ACT's Rural Campaign: What 'Make Farming Fun Again' Would Mean
ACT launched its rural election campaign on 20 September with a promise to "make farming fun again". RNZ
Agriculture spokesperson Andrew Hoggard fronted the launch. He said the party wanted to keep Wellington out of farming. ACT says Hoggard has farmed for more than 20 years.
The pitch is conditional. ACT says it would carry out the commitments only if it is part of the government after 7 November. Its release, titled 'ACT will make farming fun again', lists six pledges. ACT
On planning law, ACT said it would remove Te Mana o te Wai — the requirement to put the health of water first — from resource consenting, the council permission process for land and water use. It said it would push for a National Policy Direction and National Standards under the new planning system, grounded in property rights rather than left to councils to decide case by case.
On climate law, ACT said it would scrap the Zero Carbon Act and end Net Zero targets. It described that climate policy as policy that "adds nothing but costs" to the economy. New Zealand Herald It said it was "prepared to reconsider" New Zealand's place in the Paris Agreement, the international climate deal, if New Zealand could not secure a fair deal. It did not commit to withdrawing.
The other pledges cover land use, workers and policing. ACT proposed targeted grazing on suitable DOC land, a Rural Workforce Visa for farm and rural workers, and more police patrol hours in rural areas. ACT presents them as practical fixes for farm businesses and rural communities, not as a wider rewrite of conservation, immigration or policing settings.
Looking at what this could mean after the election, the structure matters more than the slogan. Conditional pledges like these work as opening bids. They show potential coalition partners where ACT intends to draw lines, and give its negotiators named items to trade or hold. The planning and climate pledges are the substantive asks, while the visa, grazing and patrol-hours pledges speak more directly to farm costs and rural services.
The broader context here is how much control Wellington should have. Removing Te Mana o te Wai from consenting, basing national direction on property rights, and repealing domestic climate laws point to lighter central controls and more discretion for landholders. The practical questions are how consenting, national direction and emissions rules would work together if parts of the package were adopted, and where the friction would sit in coalition talks.
