental importance to farming families, regional communities, and the wider economy.
Paris Accord / Net Zero
Our first area of concern relates to New Zealand’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and the pursuit of Net Zero policies.
In the quest to meet Paris Agreement objectives, very large areas of previously productive, grazable farmland have been converted into carbon forestry. Current figures report over 300,000 hectares since 2017 have moved into permanent or long-term carbon farming. These large, corporate (and often overseas-owned) companies are not only taking away food producing land but being paid to take up CO2, which is exactly what our pastoral farmers have been doing (for free) for 150 years.
This shift has had significant and, in our view, under-acknowledged consequences for rural New Zealand.
These include:
The hollowing-out of rural communities and the loss of on-farm and downstream employment
Reduced livestock numbers, contributing to the closure or downsizing of meat processing facilities
A loss of economic activity and resilience in regional economies
Increased pest and weed pressure
Large-scale monoculture forestry that delivers little meaningful biodiversity benefit
Increased fire risk in rural landscapes
Heightened costs of energy and fuel inputs
Increased risk to supply and heightened costs of key nutrient inputs (Phosphorous, Nitrogen, Sulphur) necessary to grow crops, horticultural produce and pasture
We are particularly concerned that the primary beneficiaries of this trend are large corporate entities, often with offshore ownership, that are able to use carbon forestry to offset emissions elsewhere. Meanwhile, rural communities carry the social, economic, and environmental costs.
Accordingly, we seek clarity from your party on the following points:
1. Does your party support maintaining New Zealand’s current Paris Agreement and Net Zero commitments?
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
2. Does your party acknowledge that the ETS, in its current form, is a primary driver of productive farmland being converted into carbon forestry?
3. If so, what specific policy or legislative changes would your party implement to prevent further conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into carbon forestry?
Closing carbon forestry loopholes
4. Will your party commit to closing legislative and regulatory loopholes that allow ongoing conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into permanent or long-term carbon forestry, including the use of overseas capital to do so?
Protecting food production and rural communities
5. What specific policy settings will your party implement to prioritise food production, rural employment, and community viability over carbon offsetting?
—
6. Will your party commit to removing agricultural biological emissions from any requirements for calculation, reporting, pricing, or mitigation within New Zealand’s climate framework, and to explicitly exclude ruminant methane from targets designed for fossil fuel emissions?
7. Will your party recognise that New Zealand pastoral farming is an integral part of the natural carbon cycle, with biogenic methane and carbon flows that differ fundamentally from fossil emissions?
Energy policy
8. What steps will your party take to mitigate risks around increased costs and lowered supply security arising from current energy and climate policy settings?
Methane research and AgriZero
9. What is your party’s position on the continued allocation of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding toward methane research, mitigation technologies, and associated commercial ventures such as AgriZero, premised on agriculture being treated as a climate problem requiring technological “cures”?
10. a. Will your party commit to ending or redirecting this funding, and
b. does your party accept that agricultural biological emissions require no technological “fix” and should instead be recognised as part of the natural biogenic carbon cycle and excluded from climate policy calculation and mitigation requirements?
Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill
People across New Zealand have lost faith in the government's ability to deliver workable environmental legislation and the Natural Environment and Planning Bills are no exception. Government and its bureaucracy have become so far removed from the real world that delivering workable environmental legislation is impossible. Does National concur or disagree with this view and why?
Section 6 (SNA's, landscapes, SASMs, wetlands etc) has been a curse on property owners and councils for the 35 year history of the RMA. The compensation proposal in the new reforms go nowhere far enough in fixing what is inherently bad law. Our view is Section 6 should go altogether and be replaced by proven initiatives like an expanded QEII Trust, Catchment Groups and other local and industry led solutions. What is National view on scrapping altogether the Section 6 policy approach - councils mapping areas on private land and applying rules?
The Freshwater Farm Plan proposal is a major concern for farmers. Beef+Lamb NZ research found 83% of farmers opposed to government mandated farm plans. Beef+Lamb NZ stated that many farmers will be worse off under the new legislation than they currently are under the RMA, because of the Freshwater Farm Plan policy. Currently a minority of farmers triggering consents fall under a system of government oversight. The Freshwater Farm Plan mandate captures all farmers over 50 ha under government oversight putting then at significant risk with future changes of government.
11. Does your party support farm plans as government prescribed legislation and that it be mandatory?
Proposed Gene Technology Bill
Our next area of concern relates to the proposed Gene Technology Bill.
New Zealand agriculture has a unique competitive advantage based on pasture-raised production systems, minimal hormone use, and a reputation for GE-free primary production, particularly in meat and dairy. This reputation underpins market access and price premiums in many of our key export markets.
Accordingly, we seek clarity on your party’s position on the following:
12. Does your party support halting or pausing the Gene Technology Bill as it relates to agriculture?
13. What specific legislative, regulatory, or policy measures will your party commit to in order to protect New Zealand’s GE-free agricultural status and safeguard existing market access and price premiums for meat and dairy exports?
14. What trade impact assessments has your party undertaken regarding the potential effect of the Gene Technology Bill on market access and export premiums for New Zealand meat and dairy products?
15. If such risks are identified, will your party commit to halting or amending agricultural provisions of the Bill to protect existing export markets?
16. What long-term and multigenerational safety studies have been completed on the environmental release of GMOs, and how does your party intend to manage risk where such evidence is incomplete or absent?
Our groups are not opposed to innovation or science. However, we believe any change of this magnitude must be approached cautiously, with full consideration of trade implications, farmer consent, and long-term impacts on New Zealand’s agricultural identity.
Inflationary Burden (Rates, Power, Increased Costs)
Rural New Zealand is carrying a disproportionate share of inflationary cost increases. Escalating rates driven by expanding bureaucracy, sharply rising electricity prices linked to climate and renewable energy policy, and increasing compliance costs have combined to place severe pressure on farm businesses.
17. What specific changes will your party make to energy and climate policy to prevent Paris Agreement-driven renewable mandates from continuing to increase electricity costs for farmers and rural businesses?
18. Which specific costs imposed on farmers — rates, electricity pricing, or regulatory compliance — will your party prioritise for reduction, and what policies will your party repeal or amend to deliver those reductions within its first term of government?
Our groups are not opposed to environmental stewardship. Farmers are, and always have been, environmental managers. However, we believe current policy settings are undermining productive land use, food security, and rural communities.
We would welcome clear, public positions from your party on these matters and look forward to constructive engagement as the election approaches. We formally request a reply by 16th April, 2026 .
Yours sincerely,
Bryce McKenzie, Laurie Patterson on behalf of Groundswell New Zealand
Duncan Humm on behalf of NZ Farming
Jane Smith on behalf of Methane Science Accord
— At this time, National, Greens and Maori Party have not provided a response.
— Labour states issues raised are currently being considered within their Caucus, happy to answer questions more specifically when Manifesto is released.NZ Political Party’s Respond
Paris. NetZero. ETS.
Q. 1-3
Does your party support maintaining New Zealand’s current Paris Agreement and Net Zero commitments?
Does your party acknowledge that the ETS, in its current form, is a primary driver of productive farmland being converted into carbon forestry?
If so, what specific policy or legislative changes would your party implement to prevent further conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into carbon forestry?
Will your party commit to closing legislative and regulatory loopholes that allow ongoing conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into permanent or long-term carbon forestry, including the use of overseas capital to do so?
-
ACT
29 April
Paris Agreement: ACT has been clear that if Paris doesn't change, we must leave. We were the only party that voted against the Zero Carbon Act, and we have consistently called for New Zealand to reconsider its Paris obligations. We do not believe that committing to net zero targets that disadvantage our farmers and rural communities, while delivering negligible impact on global emissions, serves New Zealand's national interest.
ETS: We understand the concerns that productive farmland is being converted into forestry. Ultimately that is the decision of private landowners; however, we recognise that current policy settings can unfortunately encourage this conversion in ways that were never the intent of sound land use policy.
ACT has supported legislation in Government that addresses this directly, specifically the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversion) Amendment Act, which takes steps to limit the most harmful conversions of productive land.
-
NZ First
13 May
Paris Agreement: NZ First has openly called for reconsideration of the Paris Agreement as it puts significant pressure on the taxpayers for practically unachievable targets. If the main polluters like China and US don’t play their significant part to curb emissions, contributions of small nations such as ours will not make any difference to the global climate change efforts.
We realise that there will be repercussions for Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) by undertaking full withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, but the economic costs would not be more than what we are currently paying as being part of the agreement. We support the transition to a carbon-free future with the main reason being energy sovereignty not climate change.
The ETS and Land Conversion: We acknowledge that the ETS has been a primary driver of productive farmland being converted into carbon forestry. To address this, we may campaign on a moratorium on new entries into the ETS for permanent exotic forests for two to three years. We are limiting afforestation on productive land by amending the Overseas Investment Act to prevent foreign capital from being used for such farm-to-forestry conversions.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
We believe that current climate policies are a distraction from real opportunities to protect and improve the environment. There is no climate emergency.
We will end all climate-focused taxes, subsidies, and regulations. Laws/agreements like the Paris Accord, Zero Carbon Act, and Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)impose significant costs on everyday New Zealanders while not improving environmental outcomes, and they all need to go.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
Paris Accord / Net Zero / Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): We believe that current climate policies are an attempt to privatise and profit from air, for the benefit of a few. There is no climate emergency. We will end carbon focused taxes like the Paris Accord, Zero Carbon Act, and Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which impose significant costs on everyday New Zealanders while distracting from other more toxic environmental harm such as bioaccumulative poisons.
-
Labour
22 April
Emissions Trading Scheme and Carbon Forestry: Link to select committee brief Labour Party differing view. Reference Page 5
Here →
Protecting Food Production and Rural Communities
Q. 4-5
Closing carbon forestry loopholes
Will your party commit to closing legislative and regulatory loopholes that allow ongoing conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into permanent or long-term carbon forestry, including the use of overseas capital to do so?
Protecting food production and rural communities
What specific policy settings will your party implement to prioritise food production, rural employment, and community viability over carbon offsetting?
-
ACT
29 April
Closing carbon forestry loopholes: As previously stated, we believe the decisions of private landowners should be respected. However, we will not rule out further review of the regulatory environment that incentivises conversion, particularly where offshore corporate interests are able to exploit policy settings at the expense of rural communities. ACT will continue to monitor this and take action where the evidence supports it.
Protecting food production and rural communities: ACT is committed to cutting back the red tape that has held rural communities back. This includes repealing unworkable health and safety regulations, reducing compliance costs and reforming resource management law to restore property rights. We will prioritise the removal of costs that add no environmental or productivity benefit.
-
NZ First
13 May
Protecting Productive Land: Our manifesto policy "Right Tree, Right Place" ensures that exotic planting on LUC class 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 land will not be permitted to enter the ETS for Carbon Sequestration.
Prioritising Food Production: We believe wise governments view environmental preservation as sound economics. We will continue to prioritise wealth creation and food production over carbon offsetting by incentivising native tree planting for permanent sequestration rather than corporate monocultures.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
We do not support any policy that encourages the conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into permanent or long-term carbon forestry. Our focus is supporting farmers to continue being the best food producers in the world.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
Food production and rural communities: We oppose any policy that encourages the conversion of productive pastoral and arable land into permanent or long-term carbon forestry. Our focus is promoting food security and supporting farmers to continue being the best food producers in the world and ensure healthy affordable food to New Zealanders.
-
Labour
Not addressed
Protecting Food Production and Rural Communities: Part 2
Q. 6-7
Protecting food production and rural communities
Will your party commit to removing agricultural biologicalemissions from any requirements for calculation, reporting, pricing, or mitigation within New Zealand’s climate framework, and to explicitly exclude ruminant methane from targets designed for fossil fuel emissions?
Will your party recognise that New Zealand pastoral farming is an integral part of the natural carbon cycle, with biogenic methane and carbon flows that differ fundamentally from fossil emissions?
-
ACT
29 April
ACT's position has been clear: we need a science-based approach, not simply throwing agriculture under the bus because it is politically convenient. We do not support requiring farmers to price, report, or mitigate biological emissionsunder frameworks designed for fossil fuels. Agricultural biological emissions should be excluded from climate policy calculation and mitigation requirements, and we will advocate for that position firmly.
ACT recognises that biogenic methane is fundamentally different from long-lived fossil fuel emissions. We have called for a more scientifically grounded approach that reflects these differences, rather than treating all emissions the same.
-
NZ First
13 May
NZ First has long advocated for a pragmatic, science-based approach to agricultural emissions that recognises New Zealand’s role as an efficient food producer.
Removal from ETS: We have already successfully removed agriculture from the Emissions Trading Scheme. We will not support emissions pricing in any form unless adopted by our major trading partners.
Science-Based Targets: We recognise the fundamental difference between biogenic methane and fossil fuel emissions. We support reducing the methane target to 14% by 2050, based on independent science rather than the current higher targets.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
Question 6-7 not specifically addressed.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
Question 6-7 not specifically addressed.
-
Labour
22 April
Methane: Labour was unable to provide a Differing View on New Zealand’s approach to methane as the Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill was progressed under Urgency.
The Hansard record of MPs’ speeches in the House can be found here →
Energy Sovereignty
Q. 8
What steps will your party take to mitigate risks around increased costs and lowered supply security arising from current energy and climate policy settings?
-
ACT
29 April
ACT will have a comprehensive energy policy ahead of the election. We believe New Zealand needs to ensure that energy costs are affordable and stable, and that requires removing the ideological barriers to new generation, including enabling consenting and transmission investment across the country. We reject the notion that climate targets should override energy security and affordability for farmers and rural businesses
-
NZ First
13 May
Energy Sovereignty: Through the Regional Infrastructure Fund (RIF), we are investing heavily in energy security and sovereignty, including lifting the oil and gas ban, attracting new exploration, and expanding storage at Marsden Point.
Lowering Energy Costs: We will require electricity regulators to implement rules that ensure sufficient infrastructure to avoid excessive prices. We also advocate for fair pricing for solar energy put back into the grid. Recently, we have announced an election policy to overhaul the energy sector by splitting up the energy gentailers (generators and retailers) that would lower energy prices.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
Energy Policy: The best way to secure a nations prosperity is through energy policy. It is the position of the Conservative party that energy needs to be abundant, reliable, and affordable. Renewables have their place but should not favoured over reliable base load supply.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
Energy: The best way to secure a nation's prosperity is through energy policy. The current SOW control of energy must be restricted so energy is reliable and affordable for New Zealanders and local businesses. Individual and community self sufficiency should be encouraged. Renewables are part of the solution but should be assessed on their merits with other sources.
-
Labour
Not Addressed
Methane Research and AgriZero
Q. 9-10
What is your party position on the continued allocation of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding toward methane research, mitigation technologies, and associated commercial ventures such as AgriZero, premised on agriculture being treated as a climate problem requiring technological “cures”?
a. Will your party commit to ending or redirecting this funding, and
b. does your party accept that agricultural biological emissions require no technological “fix” and should instead be recognised as part of the natural biogenic carbon cycle and excluded from climate policy calculation and mitigation requirements?
-
ACT
29 April
Methane research and AgriZero
ACT believes all science research funding must demonstrate clear value to taxpayers. We have significant questions about whether AgriZero represents the best use of public money, and we are committed to reviewing the funding settings in this area, including examining what flexibility exists within current contractual arrangements, to ensure resources are directed where they deliver the greatest return.
ACT believes there is a strong case for redirecting research investment in this space toward building a more robust scientific understanding of the biogenic carbon cycle in the New Zealand farming context. Rather than funding solutions to a problem we are not convinced exists, we would rather the science settle the question definitively. We will look carefully at what options are available to us within existing commitments.
-
NZ First
13 May
AgriZero and Research Funding: We support reviewing AgriZero. Our view is that taxpayer funding might be better invested directly into New Zealand agricultural science and New Zealand-owned companies rather than commercial ventures premised on agriculture being a problem. We will continue to incentivise mitigations like low-methane genetics while ensuring farmers are free to use tools as they emerge.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
Methane Research and AgriZero: We do not support taxpayers' funds being used in this field of research. If private entities wish to continue in this field they can source funding elsewhere.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
Methane research and AgriZero
We do not support taxpayers' funds being used in this field of research. If private entities wish to continue in this field they can source funding elsewhere.
-
Labour
Not Addressed
Planning Bill &
Natural Environment Bill
Q. 11
Does your party support farm plans as government prescribed legislation and that it be mandatory?
-
ACT
29 April
ACT concurs that government and its bureaucracy have become dangerously disconnected from the practical realities of land ownership and productive use. The history of the RMA is a history of unworkable law imposed on property owners by people who have rarely, if ever, had to live under it. That is why ACT is committed in this term to passing a RMA reform which focused on property rights.
ACT campaigned on reducing the complexity and cost of freshwater farm plans, to ensure they were risk proportionate to the farming system, and that they were an alternative to a whole series of one-size-fits-all rules from Wellington that would have burdened particularly extensive farmers with high costs. That is precisely what we are delivering.
In this term of government, we have removed a number of freshwater rules that were heavy-handed. The latest example is the removal of stock exclusion rules around wetlands for extensive beef and deer farming, following on from removing stock exclusion rules for waterways on extensive properties.
We allowed the lapsing of rules preventing land use change, and a number of others — including winter grazing rules — all on the basis that these effects are better managed through freshwater farm plans.
We have also ensured that existing freshwater farm plans developed through industry schemes will be recognised as equivalent, so farmers won't face the situation under the previous government's version where they potentially needed two farm plans.
-
NZ First
13 May
NZ First believes that bureaucratic overreach has placed an unsustainable burden on landowners and local councils.
RMA Reform: We have repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act. The two new replacement bills are before the Environment Select Committee with their reports due in June 2026. We continue to engage with various stakeholders including rural communities to hear their concerns and reservations on the proposed changes.
Section 6 and Property Rights: We concur that Section 6 has been problematic. We have a stated policy of putting Property Rights into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and requiring full commercial compensation where rights are affected.
Catchment Groups vs. Regional Councils: We strongly support increasing support for QEII and catchment groups. We wish to see a return to pest and catchment boards to replace the current regional council model, focusing on active river and flood management.
Farm Plans: We support Farm Environment Plans but believe they should be administered at a catchment level and targeted towards farms over a certain threshold, rather than being a "one-size-fits-all" government mandate.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill
The Conservative Party does not support either the Planning Bill or Natural Environmental Bill in its current form. We agree the legislation is not a practical solution and is causing too many headaches for our primary producers.
We support revisiting this legislation to focus on improving environmental outcomes, making the legislation workable in a practical way, and to secure property owner rights.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
The NZ Outdoors & Freedom Party has lodged submissions to parliament opposing the Planning Bill and Natural Environmental Bill in their current form which is lose: lose for communities and farmers.
More thought is required especially for the privatisation of public resources to protect communities and family farms and other small businesses -
Labour
22 April
Bills replacing the RMA: The Planning Bill and The Natural Environment Bill are currently progressing at Select Committee.
Labour will release a formal Labour Party Differing View at the conclusion of this process.
Proposed Gene Technology Bill
Q. 12-16
Does your party support halting or pausing the Gene Technology Bill as it relates to agriculture?
What specific legislative, regulatory, or policy measures will your party commit to in order to protect New Zealand’s GE-free agricultural status and safeguard existing market access and price premiums for meat and dairy exports?
What trade impact assessments has your party undertaken regarding the potential effect of the Gene Technology Bill on market access and export premiums for New Zealand meat and dairy products?
If such risks are identified, will your party commit to halting or amending agricultural provisions of the Bill to protect existing export markets?
What long-term and multigenerational safety studies have been completed on the environmental release of GMOs, and how does your party intend to manage risk where such evidence is incomplete or absent?
-
ACT
29 April
ACT was closely involved in the select committee process for this Bill, hearing directly from affected communities, exporters, and industry groups. We believe science and innovation are essential to New Zealand's future prosperity, and that a modern, world-class regulatory framework for gene technology is something New Zealand cannot afford to be without.
ACT recognises that New Zealand's regulatory settings in this area have not kept pace with developments elsewhere in the world, and that there are real questions about what the right framework looks like. We are committed to ensuring those questions receive the thorough consideration they deserve.
ACT believes that market relationships built over many decades represent real value, and that any regulatory changes in this space must be designed with that value in mind. How those structures are best designed is a matter which should reflect the full range of New Zealand's interests.
During the select committee phase, ACT examined trade impact assessments from MBIE, the New Zealand Initiative, and the dairy sector. The evidence presented a range of views.
ACT is committed to getting this right. What "right" looks like will depend on how a number of important questions are resolved.
ACT acknowledges that the science in this area continues to evolve, and that the evidence base looks different depending on which studies, jurisdictions, and timeframes one considers.
-
NZ First
13 May
New Zealand First approaches the release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) with extreme caution.
Controlled Innovation: While we recognise potential benefits from GM procedures in medical or highly specific environmental contexts, we do not support the trialling of GE crops in the field due to unknown and potentially irreversible downstream consequences.
Protecting Market Access: Our basis for engagement with coalition partners has been to constrain gene tech release into the environment. We remain committed to protecting New Zealand’s reputation for GE-free primary production and will ensure that any legislative changes include strong protections for human health and the environment. We believe any magnitude of change must be approached with full consideration of trade implications and farmer consent.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
We oppose the current government's move to end the long-standing restrictions placed on field trials and the release of genetically modified organisms.
We consider that this proposal will overturn a societal consensus and such a decision should not be made without society-wide buy-in.
We note that to justify this proposal National and Act have turned to climate scaremongering, claiming we need genetically engineered organisms to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
We believe that this is an inappropriate use of technology—we should not be playing God and altering the natural makeup of organisms for no real environmental benefit—and these parties and their reliance on this justification shows there is no real case for change.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
We have lodged submissions opposing the Gene Technology Bill which proposed to end the long-standing restrictions placed on field trials and the release of genetically modified organisms.
We consider that this proposal will overturn a societal consensus and such a decision should not be made without society-wide buy-in ie "social licence" and without assessing the health, economic and environmental risks of the release of GMOs.
-
Labour
Inflationary Burden
(Rates, Power, Increased Costs)
Q. 17-18
What specific changes will your party make to energy and climate policy to prevent Paris Agreement-driven renewable mandates from continuing to increase electricity costs for farmers and rural businesses?
Which specific costs imposed on farmers — rates, electricity pricing, or regulatory compliance — will your party prioritise for reduction, and what policies will your party repeal or amend to deliver those reductions within its first term of government?
-
ACT
29 April
ACT believes that if Paris doesn't change, we must leave. Paris Agreement-driven renewable mandates are a direct contributor to rising electricity costs for farmers and rural businesses. ACT will oppose energy policies that sacrifice affordability and security on the altar of international climate commitments and will work to restore a generation and transmission environment that keeps costs down.
ACT will prioritise reducing electricity costs by removing ideologically driven barriers to new generation and enabling a more competitive energy market. On rates, we will work to restrain local government spending and oppose the expansion of regulatory functions that drive rates increases without delivering tangible value. On compliance costs, we will target the repeal of regulations that add cost without environmental benefit.
-
NZ First
13 May
Rural New Zealand should not carry a disproportionate share of the costs of climate policy.
Lowering Energy Costs: We will require electricity regulators to implement rules that ensure sufficient infrastructure to avoid excessive prices. We also advocate for fair pricing for solar energy put back into the grid. Recently, we have announced an election policy to overhaul the energy sector by splitting up the energy gentailers (generators and retailers) that would lower energy prices.
-
Conservatives.NZ
22 April
Reduce the size of government. We cannot continue the level of government spending.
Reduce taxation. The New Zealand citizen can spend their money far better than the government can.
Encourage self-reliance.
Make use of New Zealand's fossil fuels and minerals (including our own oil refinery). Investigate the procurement of our own oil tankers, which secures oil transportation and adds to our floating storage capacity.Bring back New Zealand manufacturing.
-
Outdoors & Freedom
2 May
We promote self sufficiency and empowering local people and communities in health and other decisions. We promote the use of cash and a local circular economy for thriving local communities.
Reduce the size of the government. We oppose globalist interference in local and national decision making.
Reduce taxation. New Zealand citizens can spend their money far better than the government can.
Encourage self-reliance. Make appropriate use of New Zealand's fossil fuels and minerals for the benefit of local communities (including our own oil refinery). Investigate the procurement of our own oil tankers, which secures oil transportation and adds to our floating storage capacity.
Bring back New Zealand manufacturing.
-
Labour
22 April
Our Labour Caucus has undertaken significant work this term to engage directly with rural communities, and we understand that the issues raised in this letter are among the priority areas for rural New Zealand.
— Conservative: received 22 April - (also published online)
— Labour: received 22 April
— ACT: received 29 April
— Outdoors and Freedom: received 2 May,
— NZ First: received 13 May — At this time, National, Greens and Maori Party have not provided a response.
— Labour states issues raised are currently being considered within their Caucus, indicating they are happy to answer questions more specifically when their Manifesto is released.