Edmonds Judd

News

Failure to return an employee’s personal information led to expensive results for an employer

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Latest news, Media, News, Online, Relationships, Social Media, Trusts
0

In a recent decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal an employer has been ordered to pay an ex-employee damages of $60,000 for interfering with the employee’s privacy.

 

The CEO invited the employee out of the office for a coffee meeting. During that meeting, the CEO gave the employee a letter detailing concerns about the employee’s performance. While they were out of the office, a director of the employer took the employee’s work laptop, personal USB flash drive, and personal cell phone from the employee’s desk without the employee’s consent or knowledge.

 

About a week later, the employee’s employment was terminated.

 

The employer later returned the personal cell phone, but did not return the personal information that had been stored on the work laptop or the employee’s USB drive.

 

Despite several requests over a long period of time, the employer failed to return the employee’s personal information and USB drive. Instead, the employer effectively blocked the employee’s attempt to obtain the return of his information, engaging in a range of tactics that delayed the return of the information.

 

The Tribunal found that the employer had collected the employee’s personal information when uplifting the laptop, cell phone and USB. It went onto find that the employer had breached information privacy principles 1, 2, and 4 of the Privacy Act 1993 because the employer had not collected the personal information for a lawful purpose or directly from the employee, and the personal information was collected in circumstances that were unfair and constituted an unreasonable intrusion on the employee’s personal affairs.

 

The Tribunal went on to determine that the breaches were an interference with the employee’s privacy as they had caused significant humiliation, injury to feelings and loss of dignity to the employee. In support of this finding, evidence had been provided by the employee that three weeks after the collection of his information, he was formally diagnosed with acute anxiety and depression, prescribed antidepressants, and sleeping medication. The employee had also started attending counselling.

 

The employer argued that the health conditions were caused by the loss of work, not by breaches of the collection principles. However, the collection does not need to be the sole cause of the consequences suffered.

 

Emails and other correspondence in evidence showed that the health conditions were attributable to distress about the collection of the information, including the inability to retrieve it, and not knowing who had seen it, and who was using and sharing the personal information

 

The Tribunal also found that the collection had caused the employee loss and detriment when he couldn’t complete his tax return on time, leading to a penalty. It also negatively affected his interests as it impacted his health, his career prospects and removed access for him to a personal USB and he did not have access to all his personal information that had been on his laptop.

 

The Tribunal found that an award of damages of $60,000 appropriately reflected the significant level of humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced by the employee because of the wrongful collection of his personal information.

 

A prompt return of the personal information wrongly collected would have significantly reduced the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced and therefore the amount of any award.

 

This claim was decided under the Privacy Act 1993 because the actions all occurred prior to that act being replaced by the Privacy Act 2020. However, it is still relevant to conduct under the 2020 Act – information privacy principles 1 – 4 and the test to show an interference with privacy has remained largely unchanged.

 

The decision is: BMN v Stonewood Group Ltd [2024] NZHRRT 64.

 

Joanne Dickson

Overturning the foreshore and seabed decision

Latest news, Media, News
0

Changes for CMT applicants

The government proposes to overturn a 2023 Court of Appeal decision covering Māori customary rights to the foreshore and seabed. It is of the view that the court’s decision gives too much power to iwi and hapū over what happens on ‘too much’ of New Zealand’s coastal areas.

The Marine and Coastal Areas (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill will result in only a small fraction of the coastline (about 10%) being available for customary marine title (CMT) which the government alleges was the intention of the 2011 legislation on which the Court of Appeal ruled.

 

Defining the foreshore and seabed

The seabed is the land that is completely submerged underwater (the sea around the coast).[1]

The foreshore is the land that is regularly covered by the tide (the wet part of the beach).[2]  It includes land covered by high tides in spring, the space occupied by the air and water above the land, and the soil and rock under it.

 

Marine and Coastal Area (Takuati Moana) Act 2011

In 2011, the National-led government replaced the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (MACA). Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed was replaced with a ‘no ownership’ regime.

Under MACA, iwi could apply to the court or negotiate with the Crown for CMT over a particular area.  However, these interests could not prevent existing rights and uses such as fishing, aquaculture and public access. Iwi or hapū applicants are required to meet two conditions under MACA to apply for CMT:

  1. It must hold the area in accordance with tikanga, and
  2. It must have exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.[3]

In establishing CMT, matters to be considered include whether the applicant group or its members exercise non-commercial customary fishing rights in the specified area, and have done so from 1840 to the present day.

 

2023 Court of Appeal decision

In the 2023 case of Re Edwards,[4] the Court of Appeal judgment eased the test for CMT. Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Paul Goldsmith, said that the court’s decision effectively meant that exclusive use no longer had to be demonstrated, opening up much more of the country’s coastline to CMT than what was intended when the MACA was passed.

 

Amendment Bill

Mr Goldsmith said the Amendment Bill would ensure the tests were interpreted and applied as originally intended when MACA was introduced by increasing the threshold of the test.

However, the Attorney-General appealed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Edwards and, on 2 December 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously granted the appeal, stating that the Court of Appeal majority erred by taking an unduly narrow approach.[5]

A consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that the Amendment Bill may no longer be necessary, because the Supreme Court has already reversed the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of MACA.

 

Aquaculture implications

The real impact of CMT’s on farmers is on the aquacultural farming communities.

Resource consent is required to occupy the seabed for aquaculture. While a CMT holder does not have ownership rights over public access, a holder does have veto rights on any resource consents required for activity by others or for the development of the area in question.

However, given the Supreme Court’s decision, irrespective of the Amendment Bill, we may see fewer resource consents being vetoed by CMT holders.

If you are a CMT holder and have any queries around your access, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

 

[1] 5, Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

[2] 5, Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

[3] 58, Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

[4] Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Te Kāhui and Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board [2023] NZCA 504, [2023] 3 NZLR 252.

[5] Whakatōhea Kotahitanga Waka (Edwards) v Attorney-General [2024] NZSC 164

(2 December 2024).

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

📢 Supreme Court Decision: Fiduciary Duties and Parent-Child Relationships

House, Kids, Media, News, Online, Property, Relationships
0

The Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated ruling in A, B and C v D and E Limited as Trustees of the Z Trust known as the Alphabet case. It concerns the extent of fiduciary duties owed by a parent to an adult child. ⚖️

The case involves a father, who transferred most of his assets to a trust during his lifetime, leaving his adult children without any entitlement to those assets. The children argued that due to past abuse they suffered at their father’s hands, including physical, emotional abuse and sexual abuse, their father owed them fiduciary duties that extended into adulthood. They believed his actions in transferring assets breached those duties, and the assets should revert to his estate to satisfy their Family Protection Act claims to be provided for from his estate.

While the Court agreed that fiduciary duties exist between a parent and minor child, it ruled that those duties generally end once the child reaches adulthood or the caregiving responsibility ends. The Court rejected the notion that such duties continued into adulthood, despite the children’s vulnerability due to the abuse they suffered during childhood. Importantly, the Court noted that imposing fiduciary duties in this case would create legal uncertainty and “reverse engineer” a remedy for past wrongdoing.

The Court also ruled against treating the trust assets as part of the father’s estate. However, it acknowledged the need for legal reform in this area and pointed to the Law Commission’s 2022 proposal to allow courts to unwind property transactions that intentionally defeat claims under succession law.

While the Court was sympathetic to the appellants, it ultimately found that the law could not support their claim in this case. The ruling highlights the need for further reform in this area of law, which the Law Commission’s proposals may address in the future.

Kerry Bowler, Solicitor Kerry Bowler

Keep a Close Eye: Your Responsibility for Grazed Livestock

Animals, Health Issues, Latest news, Media, News, Online
0

When your livestock are grazing away from your property, your legal obligations as their owner under the Animal Welfare Act don’t go on holiday. It’s your duty to ensure their care meets the required standards, and that means staying actively involved in their well-being.

Here’s why regular checks and oversight are non-negotiable:

  1. Weighing and Monitoring
    Insist that the grazier regularly weighs your animals and provides detailed reports. But don’t just rely on the numbers—attend these weighing sessions periodically to verify the accuracy of the data and get a firsthand look at your animals’ condition.
  2. Feed and Water
    Livestock require enough feed to maintain good health and condition. Check that they have consistent access to high-quality, clean water to prevent dehydration and support overall well-being.
  3. Safe Surroundings
    Ensure the grazing environment is safe, free from hazards, and appropriate for the type of stock being grazed. Unsafe conditions can lead to injuries, poor health, and stress for your animals.
  4. Signs of Illness or Injury
    Early detection is key to preventing long-term issues. Look for signs of lameness or other health concerns. Timely treatment can make the difference between a full recovery and chronic problems like susceptibility to bone damage or ongoing mobility issues.
  5. Correct Handling
    Observe how your animals are being handled. Poor handling practices can lead to stress, injuries, or behavioural issues. It’s your responsibility to ensure they’re treated with care and respect.
  6. Accountability
    Don’t take a “set and forget” approach to sending livestock out for grazing. Visit them regularly to ensure the care described by the grazier matches the reality. This keeps the grazier accountable and ensures you’re meeting your obligations as an owner.
  7. Development of Young Stock
    For young stock, this period is critical to their growth and development. Regular monitoring ensures they’re meeting weight targets, growing at a healthy pace, and building the foundation for a productive future.

Ultimately, livestock owners must remain hands-on, even when animals are in someone else’s care. Regular checks safeguard their well-being and ensure you’re compliant with the Animal Welfare Act. After all, your animals rely on you to advocate for their welfare, wherever they are.

Ensuring Animal Welfare This Summer

Animals, House, Media, News
0

As the summer sun blazes, it’s a timely reminder to step up and meet our animal welfare responsibilities, whether you’re a dedicated farmer or a devoted pet owner. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) Codes of Welfare provide the essential roadmap, setting minimum standards for animal care and offering best practices to help you go above and beyond.

Summer brings unique challenges for animals, and heat stress is a major concern. For pets, never leave them in cars, even for a short time—internal temperatures skyrocket, creating a life-threatening situation. Adequate ventilation and shade are equally crucial indoors to keep your furry friends comfortable.

For farmers, the stakes are high, especially for dairy cows. According to DairyNZ, cows thrive in temperatures between 4-20°C. Above this, they begin to experience heat stress, exacerbated by the energy-intensive process of digesting food and producing milk. As temperatures rise, they absorb more heat from their surroundings, making it harder to maintain their body weight and productivity.

Combatting heat stress means getting strategic. Ensure your grazing plan allows cows access to shade, such as tree cover, during the hottest parts of the day. Keep plenty of fresh, clean water available and adjust feeding practices to help them stay cool and maintain their condition.

This summer, let’s prioritise our animals’ comfort and well-being. To ensure you are on the right track, dive into the Codes of Welfare on MPI’s website. And if you are after expert advice tailored to your needs, our friendly team at Edmonds Judd is just a call away. Let’s make this summer safe and stress-free for all!

 

Fiona Jack

Fallen in love with a beach house over the holidays? Going to AirBnB it? Rent it out for a fixed term? Slow down …

House, Latest news, Media, News, Property, Social Media
0

If you’re buying a beach house and planning to rent it out or Airbnb it when you’re not using it, there are some things you might want to consider:

 

  1. If you are going to rent the property out – make sure that it complies with the healthy homes standards. If not, consider how much it might cost you to make it compliant.
  2. If you are going to rent it out with Airbnb, you don’t have to comply with the health homes standards.
  3. Either way, you might want to consider how difficult it might be to manage the property if you live a couple of hours drive away from the property. Think damage, parties, meth use or production, and cleaning up at the end of each stay.
  4. Consider additional costs for operating an Airbnb. Some councils increase rates for temporary accommodation arrangements like Airbnb.
  5. You will need to make sure that you obtain insurance that covers you if your Airbnb or rental tenant damage the property.
  6. Again, get yourself some tax advice.
  7. Finally, if you are renting, make sure you know your obligations as a landlord and how you can go about legally ending the tenancy.

 

We’re open again from 6th January to help you with your property purchases and conveyancing needs. We can also help you with ownership structures, negotiating property sharing agreements, succession planning, and any disputes that might arise.

 

Joanne Dickson

Postscript

Latest news, News
0

Feedback about NZ Post’s service obligations

No doubt you have heard that the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) is seeking feedback from the public on how changes to NZ Post’s minimum service obligations could impact New Zealanders who still need to be able to send and receive mail. NZ Post’s obligations are set out in a Deed of Understanding, last updated in 2013.

 

With mail volumes continuing to decline significantly (one billion mail items were sent in 2014 and around 220 million sent in 2023-24), NZ Post estimates volumes will continue to decrease to about 120 million items by 2028. It is seeking a more financially sustainable mail service model.

 

Proposed changes include reducing minimum delivery frequency, reducing the minimum number of postal outlets and proposing mail items are delivered to clusters rather than individual mail boxes.

 

If you want to give feedback, submissions are open until 5pm on Tuesday, 10 December. To make a submission, go to www.mbie.govt.nz and click on ‘Have your say.’

 

Beware of scammers in the coming Christmas season

With the hustle and bustle of Christmas coming up and the demands of the end of year activities, it is easy to let our vigilance slip in terms of scams – whether they be through emails, phone calls or text messages.

 

In Fineprint’s Winter 2024 edition (page 5) we offered some tips to help protect yourself and your money this holiday season.

 

 

 

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year

 

As this edition of Fineprint is the final issue for 2024, we wish you all a very Merry Christmas and a happy, safe and healthy 2025.

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Modernising the Companies Act

Commercial, News
0

In August 2024, the government announced that it would progress a package of reforms to the Companies Act 1993 and related legislation.

 

The reforms are designed to address several issues that are regularly encountered in practice, to make New Zealand an easier and safer place to do business and to increase uptake of the New Zealand Business Number (NZBN).

 

The reforms will be carried out in two phases:

  • Phase 1 will focus on modernising the Act, simplifying compliance, deterring poor and illegal business practices and making improvements to insolvency law to make outcomes fairer for creditors. The bill introducing these reforms is expected in early 2025, and
  • Phase 2 will take place after a Law Commission review of directors’ duties and liability issues, which is also due to begin in early 2025.

 

Phase 1

The first phase includes reforms that will address several practical issues. The key changes that have been suggested for Phase 1 include:

  • Introducing a simpler process for a company to reduce its share capital, modelled on Australian legislation
  • Amending the definition of ‘major transaction’ by excluding transactions relating solely to the capital structure of a company (for example: issuing shares, share buy-backs, dividends and redemptions) and by clarifying that a series of related transactions does constitute one ‘major transaction’
  • Extending the shareholder unanimous consent process in section 107 of the Act to cover issuing options or convertible securities, crediting unpaid share capital and acquiring shares to be held as treasury stock
  • Providing a process for dealing with unclaimed dividends
  • Providing for certain actions such as share buybacks and a company holding its own shares to be available by default (currently these actions are only allowed if expressly permitted by the company’s constitution)
  • Simplifying processes to reserve company names, restore companies to the register and correct mistakes on the register
  • Allowing companies to put certain shareholder and creditor information on a webpage rather than having to physically send out copies to each person
  • Introducing unique identifier numbers for directors and changing address requirements so directors’ residential addresses don’t have to be disclosed on the public register
  • Improving insolvency laws by extending the claw back period for related party transactions, and
  • Introducing various measures to improve the uptake of the NZBN.

 

The bill containing the reforms will be introduced in early 2025, and the public will be able to make submissions on the legislation as it progresses through the select committee stage.

 

Phase 2

The second phase is expected to begin in parallel with Phase 1, starting with a Law Commission review of directors’ duties and liabilities. This is expected to address several concerns, including that the law related to reckless trading and incurring obligations is unclear and difficult to apply.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Business briefs

Commercial, Employment, News, Your Own Business
0

Companies Act reforms announced

The government has announced a suite of changes to the Companies Act 1993 aiming to improve fairness and the ease of doing business in New Zealand. The reform is expected to take place in two phases.

 

Phase One: The first phase focuses on the modernisation and simplification of the Act to better reflect a more evolved business and technological landscape.

 

Specific proposed changes include:

  • Providing a process for reducing the share capital of a company that does not require court approval
  • Amending the definition of ‘major transaction’ to exclude transactions relating to the capital structure of a company and clarify that a series of related transactions are captured by the definition
  • Adding additional types of transactions that can be approved by unanimous shareholder consent
  • Allowing companies to mingle unclaimed dividends with other funds after two years
  • Assigning unique identifiers to directors to prevent ‘phoenixing’ (where a new company is registered to take over an insolvent or unsuccessful one), and
  • Allowing directors and shareholders to have their residential addresses removed from the Companies Register, resolving safety and privacy concerns.

 

Further insolvency law amendments are also being proposed, including extended claw back periods, preference for long service leave and greater honouring of gift cards.

 

Phase Two: The second phase will involve a Law Commission review of directors’ duties and related issues such as director liability, sanctions and enforcement.

 

The bill introducing Phase One is expected to be introduced in early 2025 and Phase Two will closely follow.

 

 

Siouxsie Wiles employment decision

In July, the Employment Court ruled that the University of Auckland had breached its health and safety, and good faith obligations to Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles.[1]

 

Dr Wiles was prominent in the media during the Covid pandemic, communicating complex Covid information in an understandable way to the public. Dr Wiles received harassment and abuse, both online and offline, from those who disagreed with her. She sought help from the university, but was told that it was not part of her academic duties and that she should minimise further public statements until a security audit had been completed.

 

Although the university was commended for the actions it did take, ultimately, those actions were insufficient. The Employment Court was critical of the university’s delay in responding to safety concerns and the university’s misplaced focus on Dr Wiles’ outside activities. The court found that the onus was on the university to obtain the right health and safety advice, and proactively put a plan in place. By failing to do so, the university was not acting in good faith and was breaching its contractual obligations to be a good employer.

 

This ruling serves as a good reminder that employers, especially those in the public sector or that engage with the public, should consider health and safety risks in relation to employees’ work-related activities, including where those activities pose a risk of harassment. Employers may also be responsible for work related activities occurring outside of an employee’s work premises and normal working hours.

 

 

New bill to improve consumer data rights

Parliament is currently considering the Customer and Product Data Bill – a bill designed to increase consumer control over their data. It is currently with the select committee. If passed, the legislation will create an obligation for businesses that possess customer data to provide, on request, that data to those customers and certain third parties.

 

The bill will help consumers access their data to compare services and change providers, making it easier for new or smaller businesses in an industry to compete with the ‘big players.’ The bill introduces hefty fines for non-compliance, including a fine of up to $50,000 for failing to respond to a data request and a fine of up to $5 million for making an unauthorised data request. Initially, the bill will only apply to the banking, electricity, and telecommunications sectors.

 

 

Changes to insurance industry coming

The Contracts of Insurance Bill, that awaits its second reading, will make significant changes to the rights of policyholders and insurers to promote confidence in the insurance market and ensure that insurers operate fairly. The bill proposes several changes to insurance contracts legislation, including:

 

  • Disclosure duties: The bill draws a distinction between consumer policyholders (where the insurance contract is for personal, domestic or household purposes) and non-consumer policyholders. Consumer policyholders will have a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.
    Non-consumer policyholders will have a duty to make a fair representation of the risk. This shifts the burden on insurers to ask the right questions to reveal all the information they need
  • Unfair contract terms: The bill removes the existing exception for standard form insurance contracts from the unfair contract term provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1986. In other words, the unfair contract terms regime will apply more widely to insurance contracts, meaning insurers must make sure that the provisions of their insurance contracts are fair.
    There are still some exceptions in insurance contracts that will not be subject to the unfair contract terms regime, including event, subject or risk insured, sum insured, the basis for settling claims, excess, and exclusions or limited liability in certain circumstances, and
  • Proportionate remedies: Insurers will no longer be able to avoid an insurance contract for any failure or misrepresentation of a policyholder. Instead, insurers will have proportionate remedies based on how it would have responded if it had known the relevant information, such as reducing the amount paid on a claim.

 

Uber appeal dismissed: drivers are employees

In 2022, the Employment Court made a landmark ruling against Uber when it found four Uber drivers were employees and not independent contractors.[2] Uber appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal issued its decision in August.[3] The Court of Appeal criticised the Employment Court’s approach, stating that the first step should be to look at the parties’ agreement governing the relationship, rather than whether the individual is vulnerable or suffering from an imbalance of power. Ultimately, however, the focus should still be on the parties’ mutual rights and obligations, interpreted objectively.

 

Despite these criticisms, the Court of Appeal still dismissed the appeal affirming the finding that Uber drivers are employees. This means Uber must provide the drivers with employee benefits, including minimum wage, leave entitlements and holiday pay.

 

The decision only applies to the four Uber drivers, but it has implications for all businesses that engage contractors, particularly for those operating in the gig economy. It is a timely reminder for businesses that rely on contractor workforces to ensure their contracts accurately reflect the nature of the relationship with their workers.

 

The Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden has indicated that the coalition government intends to amend the Employment Relations Act in 2025 to increase certainty and clarity for contractors and businesses regarding employment status of workers. The changes will provide a four part gateway test which, if met, would mean a worker is a contractor. More information on the government’s announcement can be found here.

 

If you would like to know more about how any of the items in Business briefs may affect you and your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

[1] Wiles v University of Auckland [2024] NZEmpC 123.

[2] E Tū Inc v Rasier OperaAons BV [2022] NZEmpC 192.

[3] Rasier OperaAons BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Budget 2024

Latest news, News, Rural
0

What was in it for the rural sector?

On 30 May 2024, the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, presented her first Budget. The government is focussed on rebuilding the economy, easing the cost of living, delivering better health and education services, and restoring law and order.

Of course, within all those subsections, there is an underlying reliance on agriculture, the highest contributing sector to our economy. So, what did the Budget provide for the rural sector, and is there anything that farmers can look forward to over the next three years?

 

Drilling down to detail

After the Budget was presented, the Minister of Agriculture, Todd McClay said, “[It] places our trust back in farmers and growers by cutting public spending and reducing red tape, while also driving the efficiencies required to increase value and place the sector’s success at the forefront of New Zealand’s economic recovery.”

 

Practically speaking, the government intends to do that by:

  • Doubling exports by delivering strong frontline services, cutting red tape and reducing regulatory costs
  • Minimising the administrative burden on farmers caused by duplication, red tape and regulatory blocks on things such as irrigation, water storage, flood protection schemes and stock exclusion rules
  • Replacing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (Three Waters) and delivering better resource management legislation for the primary sector
  • Taking an independent review of agricultural biogenic methane science by providing clear advice on New Zealand’s domestic 2050 methane targets
  • Committing $27 million for the removal of woody debris in Tairawhiti that will restore and help prevent further damage to vital infrastructure in local communities in the region
  • Committing $36 million over four years to catchment groups that back farmers’ efforts to improve land management practices, and
  • Driving innovation that will ensure farmers and growers remain global leaders in challenges, including reducing on-farm emissions.

 

The government considers its Budget will back the sector’s continued growth by providing support and professional resources to the frontline, and boosting research and innovation.

 

Should we be optimistic?

No one would expect the rural community to feel particularly inspired by this Budget and its overuse of words ‘innovation’ and ‘growth’ that do not necessarily translate to practical implementation.

The Budget is clearly focusing more on the bigger election promises such as infrastructure, education, and law and order. Although the Budget was more or less neutral on agriculture, the sector will nonetheless be pleased to see a focus on legislative repeal that was going to create a suffocating amount of red tape and make farming financially unviable (for some) in the near future.

It was a tight Budget that intends to put New Zealand’s books back into the black. The deficit is forecast to continue through to 2025 with a surplus expected to be reached in 2027–28. The government will continue to rely on revenue from the rural sector, but it seems unlikely that those at the farm gate will notice any positive economic changes for several years.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.


Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2021.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650