Labour leader Chris Hipkins says farming emissions policy ‘under review'
Hipkins made the remarks ahead of the agriculture trade show, Fieldays, which is this week.
Hipkins said he remained committed to the overall goal of reducing emissions but Labour was 'not committed to a particular way of doing that at this point'.
He said there were 'technological solutions as well' to fixing the agricultural emissions problem.
'There is fantastic science happening in New Zealand funded by the last Labour Government about how we can... reduce methane emissions through more sustainable farming practice,' he said.
Labour has supported agriculture going into the ETS, or some form of agriculture being in the ETS, since it created the scheme in 2008.
What is currently unclear is the extent to which the policy is under review. Labour, since being turfed out of government, has put its entire policy platform under review.
Some policies may re-emerge from the review in a similar form to the 2023 manifesto, while others may be very different.
The only guide is the party's policy platform, which acts as a constraint on what the party's candidates can campaign on.
The Fifth Labour Government created the ETS in 2008. The responsible Minister David Parker, who retired from politics this year, structured the scheme so sectors of the economy entered it gradually.
Agriculture was set to enter the scheme in 2013, but the Fifth National Government amended the legislation, keeping agriculture out.
At the time, Prime Minister John Key cited concerns New Zealand's trading partners were not taking climate change seriously and putting agriculture in the ETS would make New Zealand farmers less competitive.
Labour consistently tried to bring agriculture into the scheme, forcing the sector to pay a price for its emissions, although Labour only ever proposed a heavily discounted price.
In 2017, Labour campaigned on slowly bringing the sector into the ETS, at a discounted rate of 90%, meaning farmers would only pay 10% of the prevailing emissions price.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern with, from left, ministers James Shaw, Damien O'Connor and Kieran McAnulty, announcing the new farm emissions plan. Photo / Mark Mitchell
In coalition negotiations with NZ First this discount was lifted to 95% along with other caveats.
Later, the He Waka Eke Noa process was launched to work out a separate emissions pricing solution for agriculture to begin in 2025. If that work fell apart, agriculture would have entered the ETS as a backstop.
The proposal the government decided on, accepted most of He Waka Eke Noa, but rejected some significant ideas, like giving the sector a large say in its own emissions price.
National initially backed He Waka Eke Noa, but later pulled away. In 2023 National promised not to put agriculture in the ETS and no emissions price until 2030.
The current coalition government ended He Waka Eke Noa and removed the backstop.
The latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, published by the Ministry for the Environment using StatsNZ figures showed agriculture was responsible for 53% of New Zealand's gross greenhouse gas emissions.
The bulk of these are from methane, which is a short-lived gas. The fact it is short-lived has seen an argument mounted by the Government that it should be treated differently to long-lived gasses.
The challenge for policymakers is that lifting the burden for emissions reduction from agriculture generally means pushing down more heavily on other sectors.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
ACT Attempts To Fix Broken Remuneration Disclosure Bill
'Last night ACT proposed a series of common-sense amendments to Labour MP Camilla Belich's broken Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill, to make it more workable for businesses and employees entering into voluntary agreements with one another,' says ACT's Small Business spokesperson Laura McClure. 'The Bill, without clear rationale, inserts the Government into every employment agreement in the country – telling workers and employers that they are unable to freely come to mutually beneficial agreements that work for them. 'This raises serious privacy concerns, diminishes workplace flexibility, and poses a real risk to harmony in the workplace by encouraging resentment and comparison between colleagues. It also threatens commercially sensitive information and creates legal uncertainty for employers trying to do the right thing. 'ACT did not support the Bill, which undermines the freedom of consenting adults to form contracts, but my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar and I proposed practical amendments to minimise the harm it would cause.' The changes ACT proposed included: Restricting disclosure rights to within the same workplace – so employees could only disclose their own remuneration to colleagues who work for the same organisation, not to competitors, journalists, or the wider public. Protecting employee privacy – by prohibiting an employee from disclosing another employee's pay without that person's express consent. Preventing bad-faith disclosures – by ensuring only disclosures made in good faith are protected, so that attempts to weaponise pay information to harm employers or other staff aren't shielded by law. Excluding performance-based pay – such as bonuses and commissions from the definition of 'remuneration', recognising that these are often highly individualised, sensitive, and commercially confidential. Delaying the Bill's commencement by 12 months – to give businesses and industry bodies time to understand the law, adapt policies, and educate their members. 'These amendments would have preserved a worker's ability to disclose their own pay while protecting the privacy of others and the ability of businesses to operate fairly and competitively. Labour, National and the Greens refused to support any of them," says McClure. 'ACT believes in freedom of contract, the right to privacy, and the value of trusting people to make their own arrangements. This Bill tramples on all three. New Zealanders deserve better than another law that treats adults like children and businesses like villains.'


Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Oil and gas exploration ban repeal passes final reading
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts. Photo: RNZ The government's repeal of the 2018 oil and gas exploration ban has passed its final reading in Parliament. The legislation had been set down for Tuesday night, but was delayed after a last-minute amendment to change the rules around liability for the clean-up of decommissioned oil and gas fields. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts stood in for Resources Minister Shane Jones, saying the ban has pushed power prices up. "The ban sent a chilling message to the investment community, halting the very exploration that underpins our energy security, and leading directly to the supply constraints and price volatility that we see today." Labour's Megan Woods said the repeal of the ban was a "very potent symbol of the shambles that this government is when it comes to energy policy," and that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon "is leading a government that is so far out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders and more intent at doing the bidding of multinational oil and gas companies". The bill passed 68 votes to 54, with all coalition parties in support and the opposition parties opposed.


The Spinoff
11 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: The interminable rage of Chlöe Swarbrick
The exasperated Greens co-leader reached the end of her tether as parliament debated nurses' pay, homelessness, Palestinian statehood and voting rights. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. No one could ever accuse Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick of not caring about her job. The Auckland Central MP, who was first elected to parliament at the age of 23, has always had a passionate sense of justice. In many ways, that's her superpower. But also… damn, try not to give yourself a heart attack. Caring deeply about things is hard work, and Swarbrick cares about a lot of things. It looks exhausting. No MP puts more energetic fury into question time than Swarbrick – and she reached peak exasperation in Wednesday's session. She shouted constant commentary at government ministers, righteous outrage boiling in her blood and steaming out of her ears. Things kicked off with Marama Davidson asking the prime minister why Te Whatu Ora hired only 45% of nursing graduates, even though 16 health districts were understaffed. 'Well, I'd just say they are all understaffed today,' Christopher Luxon replied. 'Excuse me??' Swarbrick interjected. Luxon continued, emphasising that nurses' pay had increased by 74% since 2011. 'But what have you done?' Swarbrick shouted. Davidson asked when the government would recognise Palestinian statehood, and Luxon replied with some generic words about diplomacy and dialogue and making sure Hamas releases hostages. 'You know the hostages have been offered back,' Swarbrick chirped, leaning back against the keffiyeh on her chair. When it was Swarbrick's turn to take the stand, she grilled Luxon on Auckland Council data that showed a 90% increase in rough sleeping since the government's changes to emergency housing. She asked whether he could come to Auckland Central and 'meet the people that he has made homeless'. Luxon pivoted to blaming the 'previous Labour-Greens government [when] homelessness went up 37%'. When Luxon finds himself stuck or short-circuiting into NatGPT mode, ministers will often try to dig him out with a friendly question. Winston Peters took the first crack: 'Could the prime minister name just one thing the local MP in Auckland Central is doing about homelessness?' Government MPs giggled, and Swarbrick's rage grew. Her head almost looked like it was vibrating. Before Luxon had a chance to respond, she jumped to her feet in indignation and sought leave of the house to answer the question. Multiple National MPs objected, and speaker Gerry Brownlee dropped it. Tama Potaka took a second crack, asking the prime minister to confirm a housing report that found that 'the increase in homelessness cannot be attributed just to changes in the emergency housing gateway and they may actually be reflective of broader economic and social contexts'. 'Yeah, you!' Swarbrick gestured at the government benches, 'they blame you!' Brownlee gave her a wee telling-off – 'you cannot yell out across the House like that. If it continues, it'll be an early afternoon' – but nothing was stopping the Swarbrick rage train. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer asked Luxon about whether he would expel the Israeli ambassador. Luxon gave a bland answer about the importance of maintaining diplomatic relationships. Swarbrick heckled 'just words' and 'you heard of Russia?' (While in opposition, National called for the government to expel the Russian ambassador over the invasion of Ukraine.) Ngarewa-Packer turned her focus to the government's proposed electoral reforms that would end on-the-day voting enrolment. Luxon defended the policy, saying people would merely have to enrol 13 days before the election, which is half of the 26-day deadline in Australia. 'They have compulsory voting!' Swarbrick yelled, 'Who do you work for?' Ngarewa-Packer raised allegations that hundreds of Māori voters appeared to have been removed from the voting roll in the past 24 hours. Luxon again insisted that anyone, Māori or non-Māori, just needs to register 13 days before the election. 'Did you listen to the question?' Swarbrick asked. Once again, Luxon referenced the shorter enrolment period in Australia, and Swarbrick, even louder, yelled, 'They have compulsory voting!' With the final question, Ngarewa-Packed asked if Luxon would commit to delaying the reforms until he could ensure 'that he will not disenfranchise hundreds of thousands more Māori and Pasifika voters who have followed all the correct procedures?' Luxon dismissed her concern. 'I reject outright the characterisation of that question.' Across the room, on the verge of pulling out her hair, Swarbrick harrumphed: 'You don't care.'