The ACT Party's rural spokesperson sets out how they would approach emissions control in the rural sector and square it with our international obligations

This week ACT Primary Industries Spokesperson Mark Cameron discusses some of the key issues farmers are facing and what the ACT Party would do if it was part of a coalition government after the election on October 14, 2023

We started by talking about the Biodiversity National Policy Statement and in particular SNA’s (designated Significant Natural Areas). Cameron says it comes back to property rights, and he has seen huge angst when he’s been at public meetings up and down the country, especially in places like the West Coast of the South Island.

He maintains there's a better way of addressing this issue; ACT would primarily scrap SNA’s. They would scrap them because they believe it would help investment at a local level and they would create an incentive for those that wanted to continue to invest, and improve sustainable outcomes on farm by creating a $10 million a year contestable fund that would be an annualised fund at local councils.

“By virtue of what we've seen in other jurisdictions around the world, now I use the UK as an example, property values have actually gone up when farmers had a contestable fund that they can access to further invest in things like the Queen Elizabeth Trust that we've got here. Significant natural areas as proposed erode property rights, and as the party that puts property rights as one of its core tenets, we see a better way forward. Protect property rights, help farmers and landowners invest rather than disincentivise them and create animus between councils and landowners. We think that's a better way than what is currently is proposed.”

ACT were the only party to vote against the zero carbon bill and if elected will throw out the HWEN proposal and any pricing on Ag emissions.

“We've been very clear on this, we neither want to be a country that falls into martyrdom on the international stage for the sake of international plaudits, or equally be a pariah when we were a trading nation at the bottom of the world with the odd billion dollars off stuff that goes north of here. We have said in terms of HWEN and potential emissions pricing scheme, is that we should tie our emissions pricing scheme alongside our major five major trading partner partners when they move, we move by virtue of doing that we neither risk productivity leakage offshore, and see the region's become productively poorer. And by virtue, worse than the environmental outcomes, this is a global problem. And as a trading nation we've got to play our part but equally, it cannot be on the back of say for example the one fifth of wool growers and sheep meat farmers that may go out of business as they would if HWEN as proposed was adopted by the present government. So we think there's a better way forward. If we agree today as do our detractors and our other trading partners, by the emissions footprint by kilo of animal protein, New Zealand farmers are the most emissions friendly farmers in the world. Let's keep doing what we're doing but not risk productivity leakage, we'll continue to innovate with farmers and growers around the country have continued for decades to do that. But it must not be at the risk of productivity and productivity leakage offshore.”

So what about Carbon Farming and afforestation, would ACT go further that what the National Party laid out this week?

“It's a really good question. It's a topical one. I mean carbon farming hurts communities. We know this, we've seen that up and down rural New Zealand businesses shutting, productivity diminishing. The wider issue is whether it's foreign or domestic, local productivity and jobs are lost out of it we acknowledge all that. I think the wider conversation is we've got to level up the playing field. It's jilted in favour of carbon farming. And that's clearly evident in our forests subsidies that create an environment that those that would want to carbon farm or go into forestry, $4,000 a hectare, Let's get rid of those for a start, get rid of this disingenuous playing field that favours forestry and carbon farming especially over other farm practices. The lack of credits for on farm sequestration is something that comes up a lot with me; gracious me, I see all manner of sequestration on my own land, and I'm a pragmatist and by virtue I see it all over the country when I go around my public meetings, covered in the covenant sequestration. Yet we don't give it the scientific accreditation it deserves. And I think this is a big one. There's a lack of access for foreign credits offshore, why is it that we as a country have 100% allowable offsets in our own country. So if the argument has been that we continue to pollute as long as we afforest out back yards, but we cannot buy those carbon credits at a lower price offshore, we invariably seek to afforest to reduce our emissions footprint and maintain serviceability and productivity. The problem is, those two realities are in competition with each other."

"So I think the argument has always been how do we keep our carbon price low in such a degree that it incentivises investment offshore, not just inside our own jurisdiction or boundary. I think you address those issues. And this is the elephant in the room right, we actually take the heat out of the metaphorical engine. We've seen a downturn in the carbon price, but I mean that will wax and wane if it had gone the other way. Coupled to all theses other issues in and around as I say this jilted playing field, we will see continued afforestation whether it's foreign or domestic and that's only going to hurt productivity in rural New Zealand. I've seen it quoted by many now, saying, hey, look we risk seeing one of our meatworks go as an example, then by virtue schools go and service industries go as well. We know this stuff is hurting rural New Zealand. What checks and balances should be put in place that one doesn’t erode property rights, but equally protect our rural communities? I think that's the wider issue. And that hasn't yet been canvassed fully by the National Party, or anyone.”

Listen to the podcast to hear the full story

Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.