The forestry sector is calling for a cap on rates increases after one forestry blocks rates bill went up 570 percent in a year.

The 1100-hectare block near Wairoa managed by agri-advisory firm Lewis Tucker was originally farmland but was bought in 2019 and planted in pines in 2020.

Lewis Tucker said in July last year the Wairoa District Council lifted the annual rates bill from $30,000 a year to $200,000.

The company has submitted on the government’s proposal to simplify local government.

In its submission, it said while it broadly supported the intent to simplify local government it urged limits on differential rates were critical for business confidence.

Executive director Colin Jacobs said the 570 percent rates increase on that one forestry block amounts to $5 million over the lifetime of the forest.

“There’s been no reason given to us as to why a forestry company should pay such large differential rates, what costs are we causing that justifies that increased rate.”

He said the rates increase raised questions about the financial viability of the forest.

“While there has been no explanation for the increase, the assumption is that the extra $5m that this property will now pay in rates over the life of the forest will go to pay for the impact of forestry on roads come harvest time.

“However, Wairoa District Council has applied the differential rating only to forests planted after 31 December 1989, not those planted earlier.

“This suggests that the council’s concern is not the impact of forestry on roading, as a differential rate is being applied only to forests registered in the ETS,” Lewis Tucker’s submission said.

It said there will not be a harvest truck anywhere near this property for at least 25 years.

The company is calling for a cap on or doing away with entirely the amount councils can charge in relation to different land use.

“A cap on rates increases will not prevent exorbitant rates increases for industries targeted by differentials.”

Wairoa District Council’s forestry differentials were changed in 2022 following a review, which sought to better recognise the negative impacts caused by forestry, particularly the hollowing out of rural communities as farmland is converted.

The Forest Owner’s Association unsuccessfully challenged this by Judicial Review in the High Court with the Court of Appeal upholding the council’s rating review.

Association chief executive Dr Elizabeth Heeg said it would like a “soft cap” on differential rates.

“Foresters just want to be a fair member of the community, there are times when it’s appropriate to have differential rates but having a differential where the rates are going up over 500 percent is not fair.

“We’ll be proposing a soft cap that is accompanied by the introduction of good taxation principals and to local government legislation to ensure that when councils are rating us that its based on an actual need in the community and that it’s not just a differential that’s just a secondary form of regulation.”

Wairoa District Council’s chief executive Matt Lawson said the increase in rates related to the change in land use, with the property categorised as vacant forestry before the 2024 Quotable Value revaluation saw it reclassified as exotic forestry.

He said most benefits arising from forestry go out of Wairoa – wages, profits, and opportunities – while, Wairoa was left with the challenge of rural roads impacted by heavy logging trucks.

Meanwhile, Local Government New Zealand has said the proposal to cap rates could undermine efforts to strengthen emergency management.

LGNZ president Rehette Stoltz said while the government has included proposed variations to rates caps for unforeseen and urgent situations, as they are proposed to be primarily available only after a significant event, it limits councils’ ability to invest proactively in reducing risk.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

From growing a few Christmas trees “for fun”, to a diverse range of towering exotics and natives – there’s a bit of everything at Tāmata Hauhā’s demonstration farm outside Palmerston North.

“One of the reasons we created this farm is because farmers actually want to come have a look,” founder and chief executive Blair Jamieson told Country Life.

Launched in 2021, Tāmata Hauhā works primarily with Māori land owners to provide strategies and funding to develop their land holdings and make the land more productive, mainly through forestry.

It provides the finance for purchasing trees, preparing the land, planting the trees and managing the forest created, as well as carrying out all the administration.

Follow Country Life on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart or wherever you get your podcasts.

They grow about 46 exotic and 30 native species of trees across three farm sites.

“You can come here and see nearly every type of forestry system that can be applied.

“We’ve even got silvopasture agroforestry systems behind us, which show you how you can actually continue to graze and actually run a farm and stock underneath those trees.”

With adequate spacing between the trees, Jamieson said the systems also enable farmers to generate carbon credits which offer extra profit through the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

They also offer added benefits like shade and shelter for the stock.

Many of the trees on the farm were planted in 2022 and 2023 – already many stand several metres tall.

There are various types of eucalyptus, elm, paulownia, cypress and poplar, along with different types of pine.

Jamieson said seeing the trees next to each other and understanding their growth helps land-owners in decision-making.

“We support them by saying ‘here is how much you get protected for this type of structuring. Here’s the the native integration you can have for this type of species’.

“I mean, ‘here’s the other options if you wanted to go down the alternative timber production route’.”

While there’s a push to move away from pinus radiata, Jamieson is not totally opposed to it.

“There are a number of people out there in this space who are, you know, just carbon-focused – all about the yield, don’t care what they plant.

“They just want the carbon for the coin and that has led to a number of, you know, outcomes which in the long term are not going to be very good. There’s going to be a lot of pine forests.”

His primary concern is how well these pine forests will be managed, particularly when it comes to large monoculture conversions.

While the Government has introduced tweaks to try and address some of these issues, Jamieson said this had also created uncertainty in the sector.

His view was that pine should be removed from the permanent category in the ETS.

“Encouraging the right type of forestry regimes is all that is needed to actually fix the underlying problem to stop mass farm conversions into pine.

“But that being said […] you can see some of the trees over across the river here are three to four times taller than pine planted at the same age and when you equate that I can actually go into those areas and plant 75 percent native trees, that will stratify and become the dominant canopy over time, I’ll get you there and you’ll make more money than pine and you won’t have the problems and you got more jobs.”

Jamieson said some of their systems, on a per-hectare basis, could create more jobs than farming.

He said it was about using “the right exotic to perform a job for a period of time to enable native growth”.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The Government has today passed changes setting a new sensible biogenic methane target, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay and Climate Change Minister Simon Watts say.

The Climate Change Response (2050 Target and Other Matters) Amendment Bill passed its third reading today.

It updates the biogenic methane component of New Zealand’s 2050 climate target and makes several other changes to ensure climate legislation remains fit for purpose.

“The Government announced in October its common-sense approach to setting a science-based biogenic methane target for 2050, and today we have delivered,” Mr McClay says.

“The changes we’ve made provide farmers and exporters with certainty and a clear pathway to reduce emissions.

“At the same time, we can maintain productivity and trade competitiveness.”

The Government is committed to New Zealand’s domestic and international climate change commitments and agriculture will continue to make an important and fair contribution to achieving this reduction.

“Our methane targets must be practical for famers, because a climate solution that shuts down farms and sends production overseas to less efficient systems, is not a solution at all,” Mr Watts says.

“We need to ensure that we are supporting our farmers. That’s why the Government’s approach to reducing agriculture emissions is clear – through technology and partnership we will deliver the reductions we need.”

This Government is backing innovative technology to meet the target and is already investing more than $400 million with industry to speed up the development and roll-out of methane-cutting tools. The first is expected on farm in 2026, with up to 11 available by 2030.

The amendments:

• Reset biogenic methane target to 14-24 percent below 2017 levels by 2050.
• Legislate a review of the methane target in 2040 to ensure its alignment with science and against progress of key trading partners.
• Requires consideration of protecting food production when setting emissions budgets.
• Removes the requirement for ETS settings to accord with NDCs, clarifying the purpose of the ETS as our key tool to drive domestic emissions reductions.
• Defer the fourth emissions budget as more time is needed to reflect the updated 2050 target.

Passing this Bill also confirms the Government’s decision to retain the current Net Zero target for long-lived gasses.

“We carefully considered the Climate Change Commission’s proposal to shift the target from net zero to net-negative, assessing the potential impacts on both the economy and the climate. We found that strengthening the target would come at undue economic cost and therefore have retained gasses,” Mr Watts says.

“Our latest projections show that we are on track to meet the net zero target eight years ahead of 2050.”

The Government has passed this Bill under urgency to provide certainty for the agriculture sector. 

“The debate over targets has gone on for far too long, and it is now time to move from discussion to action,” Mr McClay says.

“This decision has been clearly signalled. It was a coalition commitment, and we have maintained transparency throughout the independent methane review.”

MIL OSI

In the balmy greenhouses of Rainbow Park Nurseries, orchids bloom in perfect rows – a picture of calm that hides how close the operation came to crisis.

The South Auckland business – which grows houseplants and trees for major retailers – has just finished a $2.5 million project to get off natural gas. An army of industrial heat pumps now feed two giant hot-water tanks, keeping the glasshouses at up to 28°C through winter nights.

Manager Andrew Tayler is blunt: without public money, it would not have happened.

“We were very lucky we got the funding,” Tayler says. “If we didn’t, we probably would have thrown waste-oil burners on the front of the boilers and walked away.”

Rainbow Park was one of the last companies to receive a major grant from the government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund before new rounds were frozen and the scheme was branded “corporate welfare” by the coalition. EECA covered roughly a third of the cost – about $880,000 – with the nursery borrowing and doing much of the installation work itself.

With no local examples to learn from, the company relied heavily on the advice of suppliers and consultants – and a lot of hope.

“Bolting 32 heat pumps together and putting them into two enormous hot-water tanks… it was a leap of faith,” Tayler says. “But if we hadn’t, we’d still be in the cycle of sweating every year about the gas – are they going to supply us, what is the price going to be, how is that going to affect our business?”

Rainbow employs more than 90 people. Doubling gas prices, he says, would have “hamstrung” the business. Instead, the nursery now buys certified zero-carbon electricity and uses the savings on its gas bill to pay down the new system.

“We’d have to do what some other businesses are doing – curtailing production, turning the heat off in some compartments, maybe laying off staff, changing what we grow,” Tayler says.

“I do feel like some of the guys that didn’t have the opportunities we have will be finding it very tough.”

Since Rainbow Park switched, the bottom has truly fallen out of New Zealand’s gas market. Supplies are collapsing faster than expected. Long-term contracts have become scarce and expensive.

Factories that rely on gas now find themselves in a strange limbo – unable to secure long-term supply, facing steep price rises, but with little guidance or public funding to help them make massive, costly decisions about their energy future.

The result, energy experts and businesses warn, is a “forced transition”: a messy, unmanaged exit from fossil fuels that risks shuttering plants, hollowing out regional economies and pushing up prices for everyone else.

“Energy transitions work better when people have time to see the signals and make informed decisions,” says energy analyst Richard Hobbs, a partner at Boston Consulting group. “When shocks arrive unexpectedly and timeframes are short – that’s when you get the really bumpy situations.”

‘We’ve been backed into a corner’

In Bay of Plenty, Whakatāne Growers heats four hectares of capsicum and chilli glasshouses with a mix of coal and gas. The plan had been to get off coal and move fully onto gas – cleaner and easier to run, with captured CO₂ helping lift yields by up to 20 percent.

Instead, site manager and co-owner Michael Simpson is stuck.

A year and a half ago, the company went to renew its gas contract. Their existing supplier could not even offer one. Two other offers came back – at 40-50 percent higher prices.

“There’s two main issues,” Simpson says. “Supply – it’s never a good thing to not know how the future is going to look – and cost. Gas prices have just exploded, and no one’s had the opportunity to make the best decisions for their business. You’ve got to rush now.”

Whakatāne Growers still runs its gas boiler, but has had to dial back temperatures, focus on efficiency and lean harder on coal.

“We never really stopped using coal, but we didn’t go any further with transitioning away from it – more or less because we didn’t have any option,” he says.

The business has looked seriously at geothermal paired with heat pumps. The numbers were “insane”.

“The capital required was absolutely mind-blowing,” Simpson says. “And with electricity prices going up as well, the running costs were going to be the same, or more. You’re kind of between a rock and a hard place.”

With clear signals and a runway, he says, they could have plotted a path.

“Ten years would have been a lot. If there’d been a clear signal: ‘By this date, you won’t be able to run on gas,’ we could have planned. Instead it feels like gas prices have just exploded with little to no warning.”

Without support, many growers and manufacturers, he says, are simply absorbing the costs, passing some on to consumers and hoping something changes.

“Ultimately, if New Zealand businesses have been backed into this corner, to stay productive and operating we’re going to need some help to transition,” he says. “It’s all good and well to say you’ve got to transition. But if the capital outlay is going to kill half the businesses in the country – and the gas prices kill the other half – what are we going to be left with?”

No silver bullets here

New Zealand’s exit from gas was meant to be more orderly than this.

Under the previous government, officials had started work on a Gas Transition Plan, consulting on how to phase down gas while keeping the lights on. The idea was to map out which uses should be prioritised, when new supply would taper off, and how to avoid simply swapping gas for coal when shortages hit.

Alongside it, the GIDI fund helped pay for the hardware needed to switch: electric boilers, high-temperature heat pumps, biomass boilers, and efficiency upgrades in factories, schools and hospitals.

The goal was not only to reduce dependence on a fuel in decline – it was to cut emissions. Gas is one of the biggest sources of industrial climate pollution, and GIDI was designed to help firms shift, to help meet our climate goals.

That has now flipped: decarbonisation has become the bonus, with the driver keeping businesses running as supply worsens.

That dual purpose – climate and energy security – is what a “managed transition” was meant to balance.

The current government parked that process. It had its own plan: the idea of “market-led” transition: where the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and price signals will, over time, make fossil fuels too expensive and clean alternatives more attractive. Ministers have argued that public subsidies distort markets, and say a market-led transition will deliver lower costs over time.

The problem is, since they made that decision none of the markets involved have been behaving the way textbooks say they should.

Gas prices for industry have already doubled on average over five years, but new supply is still shrinking and exploration is yet to restart. At the same time, electricity prices are historically high, and security margins are tightening as gas-fired stations age and new renewables lag demand.

Further, the ETS carbon price has slumped, with multiple auctions failing to clear, weakening the incentive to invest in lower-emissions technology.

“There’s enough evidence already to show that the market is demonstrably not working,” Optima energy consultant Martin Gummer says. “If the market was right, then as prices have gone up there’d be more gas coming on stream. The opposite is happening.”

In that context, a “market-led” transition risks becoming no transition at all.

And as a result, the country faces the worst of both worlds: emissions stay high while businesses face shortages and huge energy bills.

‘The bottom has fallen out of the gas market’

The scale of what might yet happen if New Zealand can not get its energy crisis under control was laid out last month in “Energy to Grow”, a report by Boston Consulting Group for the four main gentailers.

Some of the facts are now well-trodden: New Zealand’s gas supply has fallen around 45 percent in six years. Domestic production now sits below underlying demand. But BCG did future projections too, finding the gas gap is set to worsen rapidly. In one scenario, demand exceeds available gas by roughly 10 petajoules (PJ) in 2026, and double that in 2027.

Even if big users such as Methanex and Ballance curtail production or exit entirely by 2027, their 28 PJ of demand is not enough to restore balance later in the decade. The market is still short.

In a dry year, the picture is worse. Gas-fired power stations need more fuel to back up hydro lakes, soaking up any spare supply that might otherwise go to industry. BCG warns that without better planning, “industrial demand destruction” – companies shutting or relocating because they can’t secure fuel – could begin as early as 2026.

Earlier advice to ministers from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the Electricity Authority (EA) underlines how tight it has become. In July, officials were asked by Resources Minister Shane Jones whether New Zealand could burn more coal at Huntly so gas could be diverted to struggling factories.

On paper, yes: Huntly can run more on coal. In practice, both agencies say, doing so would push up power prices and increase the risk of shortages, especially in a dry winter. The “spare” coal units at Huntly are not spare at all; they are the emergency reserve that keeps the system stable when lakes are low or gas plants fail.

In other words – any extra gas for industry has to come from somewhere else.

“This is a serious and complex problem,” Gummer says. “You can’t just pull one lever and think it will be a silver bullet. The government has to pull all the levers it possibly can.”

Fear of the unknown: Businesses don’t know when, or how to jump

For many businesses, the result of the gas shortage has been a state of paralysis.

In a survey of 66 industrial gas users earlier this year, consultancy Optima found strong concern about future availability and pricing, with “low ability to transition in the short term”. Twenty-five percent of respondents had already raised prices to pass on fuel costs; 14 percent had reduced production; eight percent had cut staff.

Of 55 firms, 28 believed they could fully or partly replace their gas use within about three years – but only with help on consents and capital. Together, they could cut demand by about 4.8 PJ a year. The combined capital bill was estimated at $532 million; most said some co-funding would be needed to make the numbers stack up.

The remaining 23 businesses said they could not get off gas within five years and needed a longer runway of up to 15 years.

The Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) commissioned qualitative research with 25 small and medium gas users – coffee roasters, brewers, pet-food makers, plastics moulders, hothouse growers and others.

It found many run specialist equipment with no cheap, like-for-like electric alternative.

Transitioning often means ripping out perfectly functional gas technology, investing heavily in heat pumps or biomass boilers, and in many cases – like at Rainbow Park – paying for expensive grid upgrades just to get enough power to their site.

The single biggest barrier those businesses identified was uncertainty: about how long gas will be available, if there will be rationing, how high prices will go, whether exploration will restart, whether a promised investment into LNG will arrive, and what happens if they jump early and the government later props the gas market up.

“We never considered the risk to the business of not actually having natural gas,” one participant said. “We always expect that the price could fluctuate… But we never anticipated maybe having no gas coming from the pipeline.”

“What is the priority of the gas supply going to be?” another asked. “If supply is limited, which it already is, how is energy going to be allocated? Who gets it first? Who gets it last?”

EECA chief executive Dr Marcos Pelenur says many firms feel they are being pushed into “make-or-break decisions”: absorb higher costs, invest millions in new plant, or close.

“Gas has declined much faster than most people expected,” he says.

Crucially, however, he does not expect a return to “the good old days”.

“I think it is very likely that we will not have cheap, abundant gas,” Pelenur says. “There are businesses out there hoping gas prices will go back to what they were ten years ago. I do not think that’s going to happen.”

It is far more likely that the nation will have abundant renewable energy instead, Pelenur says.

His message is that businesses should act now on efficiency – EECA’s walk-through assessments often find 10-30 percent savings – and start planning fuel switches, even if the big projects will take years.

But without a national strategy or substantial funding, that planning sits largely on individual firms: and eventually comes back to the issue of money.

The devil and the deep blue sea

For many manufacturers, the choice is not between cheap gas and slightly dearer electricity. It is between paying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to replace perfectly functional gas equipment – or taking their chances and hoping the fuel keeps coming.

“Most businesses are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea,” Gummer says – unable to afford the capital cost of transition, yet unable to rely on increasingly volatile and uncertain gas supply.

“It’s painful,” one business owner told EECA’s researchers. “The economics don’t work out on our current return on investment.”

Some talked seriously about shutting rather than transitioning. Others said they are passing costs on to customers, but worry those customers will simply go offshore – a wider risk of deindustrialisation.

Major employers such as pulp and paper mills, wood processors and food plants are deeply woven into local economies. If they close, the knock-on effects hit ports, trucking firms, engineering workshops, schools and shops. Once those jobs are gone, they are hard to replace.

Green Building Council chief executive Andrew Eagles says leaving it to the market is an unnecessary risk.

“You’ve either got a considered transition or a disruptive one that will damage people’s lives – kids leave schools, people move towns, regional economies shrink,” he says. “This isn’t about abstract ideas – it’s real people’s lives.”

BCG estimates that once big users like Methanex and Ballance have exited, every petajoule of additional gas demand destruction hits GDP harder and harder – about $400m for the first PJ, up to $700m for the tenth. Losing 5 PJ could wipe out around $3b of GDP a year; 10 PJ, around $7.3b, or nearly two percent of total GDP.

By contrast, the report suggests that with about $200m of co-funding, New Zealand could displace 10-20 PJ of industrial gas use over the next decade by helping firms switch to electricity and biomass.

“$200 million is a one-off,” Hobbs says. “The cost of not managing the transition is in the billions every year. The benefits to the economy outweigh the costs by quite some margin.”

Effectively, they’re arguing to restart some form of GIDI, which co-funded dozens of projects at an effective support level of around $1.10 per gigajoule saved spread over 15 years.

RNZ asked Energy Minister Simon Watts whether the Government would consider supporting businesses with some kind of transition grant. Watts said he was “aware of the challenges” industrial gas users have been facing with increased costs and difficulties securing contracts”, and outlined several initiatives underway.

The most significant is the procurement process for a liquefied natural gas import terminal, which the minister says is intended to bolster security of supply in dry years, support electricity generation during peak periods, and “potentially act as a fuel source for industrial users”.

Alongside exploration incentives, the minister said work was underway to “remove barriers” to growing biogas and biomass as alternative fuels.

Watts also highlighted broader financing tools that businesses could access – such as bank sustainability loans – and said the Government was working to “de-risk investment in thermal fuel and capacity”, including by improving transparency in the gas market. He did not directly address further questions about demand-side support.

The path ahead

The analysts argue New Zealand does not have to chart such a difficult path.

Other countries facing gas shortages have taken a more deliberate approach both for businesses and in residential areas. When the gas crisis hit in Europe during the Russia-Ukraine war, there was a rapid push on energy efficiency, leading to major technological leaps.

In Victoria, Australia, where about 60 percent of homes use gas, the state government has moved to stop new gas connections in subdivisions and require electric hot-water heat pumps when systems are replaced.

But New Zealand has no equivalent national framework to either stop new demand locking into a fuel that is already running out, or managing the current demand.

Instead, the government has only intervened on the supply side – investigating LNG imports and putting money on the table to extend gas drilling – while demand-side tools have stalled.

“If the government is prepared to look at co-funding LNG and more drilling, they should be prepared to look at co-funding transition for industry,” Gummer says. “You need several strategies – that’s how you disperse risk.”

The experts are clear: the transition is coming any way you look at it.

They say the argument is not about pipes and boilers, or heat pumps and hot water. It is about who carries the costs and risks of an inevitable shift away from fossil fuels.

For Rainbow Park, an early grant and willing partnership from lines companies and power providers turned a looming risk into a triumph of innovation.

For Whakatāne Growers, and dozens of other firms trying to read the tea leaves, the story is very different.

“It’s pretty daunting,” Simpson says. “You’re always thinking about it. Always working on it at home. But without some certainty, there’s not much point making big investments – you don’t know what the right thing to invest in is, or when the right time is.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The highly anticipated opening of Swedish furniture company IKEA in New Zealand comes as a rural community worries about the fire risk from pine plantations.

Since 2020 IKEA has converted six Central Hawke’s Bay farms into pine forestry, which they believe makes them the largest forestry owner in the district.

This move, combined with the sale of at least four other Hawke’s Bay farms to overseas forestry companies this year, is sparking concerns from locals about the loss of productive farmland and the risks associated with converting large areas into pines.

At least four other Hawke’s Bay farms have been sold to overseas forestry companies this year. Photo: RNZ / Alexa Cook

‘Dumbest thing NZ has done in agriculture’

To better understand the scale of this land-use change, Porangahau farmer James Hunter and pilot Joe Faram flew RNZ over thousands of hectares of new pine trees that now cover what had been traditional farmland for generations.

“This is the dumbest thing New Zealand has done in agriculture,” Hunter said.

He wants New Zealanders to witness the extent of farmland being planted in forestry.

“It’s not just one farm, it’s farm after farm and I think it’s the scale of it that people don’t understand.

“Suddenly we’ve got a district that’s been swallowed, and this is apparently good for the country,” he said.

A newly planted forestry block in Central Hawke’s Bay near Pourere, each sprayed circle is a pine tree. Photo: Nick Monro

• More than 1.8 million hectares of New Zealand is planted in pine trees with many farms having been converted since 2008 to earn carbon credits after the Emissions Trading Scheme was introduced.
• This resulted in more ‘carbon farming’ where forests are planted for carbon credits and permanently locked up rather than being harvested for timber.
• Swedish furniture company IKEA has bought 28,000 hectares of New Zealand farmland since 2021, with another 10,000 currently pending approval in Northland.
• However, IKEA told RNZ none of its trees have been planted for carbon credits, although they may look at ‘some form of offsetting in the future’.
• A recent report from the Climate Change Commission estimated another 900,000 hectares of land will be converted to forestry by 2050.
• Most of IKEA’s 4300 hectares of forestry in Central Hawke’s Bay is near the village of Porangahau, where about 200 hectares of its pine trees went up in flames in October and took days to extinguish because of the high winds grounding helicopters.

It’s fires like this that have rural communities on edge, because they say even if the blaze starts on nearby farmland, the forests contain the fuel that feeds them.

“So the question for the forestry owners is how confident are they that they can stop New Zealand haemorrhaging money chasing fires?” Hunter said.

“They’ve brought basically the equivalent of petrol tankers into these rural districts. Why should we pay for the cost of fighting something while they’re making extraordinary money?”

Porangahau farmer James Hunter took RNZ reporter Alexa Cook up in a helicopter to get a clearer view of the extent of pine plantings across the region. Photo: Nick Monro

Hunter believed there’d been ‘no thought to firefighting’, especially in high winds.

“I want to see them have to put in their own water supplies. And I want some confidence that they can fight a fire when the helicopters are not able to fly – and if the helicopters are not able to fly, what happens to the rest of us downwind?”

He’s concerned that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) didn’t have the resources to deal with major blazes. FENZ said it’s primarily funded through the Fire and Emergency levy, which is collected on contracts of fire insurance. However, there is no mandatory requirement for foresters to insure.

“We do not have a separate breakdown of levy contributions from forestry companies,” a FENZ spokesperson said.

“Other than funding from the levy, Fire and Emergency does not receive any additional dedicated funding to fight forestry fires.”

The organisation said it was “confident in its ability to respond effectively to forestry fires”.

About 200 hectares of IKEA’s Central Hawke’s Bay forestry went up in flames in October. Photo: RNZ / Alexa Cook

IKEA’s forestland country manager Kelvin Meredith told RNZ the company, like many other forestry owners, did not have fire insurance.

“We don’t insure for fire. It’s prohibitively expensive in New Zealand,” he said.

The Forest Owners Association said about 30 to 40 percent of plantation forest estate was insured. It varied year to year as owners reviewed their risk management.

“Standing crop insurance is becoming increasingly unaffordable, so – like other rural landowners – forest owners weigh the cost, risk and benefits each year,” it said.

“Some companies choose to self-insure and invest heavily in their own firefighting capability, which in turn strengthens rural fire response more broadly.”

Meredith agreed that there is a lot of fuel in a forest but said it provided fire plans to FENZ and worked closely with it to mitigate the fire risk.

“What we can do is have decent fire breaks and decent fire plans in place so if it does break out, the key consideration is that no one’s life is in danger.

“I can’t speak for all forest owners, but I think we’re relatively well prepared in the event of a fire,” said Meredith.

Hunter said if forest owners weren’t contributing financially to FENZ, or properly mitigating the fire risk, then it’s unfair on farmers who did pay fire insurance levies and were investing in fire protections.

“So you want to go and plant your trees? Cool. Don’t leave me with the costs.”

Farmer James Hunter is worried forestry companies aren’t taking the fire risk seriously. Photo: Nick Monro

There’s also currently no mandatory requirement for forestry owners to reduce or mitigate fire risk, but the Forest Owners Association said $21 million a year was spent on fire protection.

Nationally, FENZ had 15 formal service-level agreements with major forestry companies that outlined resource sharing arrangements and joint responsibilities during wildfire events, and said three more were being finalised.

FENZ wouldn’t provide forestry fire plans to RNZ, but said there was ongoing investment in training and technology to ensure they remained well-prepared as fire risks evolved “due to climate and land-use changes”.

“Fire and Emergency remain committed to working with all stakeholders to protect people, property, and the environment from the growing threat of wildfires.”

IKEA said it would consider supporting calls for legislation requiring all landowners, from farmers to foresters, to mitigate fire risk and invest in fire protections.

“If it’s practical and effective and can be implemented in an effective manner. It’s no good writing a piece of legislation that only half the population is going to follow,” said Meredith.

‘I’m embarrassed to be a New Zealander’

Pilot Joe Faram has been fighting forestry fires for decades. He’s had a front row seat witnessing Hawke’s Bay’s landscape steadily change from farms to pines.

“The transition has been very vast over the last 15 years … a lot of that mindset has been detrimental to the betterment of New Zealand.

“I’m embarrassed to be a New Zealander, it’s shameful,” he said.

Pilot Joe Faram has been fighting fires from the air for decades and worries the risk is increasing. Photo: Nick Monro

As a pilot, he said there was a lot of pressure on aerial fire-fighting resources because it’s often the main tool for containing a forestry blaze.

He’s concerned the increase in pine trees is creating a bigger fire risk.

“Because there’s more material, there’s more fuel. We’re certainly putting ourselves in a dangerous situation, so you’re managing risk control.

“By a little bit of good fortune and luck, we have had fires, but we’ve managed to suppress them quite effectively. But one day, the Swiss cheese will line up and we will have a fire that, instead of putting it out in two or three days, it could be up to a month,” he said.

It’s a fear shared by Porangahau hapu Ngāti Kere. Chairperson David Tipene Leach has been in discussions with IKEA since 2022.

“They came to the marae, they talked to us, they told us what they had to offer.

“When you look back on it a couple of years later, actually there’s not much to offer.”

David Tipene Leach feels the spread of forestry in Hawke’s Bay is like another wave of colonisation for Ngāti Kere. Photo: Nick Monro

Since the fire in October, he’s written to IKEA on behalf of the hapu, urging it to remove the pine trees planted closest to the village in an area known as Stoneridge.

“If you look around the world, and certainly in this day and age, we look into Canada and into the States and other places, and you see the huge forest fires that are occurring in these big plantations, we’ve got to be worried about that sort of stuff.

“With regard to exit and entry from our little isolated town, they’re planting, planting all along the road. You can’t get out of our town if the forests are burning,” he said.

However, IKEA said it’s unlikely it would remove trees.

“As far as taking the whole Stoneridge face out of trees, I can’t see that happening. What we need to do is meet with the community and understand what are the real concerns here related to fire,” said Meredith.

An area of new pine plantings in Central Hawke’s Bay. Photo: Nick Monro

For Tipene Leach, there’s a sense of sadness around seeing farmland planted in pine.

“It’s kind of like this is just another, you know, I don’t want to sound silly, but another wave of colonisation that Ngāti Kere has to deal with.

“Us small hapu, we’re fighting for survival here. We’re not really fighting to change the world. We’re just fighting to maintain our little bit of the world.”

He worried the pine problems seen in Tai Rāwhiti with slash and community loss were creeping down the East Coast, and Hawke’s Bay was set to make the same mistakes.

“The forestry people will tell us, don’t worry, we’ve all learned since then.

“But they are commercial operators who are out there to make a buck where they can, and so I’m not sure that we have any reason to trust them,” Leach said.

Forest Owners Association chief executive Elizabeth Heeg said commercial foresters did want to make a return on their investments, but the returns were slow to be realised and forest owners were highly motivated to protect the environments and communities their trees grew in.

“Part of this is adapting to climate change and with increasing numbers of significant storms, foresters are very focused on adapting their forest and harvest management plans to prevent and prepare for incidents where forest waste leaves their land.

“Our forests are a vast resource and with greater collaboration across the industry and other sectors, using woody biomass for energy generation, more timber in construction, and increasing domestic processing, New Zealand has a significant opportunity to gain far greater value from them,” said Heeg.

Pine forestry in southern Hawke’s Bay Photo: Nick Monro

IKEA said while it couldn’t answer for all foresters, the company was “pouring cash into the country”.

“We’re planting forests … we’re buying native seedlings, we’re employing local contractors, employing planting crews … and we won’t realise a return for 28 years.

“We’re not extracting a lot of cash out of the country for the benefit of an offshore entity, that’s for sure,” said Meredith.

He said IKEA had put a “little bit of a pause” on buying farmland at the moment and was buying existing forests instead.

The timber grown in New Zealand would be used in IKEA’s furniture, however, it’d be shipped overseas for manufacturing.

“The sad situation we’re in is you can actually send logs to places like China and bring back products made in those countries cheaper than we can do it here.

“We’d love to manufacture here. We’d love to support local processing but it’s just the economics are tough.”

Government taking forestry fire risk ‘seriously’

Forestry Minister Todd McClay told RNZ the government took the risk of forest fires seriously and had strengthened its approach in recent years.

“There has been a wide package of work across prevention, readiness, and response. This includes updated guidance for landowners and councils, better coordination between the New Zealand Forest Service and Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and ongoing investment in research, risk mapping, and seasonal forecasting,” he said.

Forestry Minister Todd McClay. Photo: Nick Monro

When asked if the government was considering legislation changes so that it’s mandatory for all landowners to reduce or mitigate fire risk, the minister said they already have responsibility for managing their property against the risk of fire.

“It’s important to note that 98 percent of wildfires in New Zealand are caused by human activity and often spread into forests.

“It’s also important to note that under the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Act 2017, FENZ have the authority to require a landowner to create and clear a firebreak on their property if it believes this is needed to help control fires.”

He believed forestry owners were doing enough to reduce the risk of fires on their land.

“Large forestry companies often have their own firefighting teams, equipment, and water supplies. Getting full insurance against fire damage is difficult, so some forestry owners choose to self-insure or buy partial coverage.

“Ultimately, the financial risk of losing trees to fire sits with the forest owner,” McClay said.

*RNZ was taken up on the flight by farmer James Hunter to give a snapshot of the land use change in the area.

Forestry in Hawke’s Bay Photo: Nick Monro

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

A market “surprised” by the government has failed to buy a single carbon unit at the final Emissions Trading Scheme auction of the year.

Not a single bidder registered for Wednesday’s auction, making 2025 the second calendar year in which all four quarterly ETS auctions have failed.

The first was 2023.

The managing director of commodities broker Marex, Nigel Brunel said recent climate policy announcements were “primarily responsible” as they signalled that the government was backtracking on climate change.

Emitters captured within the ETS still have to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions – but at the moment it is significantly cheaper to buy carbon units from elsewhere, such as forestry owners.

The minimum price carbon units could be sold for in the auction was $68, but emitters have been able to buy units elsewhere for as little as $40 recently.

Brunel said the market had been spooked most recently by the government’s decision in November to ‘de-couple’ the ETS from New Zealand’s Paris Agreement pledges.

“They could have done it quite differently, instead of just going, ‘Surprise!’”

Markets “hate uncertainty”, he said.

“It was announced without a lot behind it, [or] the rationale for doing it, so it gave the market concern that there were changes happening to the ETS that weren’t well-telegraphed – and the market reacted accordingly.”

However, the market had been weak all year.

“There’s been a number of things that have fed into it…. The fact that [the government] reduced the methane target, the fact that mandatory reporting requirements were weakened, just the continual mantra that we’re not going to do anything in offshore mitigation to meet our [2030 Paris target] kind of sent the signal to the marketplace that …the government was weakening overall on climate change policy,” Brunel said.

That had not been helped by “quips from minor parties that we should withdraw from Paris”.

The units from all 2025 auctions will now be cancelled out of the ETS, meaning they will not be available to emitters in subsequent years.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Finance Minister Nicola Willis has labelled the conduct of Labour MPs “unbecoming” after a fiery Scrutiny Week appearance which saw accusations of name-calling and conspiracy-thinking.

Under questioning in the meeting, Willis also confirmed the government had no intention of buying offshore carbon credits to meet the 2030 Paris agreement as part of a “performative awards ceremony” even if that meant it would breach its commitment.

Christmas cheer?

From the meeting’s outset, the exchanges were heated. Labour’s finance spokesperson Barbara Edmonds asked Willis to explain why she claimed infrastructure spending was increasing despite that not being the case in the most recent financial statements.

In response, Willis said the coalition had budgeted a record amount for public infrastructure over the next four years and finished with a dig at Labour.

“The last government was good at doing press releases, but not so good at getting shovels in the ground.”

Both Labour’s Deborah Russell and Megan Woods immediately objected: “Oh, that’s fine? It’s fine to take shots at the opposition? Anything’s on is it?”

The two sides also had a back-and-forth over a table in the Crown accounts which Willis claimed the Labour MPs had misinterpreted.

Again, it prompted a chorus of overlapping questions from the opposition: “Which table? Which table? What’s the table number? Which table, please? Which table?”

Labour MPs also openly laughed as Willis took credit for the more-than-7000 new built social homes since the election. Russell pushed Willis to confirm that those houses were funded under Labour’s previous Budgets.

“This is outrageous,” Woods said. “They cut the funding for housing and she’s claiming credit.”

Willis: “Everyone’s very excited today, Mr Chair. It’s the Christmas cheer, I suppose.”

The government and opposition side sparred over their respective fiscal strategies and records. Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick accused the coalition of “reckless cuts” and “a doom loop”.

Willis, meanwhile, took aim at Labour’s “disgraceful” increase in debt while in power.

“It was wrong for your government to increase spending dramatically right when the Reserve Bank was begging you to put on the brakes.”

Russell fired back: “That increased spending was, of course, backed by the National Party … [which] called for even more spending.”

Russell also asked Willis whether the government had changed the way the Emissions Trading Scheme operated in order to make its books look better.

“When you’re a conspiracy theorist, you see conspiracy everywhere,” Willis responded.

“Oh, for goodness sake. That’s a ridiculous thing to say,” Russell said. “When you can’t answer the question, you resort to insults.”

Speaking to reporters afterwards, Willis said she accepted the committees could be robust, but thought some of allegations levelled at her were “unbecoming”.

“They’re all a bit tired, a bit ratty,” Willis said. “In general, they behave better than that, but everyone has an off day.”

Climate change commitments

Green co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick also pressed Willis over whether the government remained committed to its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris agreement.

Willis said that remained a priority but the government was not prepared to “spend billions of dollars sending money offshore to meet that NDC”.

Swarbrick requested that Willis take into account the potential fiscal impact of that NDC in its books for the “sake of financial responsibility” and “transparency” to which Willis simply responded: “No.”

Afterwards, Willis described the call as “a lot of fluff and noise” and noted that the previous government never recognised those obligations as liabilities either.

She said the government would make “best efforts” to uphold its 2030 Paris commitments, but would not buy offshore carbon credits even if that was required to achieve it.

“We do not think it’s in New Zealand’s best interest to send cheques for billions of dollars offshore,” she said.

“New Zealanders who are struggling to put food on the table are not going to thank us for having a performative awards ceremony.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The Government is making progress on transitioning New Zealand’s 3.6 million light petrol vehicles to road user charges (RUC), today launching a Request for Information (RFI) on paying for RUC electronically, Transport Minister Chris Bishop says.

“We want to hear from innovators and private companies on how we can make paying for road use as easy as paying your power bill or streaming service”, Mr Bishop says. 

“Our transport funding system must keep pace with the way Kiwis pay their bills today. The current RUC framework is out of date and still relies on manual paperwork and paper licences. 

“Modernising RUC will allow for more technology options, including systems already built into modern vehicles. Road users will be able to opt in to using this technology to make it easier for them to pay RUC, but they will also have the option of manual alternatives. 

“We know data privacy is important to New Zealanders. Any technology solutions will be required to comply with the Road User Charges Act which contains strong privacy safeguards and strictly limits what information can be accessed.

“The Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill which is currently before Parliament, will pave the way for new technology and open up the RUC market to wider competition. 

“We’d like to see a mix of businesses get involved and be part of this opportunity. This could include: 

• tech-focused companies offering software, telematic and electronic systems to manage RUC on behalf of road users
• companies that could combine payment for RUC with other services, such as banks, vehicle insurers, and utilities
• companies that could sell RUC to people over-the-counter, such as fuel companies, and supermarkets.

“New services could include very simple solutions that enable people to keep track of their odometer readings and receive purchase reminders, through to full electronic solutions enabling automated purchase.

“This work is part of a broader reform programme to future-proof transport funding. As our vehicle fleet changes, so too must the way we fund our roads.

“Responses to the RFI will inform Government decisions on next steps for the transition to a modern, user-friendly, and competitive RUC system.” 

Notes to editor: 

• The Ministry of Transport will conduct the market engagement through an open request for information (RFI) on the Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS) to test and gauge market interest in providing RUC services.
• For more information, visit www.transport.govt.nz or contact RUC@transport.govt.nz
• The final day for responses to the RFI is 13 February 2026.
• The RFI documents are available  here.

MIL OSI

Mr President, colleagues.

Tēnā koutou katoa. It is an honour to address you today on behalf of New Zealand.

When the Paris Agreement was adopted ten years ago, Parties committed to goals that limit the impacts of climate change on lives and livelihoods.

Ten years on, we have seen significant progress, and we are firmly in the era of implementation. 

But we need to press forward, and we must keep 1.5 alive. 

Mr President, New Zealand is committed.

We were one of the first eight countries in the world to have submitted a second Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), that is ambitious, achievable, informed by the Global Stocktake, and in accordance with Paris Agreement rules. 

We are committed to transparency arrangements, which are critical to mutual trust.

And we provide high-quality, grants-based, accessible, partner-responsive climate support, with over half going to adaptation action.

We urge all Parties to follow suit and implement. All Parties must submit NDCs that reflect the urgency of the movement, and all Parties with the capacity to do so must provide support to those who need it most.

We recognise economies are under strain, but every step of progress helps us maintain momentum.

Mr President, the Blue Pacific Continent has long led the world with its climate ambition.

In the Pacific, climate change is not a distant threat; it is a lived reality.

Next year, COP31 in the Pacific would be an opportunity to deliver global climate solutions, built on the experience of some of those on the front lines.

New Zealand proudly supports Australia’s commitment to host COP31 in partnership with the Pacific and calls on others to confirm their support. 

Mr President, a low-emissions and climate-resilient economy is central to economic prosperity. 

New Zealand is accelerating the deployment of renewable energy at a faster pace than ever before. 

In October, we saw weeks where our electricity was 98% renewable. We have commissioned more renewable generation in the last 18 months than in the previous 15 years, helping us double that capacity by 2050.

Our farmers are among the most carbon-efficient globally, and we are leading in agricultural innovation.

Our Emissions Trading Scheme is one of the most comprehensive globally.

And in the last month, we agreed to legislate a climate adaptation framework to address long-term strategic factors, including clear roles, investment in risk reduction, and cost-sharing. This is one of the world’s first of its kind.

Mr President, the response to climate change must be inclusive and supportive of all voices and leadership, as we cannot solve this challenge alone.

I am proud that a delegation of New Zealand’s young Māori leaders is here at COP30 – sharing their stories and commitment to action.

Mr President, you introduced us to ‘mutirao’, which speaks to the shared work that builds up our people.

This resonates with us. New Zealand – our young people, business, and civil society – stand ready to partner with all Parties to take action: at home, in the Pacific, and globally.

Thank you.

MIL OSI

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Nov. 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — IperionX Limited (IperionX) (NASDAQ: IPX, ASX: IPX) notes the short seller report released by Spruce Point Capital Management. Consistent with recommended disclosures on short-selling campaigns under ASIC’s guidance in Information Sheet 255, IperionX’s response is focused on material, verifiable facts relevant to investors and continuous disclosure obligations.

IperionX maintains confidentiality, data-security and intellectual-property controls that meet the stringent contracting requirements of the U.S. Department of War (DoW). IperionX remains focused on executing the commercial scale-up of titanium production and manufacturing in Virginia.

Spruce Point Capital did not engage with IperionX management at any time before releasing its short seller report, and the Company has no record of any attempted outreach by phone or email. Spruce Point Capital has never visited, or requested to visit, IperionX’s titanium manufacturing operations in Virginia.

IperionX will continue to update the market as required in accordance with ASIC, ASX and SEC obligations.

VALIDATION OF IPERIONX’S PATENTED TECHNOLOGIES AND U.S. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

IperionX’s titanium technologies have been evaluated and supported through multiple U.S. Government programs including ARPA-E, DPA Title III, IBAS and, most recently, a U.S. Army led SBIR Phase III contract for procurement-ready titanium products.

These funding programs involve competitive selection processes, detailed technical due diligence, and ongoing reporting to DoW subject-matter experts who assess process performance, production quality and technology maturity. IperionX’s advancement through successive U.S. Government awards reflects the increasing readiness of its technology platform and its strategic relevance for the U.S. titanium supply chain.

IperionX’s multi-year U.S. Government support and third-party validation includes:

ARPA-E Program (2014)

ARPA-E, the U.S. Department of Energy’s advanced research agency, provided funding to the University of Utah to scale the titanium technologies from laboratory bench scale to pilot-scale production.

The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) ‘Reprocessing of Metallic Scrap and Waste Powders’ Grand Challenge (2023)

IperionX won the AFRL Reprocessing of Metallic Scrap and Waste Powders Grand Challenge, for technology and processes that could transform scrap titanium into high-quality titanium metal powders.

Winner of R&D 100 award (2023)

IperionX and the HAMR technology inventor Dr. Zak Fang were recognized with the R&D 100 Award, acknowledging the breakthrough potential of their titanium production process. Assessed by an independent panel of leading experts, the R&D 100 Award is among the most respected global innovation accolades, awarded only to technologies that demonstrate exceptional technical merit, differentiation, and measurable advantages over existing processes.

Defense Production Act Title III / DPA Investment Program (2023)

IperionX received a U.S. DoW award of US$12.7 million “to increase titanium production for defense supply chains,” specifically to commission and scale its Virginia facility to 125 metric tons per annum (tpa) of titanium.

IBAS (Industrial Base Analysis & Sustainment) Program (2025)

IperionX received a U.S. DoW award of US$47.1 million to strengthen the U.S. Defense Industrial Base by accelerating development of a resilient, low-cost, and fully integrated U.S. mineral-to-metal titanium supply chain.

Under the IBAS program, the DoW allocated US$5 million to accelerate the Titan Critical Minerals Project, funding a Definitive Feasibility Study to achieve ‘shovel-ready’ status by mid 2026. With all major development permits received, Titan Project stands as a potential near-term, strategic source of rare earths, titanium and zircon critical minerals for the United States.

The DoW has since obligated multiple tranches of funding under this IBAS award, including US$12.5 million (August 2025), US$25 million (September 2025) in addition to the US$5 million for the Titan Critical Minerals Definitive Feasibility Study.

SBIR Phase III Program (2025)

IperionX was awarded a U.S. Army Phase III SBIR IDIQ contract of up to US$99 million, applicable for procurement-ready technologies that U.S. Government agencies can utilize for procurement task orders, on a sole-source basis without further competition. IperionX’s first U.S. Army task order under the SBIR III has already been issued. 

The SBIR program is executed under open competition and routinely applies standards more rigorous than those used in traditional acquisition programs. Phase I and II agreements focus on the competitive development, testing, and evaluation of commercially relevant technologies. SBIR Phase III represents the program’s most advanced phase. During Phase III, the U.S. Government transitions into production contracts to facilitate commercialization. Attainment of Phase III status typically signifies that a company has met extensive technical, testing, and competition requirements, secured recurring funding support from U.S. Government end-users over multiple selection stages, and demonstrated operational or near-operational performance.

OPERATING FOCUS AND NEAR-TERM PRIORITIES

IperionX reiterates 2026 priorities as previously disclosed.

Virginia: Commission industrial scale titanium production capacity

The Virginia Titanium Manufacturing Campus has completed commissioning, with titanium products advancing through customer qualification phases. Process and operational enhancements have recently increased projected nameplate capacity from 125 tpa to 200 tpa.

Virginia: Titanium production capacity scale-up to ~1,400 tpa by mid-2027 (U.S. DoW co-funded)

The IBAS-funded expansion of IperionX’s Virginia operations to lift nameplate titanium capacity by 7x to ~1,400 tpa by mid-2027 is now underway. The estimated US$75 million cost of the program is supported by IBAS funding commitments already secured.

Customer programs and revenues

IperionX is actively working on SBIR Phase III task orders for manufactured titanium components, drawing on its integrated powder metallurgy, forging, and additive manufacturing technology platform to deliver high-performance, low-cost titanium solutions for the U.S. military.

Cost curve and competitiveness

IperionX is advancing a structured process optimization program to continue to drive down projected unit costs and further increase yields. Current cost targets and timelines remain consistent with prior disclosures.

Titan Critical Minerals Project (Tennessee)

The Titan Definitive Feasibility Study continues to advance with U.S. Government funding support, accelerating work toward ’shovel-ready’ status. Titan Project is positioned as a potential near-term strategic supplier of rare earths (including heavy rare earths), titanium and zircon, supporting U.S. critical mineral security. Progression to development will be dependent on completion of the DFS, expected by mid-2026, and the arrangement of appropriate project finance.

ADDRESSABLE MARKETS AND PRODUCT SALES STRATEGY

While spherical titanium powder remains a product offering for select customers, IperionX’s largest addressable market and core growth opportunity is high-performance, near-net-shape and finished titanium components for high-volume end markets such as fasteners, automotive, consumer electronics, and defense.

Leveraging low-cost HAMR titanium powder and advanced HSPT forging technologies, the Company aims to deliver high-value components at materially lower cost structures. This vertically integrated approach supports competitive U.S. production across the full titanium value chain – from scrap or minerals through to finished titanium parts – addressing growing demand for resilient, sustainable and domestically sourced titanium.

IperionX has already manufactured and delivered titanium fasteners at the request of U.S. Army leadership. This successful initial deployment provided third-party validation of both the technical performance and cost advantage of HAMR and HSPT processes, and is driving additional commercial opportunities across the defense, oil & gas, automotive, and aerospace sectors.

SALES CONTRACTS

IperionX has secured multiple commercial agreements for its manufactured titanium products, as set out in the Company’s ASX and SEC disclosures. The prioritization of each program shifts over time to reflect customer scale, strategic importance, and alignment with U.S. Government funding and capability objectives. Representative agreements include:

• A disclosed Ford program with an expected value of ~US$11 million over 45 months. Automotive production schedules are inherently tied to vehicle platform launch schedules, so commencement may shift in line with integration milestones and manufacturing ramp-up decisions.
• Production and sale of titanium components for Panerai’s eTitanio Brabus and Submersible GMT Titanio Mike Horn watch collections.
• Production and sale of titanium fasteners to the U.S. Army Ground Vehicle Systems Center for testing and installation on an operational platform.

In parallel, the Company is advancing a deep commercial pipeline across titanium and critical minerals, encompassing more than 200 NDA-backed opportunities, over 90 active customer programs, and 22 engagements in final prototyping or commercial negotiation. As a U.S. DoW-supported company, many of these product workstreams are governed by ITAR requirements and therefore receive priority focus and stringent confidentiality obligations.

During the ramp-up of the Virginia Titanium Manufacturing Campus, a limited number of potential partnerships associated linked to the Titan Critical Minerals Project were paused. With Titan development now re-initiated and supported by U.S. DoW funding, the Company expects partnerships to advance as the project progresses toward development.

TITANIUM SCRAP FEEDSTOCK STRATEGY

The U.S. titanium supply chain generates substantial volumes of titanium scrap each year, including bulk weldable material, powder, processed turnings and grindings. A significant proportion of this scrap cannot be efficiently processed by incumbent titanium processors and is instead downcycled to the lower value ferro-titanium market. The bulk weldable material has historically been the preferred feedstock for the incumbent industry and IperionX generally does not compete for this material. IperionX‘s strategy is to procure and upgrade this underutilized titanium scrap feedstock using its patented technologies.

IperionX’s technologies have been independently validated by multiple third parties, including the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Grand Challenge), to deoxygenate and upgrade these titanium scrap feedstocks into high-quality titanium metal products.

This feedstock strategy is already being successfully implemented. IperionX has procured more than 70 metric tons of titanium scrap, now held in inventory at its Titanium Manufacturing Campus, to support 2026 production requirements. In the medium term, IperionX plans to utilize upgraded titanium mineral feedstocks from the Titan Project to support multi-decade, fully integrated domestic titanium production.

IPERIONX MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE

IperionX’s Board and management team bring extensive senior-level experience from leading natural resource, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing organizations. The team has a demonstrated track record in delivering major mineral developments in iron ore, gold, coal, and titanium minerals, as well as in managing complex industrial programs spanning military aircraft production, commercial aviation platforms, and high-performance materials manufacturing.

IPERIONX OFFICE LOCATION

IperionX established its administrative office in Charlotte, North Carolina in 2020. As the Company has expanded, nearly all operations, workforce, and administrative activities have shifted to the South Boston, Virginia Titanium Manufacturing Campus. The operational address is 1080 Confroy Drive, South Boston, VA 24592, with mail received at 1092 Confroy Drive. IperionX’s physical footprint in the region totals ~100,000 square feet of secure, IperionX-exclusive titanium production and manufacturing facilities.

FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL REPORTING

IperionX prepares its consolidated financial statements in accordance with Australian accounting standards, ensuring fair presentation of the Company’s financial position, operating performance, and cash flows. The Company has implemented and maintains effective internal controls over financial reporting, including the appropriate selection and consistent application of accounting policies.

All material reconciling items were identified and included in management’s reconciliations, with necessary adjustments made to the consolidated financial statements. There were no material unreconciled differences that required further adjustment or reclassification.

RISK FACTORS

IperionX notes the inherent risks and uncertainties in advancing large-scale titanium production and commercialization, as outlined in its annual report, 20F and other regulatory disclosures to the market. Notwithstanding these factors, the Company continues to advance against its stated strategic objectives and will keep the market informed on any material developments in accordance with its continuous disclosure obligations.

LIQUIDITY

As set out in the most recent quarterly report, IperionX held US$79.2 million in cash and equivalents as at 30 September 2025.

Beyond this reported cash balance, ~US$43 million has been obligated under U.S. DoW programs and remains available to be drawn upon milestones. IperionX also has access to over US$97 million of additional funding capacity under its SBIR Phase III contract vehicle, which enables the U.S. Government to issue sole-source task orders for qualifying procurement task orders.

IperionX confirms that it is in compliance with its continuous disclosure obligations under Listing Rule 3.1, including in relation to the status of contracts, agreements and memoranda of understanding.

ABOUT IPERIONX

IperionX is a leading American titanium metal and critical materials company – using patented metal technologies to produce high performance titanium alloys, from titanium minerals or scrap titanium, at lower energy, cost and carbon emissions.

Our Titan critical minerals project is the largest JORC-compliant mineral resource of titanium, rare earth and zircon minerals sands in the United States.

IperionX’s titanium metal and critical minerals are essential for advanced U.S. industries including space, aerospace, defense, consumer electronics, hydrogen, automotive and additive manufacturing.

Forward Looking Statements

Information included in this release constitutes forward-looking statements. Often, but not always, forward looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “may”, “will”, “expect”, “intend”, “plan”, “estimate”, “anticipate”, “continue”, and “guidance”, or other similar words and may include, without limitation, statements regarding plans, strategies and objectives of management, anticipated production or construction commencement dates and expected costs or production outputs.

Forward looking statements inherently involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results, performance, and achievements to differ materially from any future results, performance, or achievements. Relevant factors may include, but are not limited to, changes in commodity prices, foreign exchange fluctuations and general economic conditions, increased costs and demand for production inputs, the speculative nature of exploration and project development, including the risks of obtaining necessary licenses and permits and diminishing quantities or grades of reserves, the Company’s ability to comply with the relevant contractual terms to access the technologies, commercially scale its closed-loop titanium production processes, or protect its intellectual property rights, political and social risks, changes to the regulatory framework within which the Company operates or may in the future operate, environmental conditions including extreme weather conditions, recruitment and retention of personnel, industrial relations issues and litigation.

Forward looking statements are based on the Company and its management’s good faith assumptions relating to the financial, market, regulatory and other relevant environments that will exist and affect the Company’s business and operations in the future. The Company does not give any assurance that the assumptions on which forward looking statements are based will prove to be correct, or that the Company’s business or operations will not be affected in any material manner by these or other factors not foreseen or foreseeable by the Company or management or beyond the Company’s control.

Although the Company attempts and has attempted to identify factors that would cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those disclosed in forward looking statements, there may be other factors that could cause actual results, performance, achievements, or events not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, and many events are beyond the reasonable control of the Company. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements. Forward looking statements in these materials speak only at the date of issue. Subject to any continuing obligations under applicable law or any relevant stock exchange listing rules, in providing this information the Company does not undertake any obligation to publicly update or revise any of the forward-looking statements or to advise of any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based.

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results and Mineral Resources is extracted from IperionX’s ASX Announcement dated October 6, 2021 (“Original ASX Announcement”) which is available to view at IperionX’s website at www.iperionx.com. The Company confirms that a) it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the Original ASX Announcement; b) all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the Mineral Resource Estimate included in the Original ASX Announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed; and c) the form and context in which the relevant Competent Persons’ findings are presented in this report have not been materially changed from the Original ASX Announcement.

Contacts

Anastasios (Taso) Arima, Founder and CEO
Toby Symonds, President
Dominic Allen, Chief Commercial Officer

Investors: investorrelations@iperionx.com
Media: media@iperionx.com
+1 980 237 8900
www.iperionx.com

– Published by The MIL Network

A bill to make road tolling easier and shift Road User Charges (RUCs) towards a digital tracking system has been introduced to Parliament.

In a statement, Transport Minister Chris Bishop said the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill‘s changes to road tolling would enable drivers to be charged for driving on new, better roads where there was an alternative.

“Tolling helps us bring forward investment and build the roads New Zealand needs sooner,” he said.

“Corridor tolling… allows tolling on parts of an existing road where users receive clear, demonstrable benefits from a new project in the same corridor.

“The bill also introduces new tools to manage diversion from toll roads, including the ability to restrict heavy vehicles from using unsuitable alternative routes.”

Councils would be able to use the money to help maintain the alternative routes, and costs would be tagged to inflation.

The changes to RUCs shift from a system of matching odometer readings to paper labels on the windscreen, towards using subscriptions through private companies.

Bishop said the digital devices used to track distance travelled would future-proof the system “and separates New Zealand Transport Agency’s regulatory role from its retail role so third-party providers compete on a level playing field”.

“These changes are the first step towards replacing petrol tax with RUC for light petrol vehicles. We’ll assess the improved system in 2027 before deciding on next steps for transitioning the remaining 3.5 million vehicles.”

The minister’s statement also confirmed a procurement process via the government tendering service GETS would be undertaken later this month “to test options with potential market providers on the design of new third-party RUC payment services”.

The government last March expanded the distance-based RUC charging system from applying to diesel and heavy vehicles, to also include light electric vehicles.

EVs had been exempt from the scheme since 2009, but multiple governments had proposed bringing in the charges for EVs once they accounted for 2 percent of vehicles on the roads.

EV owners pay the same $76 per 1000km rate as diesel vehicle owners, while plug-in hybrid owners pay $38. The money raised goes towards the National Land Transport Fund.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The Government has introduced the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill to Parliament, taking the next step towards a fairer, simpler, and more modern transport funding system.

Transport Minister Chris Bishop says the Bill makes important changes across both the road user charges and tolling frameworks, ensuring New Zealand is ready for the next generation of road building.

“A core principle of our transport funding system is fairness: that all road users should contribute in proportion to their use of the roads,” Mr Bishop says.

A stronger, more flexible tolling system to deliver new roads

Mr Bishop says the Bill makes important improvements to tolling – a key tool for delivering the Government’s Roads of National Significance programme.

“Tolling helps us bring forward investment and build the roads New Zealand needs sooner. The Bill provides the flexibility required to support major projects, including our new Roads of National Significance.

“Key changes include enabling ‘corridor tolling’, which allows tolling on parts of an existing road where users receive clear, demonstrable benefits from a new project in the same corridor.

“The Bill also introduces new tools to manage diversion from toll roads, including the ability to restrict heavy vehicles from using unsuitable alternative routes, and allowing toll revenue to help fund maintenance of alternative roads when councils are unable to do so.

“To make tolling fairer and more predictable for users, the Bill mandates annual CPI adjustments instead of ad-hoc increases. And to improve collection efficiency, liability for paying a toll will shift from the driver to the registered person.

“These changes will give us a more consistent, more flexible tolling framework so that we can deliver big road upgrades faster and support regional economic growth.”

A modernised RUC system

“The Bill also provides improvements to the outdated RUC system. It was designed in the 1970s and still relies on manual paperwork and paper licences,” Mr Bishop says.

“Right now, drivers paying RUC have to track their odometer readings and stick paper labels to their windscreen. 

“This Bill enables new payment models like subscriptions or post-payment, and allows private companies to offer easy, set-and-forget billing options – similar to how many of us already pay for power or streaming services.

“It also future-proofs the system by allowing accurate in-vehicle technology to record distance, and separates NZTA’s regulatory role from its retail role so third-party providers compete on a level playing field.

“These changes are the first step towards replacing petrol tax with RUC for light petrol vehicles. We’ll assess the improved system in 2027 before deciding on next steps for transitioning the remaining 3.5 million vehicles.”

Next steps

Following its first reading, the Bill will be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Select Committee. The legislation is expected to pass in 2026.

Notes to editor: 

A Request for Information (RFI) will be released on the GETS website later in November to test options with potential market providers on the design of new third-party RUC payment services.

The RUC system currently applies to all diesel vehicles, heavy vehicles (over 3.5 tonnes), and light electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids. These changes will improve the system for existing users and prepare it for the eventual transition of 3.5 million light petrol vehicles.

MIL OSI

Farmers have welcomed the government’s new “science-based” biogenic methane targets for 2050.

It’s dropped the reduction target for biogenic methane from 24 to 47 percent below 2017 levels by 2050, to 14 to 24 percent – saying it reflects the findings of the independent Methane Science Review released in 2024.

Agriculture and Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay said the government had worked closely with industry and accepted a range of advice to determine a “practical target”.

“We’ve accepted a range of advice and worked closely with industry to agree a practical target that protects food production whilst substantially reducing New Zealand’s farm emissions.”

Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford said the new targets were backed by science and had landed in a “solid” place.

He said the targets set under the previous government had felt “political[ly] and ideologically driven”.

“I think what’s important to understand is just how far off the last lot of targets were,” he said.

“So, 24 to 47 percent was going to put well over 20 percent of sheep and beef farms out of business, 6 or 7 percent of dairy farms. It was literally going to destroy rural communities.”

Langford also welcomed confirmation there would be no tax on agricultural emissions like methane.

“This is a major step forward and will be a huge relief for farming families who have had the threat of a massive tax hanging over our heads threatening the viability of our businesses.

“A methane tax would have achieved the opposite of its intent – forcing the closure of Kiwi farms, driving production to less efficient countries, and increasing global emissions.”

However, Langford said the changes don’t mean farmers are being let off the hook – farmers were already working hard to reduce their methane emissions and had made huge improvements in the last decade.

A dairy farmer himself, he said he had faced huge pressure from processors to improve.

However, last week Nestlé, announced it was withdrawing from an international partnership aimed at reducing dairy emissions.

Langford said this was more a reflection of the cost-of-living pressures facing consumers.

He said a growing range of technologies to better calculate and reduce emissions on farm would only help farmers further improve.

Beef and Lamb chairperson Kate Acland also welcomed the new targets which she felt better reflected the science, but said it would still be a stretch for the agriculture sector to achieve.

“The previous targets were arbitrarily based on ranges used in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that explicitly stated those ranges should not be used to set national targets.

“The revised targets better reflect the science around the different warming impact of short- and long-lived gases. Methane should only be asked to do what is expected of other gases, which is to achieve no additional warming.”

Acland said New Zealand’s red meat was already among the most climate-efficient in the world.

“While our sector has made significant progress on reducing warming emissions, the revised targets, particularly the upper end of the range, will still be very challenging. This is by no means letting agriculture off the hook.”

It was important to avoid stock number reductions seen in recent years, which Acland said was being driven by afforestation caused by New Zealand’s ETS settings.

She said it was important to work towards reducing methane by investing in efficiencies on-farm, genetic improvements and tools and technologies that could help farmers.

Acland said tax on agricultural methane emissions being ruled out was especially welcome news for the sector

“Emissions from our sector are already coming down – the threat of a price was draining confidence from the rural sector and was just not justified.”

Victoria University of Wellington Professor James Renwick said the government’s decision was “disappointing” as it represented a “major step backwards in ambition and in climate action”, but he was not surprised.

“The climate is currently changing rapidly and we need to be doing all we can to slow the warming and avoid catastrophic impacts from extremes and from tipping points crossed.

“Yes, carbon dioxide emission reductions are the number one target, and we must get to zero as soon as possible.

“But methane emissions are the next most important, and emissions reductions there would quickly translate into reductions in atmospheric concentrations (because of the short lifetime of methane in the atmosphere), providing a cooling effect in the short-medium term.”

Professor Renwick said the idea of ‘no additional warming’ seemed to influenced the scientific advice to Government.

“This approach goes easy on the agriculture sector and in no way does it represent our ‘highest possible ambition’ as laid out in Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, to which New Zealand is a signatory.”

He said this was likely to concern some trading partners.

Others like Canterbury University’s Associate Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry Laura Revell said biogenic methane emissions in New Zealand had “largely stabilised so far this century”.

Revell, who was part of the independent methane science review, said the group had modelled the methane cuts needed to ensure no additional warming relative to 2017 levels.

She said they found the level of cuts needed depends on global methane emissions.

“Because atmospheric methane concentrations are continuing to increase – driven largely by emissions from other countries – steeper cuts to New Zealand’s emissions alone would have little impact on total atmospheric heating.

“If the rest of the world makes steep cuts to methane emissions, then New Zealand would need to make steeper cuts too to ensure the no additional warming target is met. Periodic reviews of the target seem sensible.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Ingka Investments, the parent company of furniture giant Ikea, has bought 10,000 hectares of production forestry in Northland from Greenheart Group.

It takes the company’s investment in the country’s forestland to nearly 30,000 hectares, worth about $616 million. This includes nine existing forestry blocks planted in mostly pinus radiata, and an additional 3000ha of indigenous forest, most of which will be dedicated to biodiversity conservation and other environmental purposes.

It comes as Ikea plans to open its first New Zealand store in Auckland in December.

Forestland acquisition manager Simon Honour said its main focus was production forestry as opposed to carbon farming, and had hopes of using the timber for Ikea products.

“Obviously wood is an essential part of the Ikea identity and our ultimate goal is to get that wood into the Ikea supply chain.”

He said it would focus on domestic processing and was working to develop relationships with local sawmills and traders, though he did not rule out looking to develop their own further down the track.

Honour said most of the forestland was not eligible for carbon units.

Where blocks are registered under the Emissions Trading Scheme, or ETS, he said this helped quantify how many units are being sequestered and the carbon units are not traded.

“We have no focus on carbon whatsoever, and we have a pure timber focus.”

Overseas Investment Office figures from last year show Ingka Investments had bought about 19,200ha of farmland to turn into rotational pine forests.

Some of the more prominent sales included Huiarua Station and Matanui Station in the Gisborne region, with a combined area of just over 6000ha.

Honour acknowledged much of the land purchased by Ingka Investments since 2021 was farmland converted to forestry.

“Even from the start, if we could buy forests we would have. Unfortunately they don’t come up for sale that often.

“We wanted to get established in New Zealand and at that time, back in 2021, acquiring farms was a way to do that.”

He said there were “pros and cons” to establishing new forestry blocks.

“Creating forests from the start where you can set your riparian zones, your set back from waterways right from the start does have some benefits.”

He would not rule out purchasing future farms for conversion, but said it was not Ingka’s focus for now.

“We would much rather procure existing forests because it just fits with our values better.”

He said the strategic acquisition underscored Ingka Investments’ long-term commitment to responsible forest management, sustainable land stewardship and regional economic development.

Addressing farmer concerns about the risk of fire and pests on forestland, Honour said management plans were in place for both.

Planned restoration projects focused on indigenous reforestation, and enhancement of existing native vegetation will be complemented by ongoing pest-control programs designed to safeguard biodiversity, improve forest health, and support the long-term success of restoration efforts.

While pinus radiata will remain the dominant commercial species due to its proven performance, future replanting cycles will selectively introduce alternative species where appropriate.

This diversification strategy will strengthen ecosystem resilience, support biodiversity, and improve overall forest health.

The Northland forests were certified by the Forest Stewardship Council and would remain so.

Honour said a commercial production forest contributed to regional employment and he hoped to grow the number of Northland jobs.

Local forestry company, Northland Forest Managers, would continue daily operations. Manager Neil Geerkens said he looked forward to the partnership.

“Together, we will maintain sustainable harvesting practices, enhance biodiversity conservation and ensure continued community access, delivering enduring environmental, social, and economic benefits for the region.”

The acquisition was subject to OIO approval, and shareholder and regulatory approvals by Greenheart Group.

Kelvin Meredith, Ingka Investments’ forestland country manager New Zealand, said it was committed to responsible forest management, including restoring natural landscapes, supporting biodiversity and collaborating with local communities to create meaningful, lasting impact.

“People value recreational access to these forests, and we’re committed to ensuring these opportunities continue.”

The Kauri Coast Mountain Bike Park, located at Baylys Forest and operated by the Kaipara Cycling Club, will continue to be free to access by the public, subject to seasonal safety restrictions.

Seasonal beehives located on parts of the estate, operated in consultation with the landowner, will also remain in place to support local apiarists and contribute to biodiversity across the forest landscape.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

A rural land agent has allayed fears a significant Hawke’s Bay farm will be planted in pine trees.

The Riverbank Station owned by former All Blacks captain Sam Whitelock and his wife Hannah is on the market.

The flat, rolling and steep 833 hectare sheep and beef farm at Rissington is northwest of Napier, near the rural village of Puketapu.

The sale has attracted plenty of attention with many on social media raising concerns it may be targeted as a forestry conversion for carbon credits.

Bayleys agent Tony Rasmussen said it was likely rising red meat returns will keep the property in productive farmland.

“Largely, the numbers should stack up better for sheep and beef farming with the current returns we’re getting,” Rasmussen said.

The government has introduced legislation to restrict farms going to forestry.

The recent Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) amendment bill restricts large-scale conversions of high and medium rated productive farmland (Land Use Capability classes 1-6) to exotic forestry.

“The carbon price has been the main driver of farm conversions,” Rasmussen said.

“Now effectively the party can only get 25 percent of the land area registered in the ETS and that changes the equation significantly.”

Rasmussen isn’t expecting an international buyer to take the Whitelocks’ farm out of New Zealand hands either.

“It’s received a good level of interest, not necessarily from the overseas space.

“It’s highly likely it will be a New Zealand purchaser.”

Enquiries have been been strong from local buyers and from outside the region.

“It’s 27km from the Napier Airport with a lovely easy contour and the nice climate we have here in Hawke’s Bay,” Rasmussen said.

“This is truly a trophy farm that has seen significant capital investment.”

Tenders close on 12 November. The farm on five titles was purchased for $8.5 million eight years ago. It has an RV of $15.3m.

The property includes three dwellings and shearers’ quarters with over 40km of new fencing, steel cattle yards and new sheep yards.

It’s bound by the Mangaone River which is known for its excellent trout fishing.

Whitelock who was capped in more than 150 test matches is returning to his farming roots in Manawatū.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

The government is doubling down on supporting the development of new tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on farm with a new co-investment, following its decision not to price agricultural emissions.

Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Dr Shane Reti were on-farm in North Canterbury’s Waikuku on Tuesday to announce the latest government co-investment in a new early-stage reduction tool.

Start-up Āmua was developing a smart device worn by cattle that sought to transform the naturally-abundant resource of nitrogen from the cow’s urine into an eco-friendly fertiliser.

It aimed to address freshwater nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions at their source.

The start-up received $1.2 million from AgriZero, the government-industry partnership featuring the likes of Fonterra, Synlait and ANZCO, making it the 16th project to be funded by the joint venture.

Start-up looking to turn nitrogen-rich urine into fertiliser

Āmua’s prototype device was developed with support from the Ministry for Primary Industries’ Māori Agribusiness Innovation Fund, and was trialled on Ngāi Tahu Farming’s Te Whenua Hou dairy farms.

Highly concentrated nitrogen patches from cow’s urine in paddocks leached into groundwater and entered the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas that accounted for nearly 16 percent of the country’s agricultural emissions, according to the government’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report.

Modelling by AgResearch in the Bioeconomy Science Institute indicated that by spreading the concentrated urine patches across the paddock, the patented device could reduce nitrous oxide emissions by up to 95 percent and nitrate leaching by up to 93 percent, while maintaining similar pasture growth to the application of synthetic nitrogen.

Founder and chief executive Roger Johnson said it spent the past few years developing the new tool and testing it.

Johnson was tight-lipped on details about the device, but said it aimed to utilise the “massive resource” of nitrogen generated naturally by cows on farms, as it was only causing problems at present.

“The nitrogen in these [nitrogen] patches has always been seen as such a problem, right? It’s causing so much damage to freshwater,” he said.

“And then it causes nitrous oxide which is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide; so gnarly problems out of this insane resource. So we’re just swapping that around and giving it to the grass instead to grow.”

He said it would reduce farmers’ reliance on importing and using synthetic fertiliser.

“We want to create resilience for farmers to be able to supply their own nitrogen off their own farm.”

AgriZero chief executive Wayne McNee said it would be the joint venture’s first equity investment in nitrous oxide mitigation, which would play an important role in lowering overall emissions.

“Āmua is a brilliant example of Kiwi ingenuity to tackle a common challenge on-farm and potentially deliver a range of environmental and economic benefits,” McNee said.

“High-impact, scalable innovations like Āmua will be vital to meet global demand for emissions reduction and

safeguard the export economy we all rely on.”

The new investment was part of a seed funding round for Āmua to support the next stage of development of pilot trials in 2026.

Government ministers champion reduction tools

Ministers Nicola Willis and Dr Shane Reti joined investors at the Waikuku farm to showcase the Āmua project and a methane-cutting EcoPond effluent pond there too.

Willis said Āmua’s tool was “Kiwi innovation at its best”.

“There [are] these big, intense urine patches that are polluting our waterways and creating bad emissions. Yet that’s gold, and we could be using it to grow this grass, making farming cheaper and more sustainable.”

More than $190m was committed by AgriZero over its first four years, split by government and industry co-investment, to accelerate the development of reduction tools for farmers.

Willis said co-investment with the private sector saw the government dollar go further and ensured commercial buy-in in on-farm science.

“What felt like an impossible challenge, how do we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a way that doesn’t sacrifice farming as we know it, is actually an achievable change,” she said.

“Because already AgriZero is invested in multiple new innovations not just because they’re clever science and they’re exciting, but because they can see they can have practical application on farm.”

Dr Reti said innovation, technology and science were central to the government’s growth agenda.

“Research and development drive productivity and high-value jobs. Our goal is a system that empowers world-class scientists, universities, and research organisations to turn ideas into market-ready solutions,” he said.

Incentivising not taxing agricultural emissions

Before the last general election, the National Party said it would consider implementing a pricing system for on-farm emissions.

“Keep agriculture out of the [Emissions Trading Scheme] but implement a fair and sustainable pricing system for on-farm agricultural emissions by 2030 at the latest,” the press release read.

“An independent board – with a power of veto retained by the Ministers of Climate Change and Agriculture – will be established to implement the pricing system.”

But Agriculture Minister Todd McClay’s office confirmed that Cabinet decided on 22 September that agricultural emissions would not be priced, a decision it said was supported by all Cabinet ministers.

While an independent methane science panel was established, the independent board to implement a pricing system was never established, his office said.

“The Coalition Government agreed to not progress a pricing system for on-farm emissions and instead is committed to a technology-led approach to reducing emissions,” said Minister McClay in a statement.

“We are investing $400m into solutions with three already available and an additional 11 expected to be available for farmers by 2030.”

Willis said government decisions reflected the will of all three coalition parties and it was doubling down giving farmers tools to “conquer these issues for themselves”.

“We don’t think a new tax is the solution to every problem,” she said.

“The question you have to always ask is, is it better to be taxing them and punishing them for emissions, or working alongside them to support them to make the investments that will reduce those emissions.

“And ultimately, as a government, the view we’ve taken at this point is let’s focus on the science, focus on the practical solutions, and give farmers a good way through.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Legislation to protect productive farmland by limiting farm-to-forest conversions is now in place, marking a campaign promise fulfilled, Agriculture and Forestry Minister Todd McClay says.

The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme – Forestry Conversion) Amendment Act came into effect on 31 October 2025 and forest owners will notice these changes in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) system from this week.

“Through this Act the Government delivered on protecting food production, supporting rural communities, and ensuring foresters can continue to invest with confidence,” Mr McClay says.

The legislation restricts exotic forests from entering the ETS on Land Use Capability (LUC) class 1-6 land – New Zealand’s most productive soils – with certain exceptions, including for Māori-owned land and erosion-prone areas.

Farmers will retain flexibility to plant some land should they choose.

Transitional exemptions from the restrictions are available for those who can demonstrate both a clear interest in the land and a qualifying forestry investment made between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024.

“Farming and forestry are both important to our regional economies and communities and this Government is supporting both sectors to create jobs and grow exports,” Mr McClay says.

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has worked to keep the sector well informed, including running webinars to explain the new restrictions. Its website has been updated to include the changes and guidance documents.

Dedicated MPI staff will continue to provide specific support. 

MIL OSI

Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has released a new Assessment Framework for Carbon Removals, alongside a range of improvements to New Zealand’s climate change legislation.

“The Carbon Removals Assessment Framework is a crucial step toward recognising and rewarding non-forestry carbon removals in New Zealand, unlocking new opportunities for landholders and businesses,” Mr Watts says.

This new framework delivers a priority action from the second Emissions Reduction Plan, showcasing the Government’s commitment to climate action that grows the economy and supporting emissions reductions. It also delivers an election promise to investigate biodiversity credits to reward the creation of new wetlands, recognising their enormous potential.

“We have been clear on the important role that nature-based solutions and credible markets play in our climate response,” Mr Watts says.

“The framework will support any landholder, project owner, or group interested in accessing a carbon market, to understand whether their project or activity has the environmental and scientific rigour needed to enter those markets.

“Forestry is already a critical part of our climate response, but we also want to enable businesses and organisations to explore other ways to reduce emissions. We are progressing work to help farmers and landholders access pathways for recognition and reward for activities that remove carbon from the atmosphere on farm, including opportunities around rewetting peatlands.” 

Alongside the Framework, the Government is making targeted changes to the Climate Change Response Act (CCRA) to ensure it is working efficiently and as intended.

“New Zealand’s climate change system can be unnecessarily complex and duplicative in parts, which creates high compliance costs and slows effective action,” Mr Watts says.

“We have been clear in our commitment to look into the CCRA to see where we can make improvements.”

Key changes to the CCRA include:

• Removing or fixing unnecessary, complex or duplicative requirements in the Climate Change Response Act. This includes removing the need for the Climate Change Commission to provide advice on policy direction prior to an emissions reduction plan being developed by the Government and removing duplicative consultation requirements, for both the Commission and the Government. 
• Improving functions of the NZ ETS, including:
  • amendments to Industrial Allocation settings to provide more certainty for the market and reduce disincentives to invest in decarbonisation projects
  • changing the annual ETS settings process to a biennial one.
  • removing the requirement for ETS Settings to accord with Nationally Determined Contributions
• Expanding opportunities for other types of carbon removals to be recognised in the NZ ETS in the future.
• Other technical updates to make it easier for stakeholders to comply with the requirements of the CCRA. 

“These proposed changes will reduce costs to government and business and provide greater certainty, enabling us to make meaningful reductions more efficiently. They do not lower our ambition,” Mr Watts says.

The Government intends to introduce an amendment bill to the Climate Change Response Act to make these changes next year. 

The Government has also decided to change the neutrality goal for the Carbon Neutral Government Programme from 2025 to 2050.

“This change acknowledges that the original 2025 deadline was too soon for organisations to reduce their emissions enough to meet carbon neutrality,” Mr Watts says.

“The new deadline also aligns with New Zealand’s broader, legislated 2050 net zero target.”

Additional detail on the changes being made and the Assessment Framework for Carbon Removals can be found on the Ministry for the Environment’s website https://environment.govt.nz/publications/assessment-framework-for-carbon-removals/. 

MIL OSI

Source: Greenpeace

MIL OSI

MIL OSI

The Coalition Government has today announced science-based biogenic methane targets for 2050, providing farmers and exporters with a clear pathway to reduce emissions while maintaining productivity and trade competitiveness.

Following Cabinet approval, the target will be set at a range of 14–24 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050, reflecting the findings of the independent Methane Science Review released in 2024.

“We’ve accepted a range of advice and worked closely with industry to agree a practical target that protects food production whilst substantially reducing New Zealand’s farm emissions. Today we’re delivering a practical, fair pathway that recognises New Zealand agriculture efficiency, protects jobs and production, and upholds our climate commitments,” Agriculture and Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay says.

“The Government remains committed to our domestic and international climate change commitments, including net zero by 2050. Agriculture will continue make an important and fair contribution to achieving this reduction,” Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says.

The Coalition Government confirmed further policy changes alongside the new target:

• a legislated review in 2040 of the biogenic methane target to ensure its alignment with science and against progress of key trading partners;
• no tax on agricultural methane emissions as this would risk closing down farms and send jobs and production overseas. Reductions in methane to meet the targets will be achieved in partnership and through industry leadership and processor incentives following the lead of companies like Fonterra and Silver Fern Farms;
• investigate a split gas target for all of New Zealand’s future international climate change commitments;
• recognise and protect the importance of food production in New Zealand by better aligning domestic legislation with language in the Paris Agreement.

To back the new target, the Government is already investing more than $400 million with industry to speed up the development and roll-out of methane-cutting tools. The first is expected on farm in 2026, with up to 11 available by 2030. These include innovations like EcoPond, which cuts effluent pond emissions by over 90 percent, alongside advances in genetics, feed and farm management.

“Technology has the potential to deliver emissions reductions, while enabling the sector to grow. It’s expected that if 30 per cent of farmers take up the technologies expected to be available before 2030, total agricultural emissions could reduce by between 7 to 14 per cent over the next decade. That’s on top of any reduction in emissions that may come from efficiency gains on-farm or changes to farm systems,” Mr Watts says.

“It will be up to each farmer, processor, and company to decide how best to meet their own commitments, using the tools and innovations that fit their business.”

“We have recognised the short-lived nature and different warming impact of methane domestically. So it’s long overdue that we look into whether this same approach is appropriate in our international commitments,” Biosecurity and Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard says.

“To allow farmers to better measure their methane and evaluate ways to reduce their emissions without harming production, today we are also releasing an on-farm emissions calculator, which will today be available on the Ag Matters website,” Mr McClay says.

“Our approach is clear: technology and partnership, not taxes, will deliver the reductions that we need. By investing in new tools and giving farmers practical support, we can cut emissions without cutting production or profitability,” Mr Watts says.

Today’s announcement follows recent legislation limiting full-farm forestry conversions into the ETS, as part of a wider reset of climate policy to restore balance and certainty for rural New Zealand.

“Our primary sector earns nearly $60 billion in export revenue and provides more than one in ten Kiwi jobs. By setting sensible targets and backing innovation, we’re ensuring New Zealand farmers remain world leaders in producing high-quality, safe, and sustainable food, while meeting our international commitments,” Mr McClay says.

MIL OSI

Financial Statements Summary

This commentary should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements on pages 37 to 155. The Financial Statements of the Government received an unmodified auditor’s opinion for the year ended 30 June 2025.

The financial results of the Government in 2024/25 show that both total revenue and total expenses have grown since last year. However, as the growth in total revenue was slightly less than the growth in total expenses, the operating balance before gains and losses excluding ACC (OBEGALx) deficit of $9.3 billion was slightly higher than the OBEGALx deficit last year. When including the results of ACC, along with favourable valuation movements (primarily on financial instruments) the operating balance deficit was $4.4 billion, compared to an operating balance deficit of $8.4 billion last year. Net worth was $189.1 billion at 30 June 2025, $1.9 billion lower than last year, as the 2024/25 operating balance deficit described above, along with an increase to veterans’ disability entitlements, was partially offset by revaluation gains on physical assets.

In summary:

• Total revenue at $169.8 billion in the 2024/25 year was $2.5 billion higher than in 2023/24 and $0.2 billion higher than expected at the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2025 (Budget 2025) forecast. These variances were due in part to higher tax revenue (page 8).
• Total expenses at $183.5 billion in the 2024/25 year were $3.4 billion higher than in 2023/24 and $0.6 billion lower than expected at the Budget 2025 forecast. These variances were spread across several expenditure types (page 10).
• The operating balance was a deficit of $4.4 billion. While expenses exceeded revenue by $13.7 billion (page 14), this was offset by net gains on financial and non-financial instruments of $8.9 billion.
• The operating balance before gains and losses excluding ACC (OBEGALx) deficit of $9.3 billion was slightly higher than the deficit reported in the 2023/24 year (page 16), but $0.9 billion smaller than the deficit expected in the Budget 2025 forecast (page 27).
• Net worth of $189.1 billion has decreased by $1.9 billion since the 2023/24 year (page 26) but was $6.0 billion higher than the level forecast at Budget 2025 (page 28).
• Net core Crown debt at $182.2 billion increased by $6.7 billion since last year (page 19) but was $3.5 billion lower than the expected in the Budget 2025 forecast (page 28). As a share of GDP net core Crown debt remained unchanged since last year at 41.8% of GDP.

Overall, most key fiscal indicators are showing some signs of recovery…

Following a period of large deficits and debt rising sharply, many of the Government’s key fiscal indicators this year are showing signs of improvement. The year-on-year growth in total expenses was the lowest it has been since 2021. Consequently, total expenses as a percentage of GDP declined from 42.9% of GDP last year to 42.1% of GDP for 2024/25. The core Crown residual cash deficit, which broadly represents the cash shortfall to be funded by the Government, also reduced. The cash deficit was $6.0 billion for the 2024/25 year compared to a deficit of $19.3 billion last year. The smaller cash deficit meant that, in nominal terms, net core Crown debt did not increase as much as in recent years. Net core Crown debt has been increasing as a percentage of GDP since 2019/20, however, it remained unchanged since last year at 41.8% of GDP. Despite these signs of recovery, total expenses continue to exceed total revenues, meaning the OBEGALx deficit has widened slightly to $9.3 billion, although it remained stable as a percentage of GDP at around 2.1%.

Total revenue at $169.8 billion has increased by $2.5 billion compared to last year, with just under half of the increase coming from tax revenue. While growth in the economy has provided some lift to tax revenue, the impact was offset slightly by policy decisions reducing tax revenue, such as income tax threshold changes introduced from 31 July 2024. Most of the remainder of the increase in total revenue came from higher sales of goods and services revenue, driven by the higher wholesale prices on electricity.

Total expenses at $183.5 billion were $3.4 billion more than last year. The year-on-year movement in expenses predominately relates to the impact of indexation on most main benefit types, which are generally indexed to wage growth or inflation. Demographic changes associated with an ageing population has also driven the increase in New Zealand superannuation expenses. Offsetting these increases were decreases in some expense types relating to one-off expenditure in the 2023/24 year, such as impairments.

With the increase in total revenue and total expenses of similar amounts, the OBEGALx deficit of $9.3 billion remained broadly in line with the deficit recorded last year. In addition, the net gains from the valuation on financial and non-financial instruments were $4.2 billion more than last year. While returns on the Government’s investment portfolio were slightly weaker, this was more than offset by the lower losses on the valuation of ACC’s outstanding claims liability and the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) liability. Higher net gains during the year have resulted in the operating balance deficit of $4.4 billion being $4.0 billion stronger than the result last year.

The Government’s net worth was $189.1 billion, a reduction of $1.9 billion from prior year as the operating balance deficit reported in the 2024/25 year and the increase to the veterans’ disability entitlements were not fully offset by net revaluation gains on physical assets. The revaluation gains were largely due to upward valuations of state highways and electricity generation assets.

Net core Crown debt was $182.2 billion, an increase of $6.7 billion since last year. The increase predominantly reflects the additional funding requirement to cover the cash shortfall in the year, which is illustrated by the residual cash deficit of $6.0 billion. As a share of the economy, net core Crown debt has remained unchanged since last year at 41.8% of GDP.

…and were favourable against the forecasts at Budget 2025.

While most of the key fiscal indicators came in favourable to forecast, total revenue was in line with forecast at $169.8 billion. Despite tax revenue coming in $0.9 billion higher than expected, this was largely offset by lower than forecast revenue from the NZ ETS. The variance in tax revenue was mostly due to strength in corporate tax, on the back of stronger-than-expected provisional tax revenue and stronger investment returns impacting Portfolio Investment Entities (PIE) revenue. The weaker NZ ETS revenue was owing to fewer NZ ETS units being surrendered for emissions obligations than had been assumed in the forecasts.

Total expenses were lower than forecast by $0.6 billion with the variance predominantly driven by Crown entities, particularly in the transport and health sectors (discussed further on page 27). Overall net gains were slightly lower than forecast owing to net losses on non-financial instruments which were $0.2 billion larger than expected. As a result of the variances discussed above, both the OBEGALx deficit and the operating balance deficit were favourable to the forecast at Budget 2025, by $0.9 billion and $1.1 billion respectively.

The residual cash deficit was $4.0 billion smaller than forecast, which broadly mirrors the operating variances described above which impact cash, along with capital cashflows which were $1.6 billion lower-than-expected. This lower than forecast cash deficit flowed through to net core Crown debt, which was $3.5 billion lower than forecast at 30 June 2025.

The results are compared against the 2023/24 year and the forecasts for the 2024/25 year at the Budget 2025 published in May 2025. A comparison of the results against the forecasts for the 2024/25 year at the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 2024 are discussed in Note 3: Explanation of Major Variances against Budget 2024 Forecasts.

MIL OSI

New Zealand businesses will have a better shot at winning government contracts as a result of changes to government procurement rules, Economic Growth Minister Nicola Willis says. 

“The new rules agreed to by Cabinet will take effect on 1 December.

“More than 900 submissions were received during consultation on the new rules earlier this year,” Nicola Willis says.

“Businesses shared that the lack of weighting for New Zealand’s interests in the evaluation criteria was holding them back. That’s why we’re introducing a new economic benefit to New Zealand test that will apply to every procurement to ensure we are creating value and jobs for Kiwis. 

“We want to see taxpayer money supporting Kiwi businesses to grow, hire, and thrive.

“We also heard loud and clear that the paperwork, time and complexity were making it hard for small to medium-sized businesses to apply for government contracts. We’ve listened and these updated, simpler rules will make it easier for businesses to follow and apply the rules.

“Government contracts are collectively worth more than $50 billion a year. The purpose of these changes is to make it easier for New Zealand businesses to win more of these contracts, either directly, or as subcontractors in the supply chain.

“In addition to the new economic benefit test, the number of rules has been slashed  from 71 to 47, making them more accessible and easier to navigate.

“The new rules will apply to all goods, services, and refurbishment contracts worth more than $100,000 and all construction contracts over $9 million.

“Contracts below these thresholds are expected to be awarded to capable local businesses.

“The economic benefit test is intended to not only support more Kiwi businesses to compete for government work but to encourage international companies bidding for government contracts to demonstrate a commitment to creating value in New Zealand.

“These changes not only help level the playing field but help ensure that taxpayer money is spent responsibly and efficiently and maintains public trust as well as supporting local businesses. 

“New Zealand respects its international trade commitments and the settings in the Rules continue to uphold our obligations. This is important to ensure that Kiwi businesses continue to benefit from open access to large international markets.”

The 5^th edition of the Government Procurement Rules is available on the New Zealand Government Procurement website. 

Businesses can find Government procurement opportunities advertised on the Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS) website.

Note for Editors

The new economic benefit test means that when government agencies decide who to buy from, they must assess the wider benefit to New Zealand as well as  price and quality.

The new rule that says at least 10 per cent of the decision must be based on how much a business’s proposal benefits the economy. That means giving extra weight to things like:

• Using New Zealand businesses to deliver contracts
• Creating jobs  
• Offering training and development to upskill New Zealand workers

MIL OSI

Source: Energy Resources Aotearoa

MIL OSI

Source: Energy Resources Aotearoa

MIL OSI