NZ First has pledged to invest an initial $1 billion into a national survey fund for oil and gas exploration of deep sea basins around New Zealand, framing the policy as a fuel security measure (RNZ).

Leader Winston Peters announced the policy at NZ First's campaign launch, saying fuel security and supply was one of the most concerning issues facing New Zealand. Peters said New Zealand potentially held Norway-scale energy prospects which had never been properly surveyed, and that within six years the country could have a pathway to own and control its own supply of energy (RNZ).

The party's proposed royalty regime would place a royalty above 50 percent on all extractions as production matured (RNZ).

Greenpeace chief executive Russel Norman said the billion-dollar pledge should instead be spent on investing in renewable electricity generation. Norman described the fund as a gamble that would not guarantee lower power prices (RNZ).

Norman said demand for oil and gas in New Zealand and worldwide was dropping, citing electrification of transport in China (RNZ).

National energy spokesperson Simeon Brown said Peters and Shane Jones had supported a ban on oil and gas exploration when in government with Jacinda Ardern (RNZ).

According to Greenpeace, New Zealand spent around $7 billion importing petrol and diesel for land transport in 2025 (Greenpeace). The organisation says New Zealand's electricity system is already mostly powered by renewable energy such as hydro, while around 60 percent of the country's total energy use still comes from fossil fuels (Greenpeace).

The policy revives a fault line that has run through New Zealand politics since the 2018 oil and gas exploration ban outside onshore Taranaki. Brown's response points to the coalition dynamics at play: Peters and Jones sat inside a Labour-led government that imposed the ban, and are now campaigning to reverse course. That record gives opponents a ready line of attack and will likely feature in any coalition negotiation should NZ First hold the balance of power after the election.

Peters' framing borrows from Norway's model, where the state takes a direct stake in petroleum resources and channels royalties into a sovereign wealth fund. The proposed royalty rate above 50 percent would, if implemented, sit at the high end of international comparisons. Whether the geological premise holds is a separate question; Peters' claim that New Zealand's deep sea basins have never been properly surveyed is an assertion about data coverage that would need testing against the existing prospectivity work carried out by New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals and predecessor agencies.

Norman's counter-argument rests on a different reading of where energy security actually lies. Greenpeace's position is that the $1 billion would deliver more for fuel security if directed into renewable generation, given that the electricity system is already largely renewable and that transport electrification is reducing demand for imported liquid fuels. The $7 billion annual import bill for petrol and diesel gives that argument political weight, though the scale of investment needed to materially shift the transport fleet's energy source extends well beyond a single billion-dollar fund.

The six-year timeline Peters cited for a pathway to energy sovereignty is notable for its brevity. Deep sea exploration, appraisal, and development cycles typically run well beyond that horizon, even where commercial discoveries are made. The pledge conflates survey work with production outcomes, and the policy as described would fund seismic and geological surveying rather than extraction itself. Royalties would only flow once production matured, which under most industry timelines would fall outside the six-year window Peters referenced.

What this amounts to in coalition terms is a positioning statement rather than a near-term spending commitment. NZ First is signalling where it would push in negotiations, and the $1 billion figure sets a benchmark for what it would ask of a future government. The royalty regime is the element most likely to attract industry attention, since it would directly affect the economics of any future extraction.

Both sides are trading on the same underlying concern: New Zealand's reliance on imported liquid fuels. The disagreement is about the remedy. Peters points to domestic hydrocarbon resources as the answer. Norman points to renewables and electrification. The $7 billion import figure is the shared factual ground that makes both arguments politically resonant.