+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Property

Property briefs

Property
0

Break fees: repaying your mortgage early

If you are in the position to repay your mortgage early to your lender, you can. If you have a fixed interest rate that has not expired, however, you will technically be breaching the loan by repaying early.

As a result, your lender will impose a ‘break fee.’ The break fee is designed to compensate your lender for the interest payments it will miss out on when you repay your loan early. Consult with your lender for an estimated break fee.

How the break fee is calculated will always depend on your lender, the fixed interest rate and the remaining balance on your mortgage.

You should also be mindful that many lenders offer a ‘cash contribution’ payment at the start of a loan. This is a one-off payment, for example $3,000, as an acknowledgement of you choosing them as a lender – think of it as a ‘loyalty payment’ for keeping your mortgage with that lender for a certain period of time, generally three or four years.

If you repay early or refinance your mortgage (or in some cases at least half of your mortgage) this will likely trigger a ‘claw back.’ Your lender will expect you to repay some, or all, of the cash contribution. This will be outlined in your loan documentation.

 

 

Refixing mortgages: changing the interest rate of your mortgage

New Zealand’s Official Cash Rate (OCR) is noticeably dropping. As of 9 October 2024, the OCR stands at 4.75%. Most lenders are responding by lowering their mortgage interest rates.

In light of this, now may be a good time to consider refixing your mortgage interest rate with your lender – if your lender will allow you. Alternatively, you may opt for a floating or variable interest rate that goes up and down depending on the state of the financial markets, including the movement of the OCR.

The benefit of having a fixed interest rate is certainty; you will know how much your regular loan repayments will be. With a floating or variable interest rate, the amount of each repayment may vary as the OCR fluctuates. This may be preferable for some borrowers.

Alternatively, you may want to consider having your mortgage split between a fixed rate and a variable rate.

 

 

Refinancing mortgages – switching to a different lender

When refinancing your mortgage, you are essentially repaying your existing loan with your lender and taking out an entirely new loan with a different lender. Many borrowers do this to secure themselves a better deal, usually at a lower interest rate.

If you do this, it is important to know there are legal costs and potentially break fees involved in refinancing (more on break fees in column one). If you are unsure about the process and whether or not to refinance your mortgage, talk with your lender.

Also note that if the bank paid you a cash contribution at the start of your loan (more on this in column one) and you refinance, then you may be expected to repay at least some of it. This will be outlined in your loan contract.

If you are considering making changes to your mortgage and are unsure how to go about it, please contact us. We are happy to help.

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking 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 Property Speaking 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

Assignment of commercial leases re-settlement property inspection

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

When your tenant sells their business

A common question that arises for landlords owning commercial premises (or tenants leasing those premises) is what happens to the lease when your tenant sells their business. The answer to this is usually found in the deed of lease itself.

 

Assignment of the lease

When your tenant sells the assets of their business, the lease of their premises will usually be assigned to the purchaser on the settlement date. This is documented by you (as landlord), your tenant (as assignor) and the purchaser (as assignee) entering into a deed of assignment, which will assign the rights and obligations of the lease to the purchaser of their business. Your existing tenant will usually continue to be liable under the lease for the remainder of the current lease term. The assignee will also be liable to meet the lease obligations.

Under The Law Association (previously the ADLS) form of deed of lease, your tenant cannot assign the lease without your prior written consent, which you cannot unreasonably withhold. Your tenant must demonstrate to your (reasonable) satisfaction that the proposed assignee is respectable and has the financial resources to meet the obligations under the lease. Your tenant must also be up to date with rent and not be in breach of the lease. You can also require your tenant and the proposed assignee to sign a deed of assignment, and you may also be able to request a bank guarantee or a personal guarantee from the proposed assignee.

Your reasonable legal fees relating to the assignment of the lease will usually be paid by your tenant.

 

Deemed assignment

If your tenant is a company, the shareholding in that company may change. Existing shareholders may be selling some (or all) of their company shares to a third party, or transferring some (or all) of their company shares to other existing shareholders.

Where shares in your tenant’s company are being sold, you will not need a deed of assignment as the tenant will remain the same. However, if those shareholding changes result in a change in control of the company, which is a deemed assignment under the lease, your tenant is required to obtain your written consent before transferring the shares.

You will have the opportunity to assess the financial resources and experience of the incoming shareholder and propose reasonable conditions to your consent as part of the process. You, the exiting shareholders and the new shareholders will need to negotiate in relation to the release or replacement of any existing guarantees as part of your consent.

 

Agreement to lease

You may not have a deed of lease with your tenant, with the terms of your lease instead documented in an agreement to lease, which is a basic document setting out the broad material terms without going into detail about the day-to-day workings of the lease (which is contained in the deed of lease). A tenant’s rights and obligations under an agreement to lease cannot be assigned, so if your tenant is selling their business and wishes to assign its lease which is documented in an agreement to lease, they will first need to enter into a deed of lease with you, which can be assigned to the purchaser of the business (with your consent).

While agreements to lease can be helpful for the parties to initially agree material terms, they still technically require both parties to enter into a deed of lease reflecting those terms. We recommend that you promptly enter into a deed of lease after signing any agreement to lease so that both parties are aware of their full rights and obligations under all the terms of the lease.

 

We can help

Whether you are a landlord or a tenant negotiating through an assignment of the lease, we recommend early contact with us.

If you are a landlord, we can advise on what information you should request from any proposed assignee to allow you to make an informed decision on whether you consent to the assignment of the lease.

We can help both landlords and tenants in navigating what is and isn’t reasonable from each party in the circumstances.

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking 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 Property Speaking 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

Neighbourhood subdivisions

House, Property
0

What is going up over the fence?

As urban land becomes more expensive, landowners and developers are constantly looking for ways to get the most out of their patch of dirt. Adding to the equation, a housing shortage across the country has led to increasing land development and subdivision to create additional dwellings. More recently, there has been a move to more compact multiple unit developments in many neighbourhoods.

 

Types of developments

Multiple unit developments have become popular with Kāinga Ora and other government or charitable agencies as they can build multiple dwellings onto a section that in the past may have been limited to a single dwelling.

Whether these types of developments on your neighbour’s property are being built for social housing or privately, you may have concerns about the effect they may have on your property.

 

What about my view?

Strictly speaking, no one has a legal right to a view. If you have concerns about a potential development at the property next door, you should first check the title of that property. If it is subject to any restrictive covenants that prevent certain development or subdivision, the landowner with the right to enforce the covenant could potentially put a stop to the prohibited developments. Often this will be you as the neighbouring property owner, otherwise if the covenant is ‘in gross’ it is enforceable by anyone.

Falling short of that, there may be restrictions in a covenant meaning that any new dwelling should comply with specific design specifications or building height restrictions that protect certain views or ‘view shafts.’ This may ease concerns knowing the new buildings next door should not affect your property too much.

 

No covenants, no choice?

Where there are no covenants in place that restrict the developer’s use of the land, the developer is bound solely by the relevant district plan and the Resource Management Act (RMA). The district plan sets out the local authority’s rules and restrictions for land use and development, and any application to develop a property is determined based on its compliance with the relevant district plan.

 

Consent

Where a development next door looks as though it may affect you, the developer may ask you to sign a consent. This will be either in preparation for their submission to the relevant local authority or may be a requirement set by the local authority following their application.

In either case, you do not have to sign the consent if you are unhappy with the development as it is presented. There may be a particular aspect of the design or location of the new dwellings that you don’t like; sometimes neighbours can negotiate amendments to the developer’s plan in consideration for their consent. Other times, you may simply not want it to proceed.

It is important to understand that not consenting to the developer’s request does not automatically mean that the development won’t go ahead.

 

Notification

If you are a potentially affected neighbour and you have not approved the application, the developer can request that the local authority notify the potentially affected parties of their application. At this point, you would be invited to submit your objections to the local authority for it to finally determine whether the development can take place.

In other circumstances, the relevant local authority will require that the developer notify affected parties as part of their application process. You can view the relevant district plan on your local authority’s website to determine if the development next door is compliant with the various rules relating to land and new housing.

In some circumstances, the proposed development will be wholly in compliance with the district plan and have no effect on your property. Where that is the case, you may not have any grounds for an objection or even be required to be notified of the development making it difficult to raise any objection.

 

RMA review

At present, the RMA is under review which is likely to result in a significant overhaul to the legislation governing land use and subdivision. Time will tell as to the effect of these changes on the rights of neighbours regarding subdivision and developments over the fence.

If you are approached by a neighbour about their development and need help to find out more about what they can do or what you can do to stop it, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking 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 Property Speaking 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

Wait! Before you sign that pre-nup!

Estate, House, Property, Relationships
0

Three key steps before signing

There are many reasons for couples to contract out of the equal sharing provisions of the Relationship Property Act (RPA).

You and your partner are off to have the lawyer draw up a quick document and sign it.  But the law says, “Woah there, partner! There’s a lot more to it (131 pages to be precise!), you should definitely get legal advice to check it’s what you want first.”

The RPA states that your contracting out agreement is void unless before you sign, you receive advice from an independent lawyer on the effects and implications the agreement has on your property rights under the RPA.

There are three key steps you must take before signing a contracting out agreement for it to be valid:

  1. Independent lawyers: You must each have your own independent lawyer. Generally, this means the lawyer advising you on contracting out should not have previously acted for your partner.
  2. Disclosure: Through lawyers you and your partner exchange statements showing balances and values of all assets and liabilities. If significant property is not disclosed there is a risk that a court could overturn the agreement.
  3. Advice: Once your lawyer has the details of all property owned by each of you, they can assess what your rights would be if that property were divided under the RPA. They can then provide you with advice on how the agreement affects your property rights and the implications for you if property was divided under the agreement.

This article is the first in a series of four by litigation solicitor, Kerry Bowler.

 

 

Kerry Bowler, solicitor

Will-making when you have overseas assets

Estate, Property
0

Some key considerations

For New Zealanders with overseas assets, ensuring your estate planning arrangements are in order requires careful thought and consultation with us and a tax expert here in New Zealand, as well as in the countries in which those assets are located. We outline some of the key legal considerations, highlighting potential issues that may arise if these factors are not properly addressed.

 

 

Succession in different countries

New Zealanders enjoy a reasonable degree of freedom in how their wills are drafted and to whom they leave their assets. This is, however, not always the case in countries (such as France and The Netherlands) that have ‘forced heirship’ rules. This commonly means that an estate is divided into two parts. One part is distributed to family according to specific rules, and the other part can be dealt with in a will.

Different countries often have different rules for property which is immovable (such as land) and property which is moveable (such as shares or bank accounts). This principle is known as ‘scission.’ It means that succession to land and immovable property is governed by the law in the country where your property is situated, whereas succession to movable property is governed by the law of your last place of domicile.

For people who are, for example, domiciled in New Zealand but own property in France, if your house in France is left to a friend, French succession law will apply as the house is immovable property. Whether such a gift can be validly made will be determined under French law.

 

 

Multiple wills

Not only are there differences in succession laws in different countries, but there can be different taxes applying to property and estates in those countries. For people with immovable assets in multiple countries, there should be consultation with experts to determine whether separate wills are required for each country.

Back to the above French example: there should be one will for New Zealand assets, and a French will should be drafted by a French lawyer that applies to the French assets.

There are, however, traps when multiple wills are signed. The wording is critical and, most importantly, it is essential multiple wills do not inadvertently revoke each other.

A case in 2021[1] illustrates what can happen if proper care is not taken. Beverly McLean signed two wills: an earlier one applying to her New Zealand assets, and a later one applying to her South African assets.  Despite her instructions emailed to her lawyer that the two wills were to deal only with the assets in each respective country, the court confirmed that the later South African will inadvertently revoked the earlier New Zealand will as it stated, ‘I, [name] revoke all previous testamentary dispositions and declare the following to be my Last Will.’ As a result, all of the assets in the estate passed under the South African will.

The clause which featured in the above case is a common clause in a will. However, where a will-maker has multiple wills dealing with assets in different countries, the clause is not appropriate and should not be used.

 

 

Tax implications

Wills can have surprising tax consequences. The choice of executor can be important, and overseas beneficiaries may need to pay tax on their share of an estate.

The situation is straightforward when an executor of a New Zealand estate is a New Zealand resident.

If a will appoints an overseas-based executor, or a person who later moves overseas, this can lead to the New Zealand estate being caught by an overseas tax regime, or the New Zealand estate being treated differently by Inland Revenue. This can be a particular problem between Australia and New Zealand as in Australia, an estate is treated as any other trust for tax purposes. One way to address this in a will is to specify that an executor’s appointment is only valid if they remain in New Zealand.

Beneficiaries can also be liable for tax on their share of an estate. This usually occurs when they live overseas. If they live in a country with inheritance taxes, they may receive a much smaller share of the estate than other beneficiaries who live in a country with no inheritance tax.

If some of the beneficiaries live overseas,  the estate can pay these taxes so that each beneficiary receives the same amount. A will needs to state this clearly, otherwise the default position is for the beneficiary to pay tax on their share of the estate.

Some overseas countries have deadlines for inheritance tax payments. Payment is sometimes required before the beneficiary has received their inheritance. A will can provide for an executor to advance funds in that case, so that the beneficiary is not out of pocket while waiting for their inheritance.

 

 

Be proactive

Preparing wills in New Zealand is becoming complicated as more of us live and travel overseas, and acquire international assets. When considering the provisions in your will, or when reviewing your current will, it’s essential to list your overseas assets, where they are located, and whether overseas lawyers and accountants will be needed.

If you need advice about your will and where your assets are located, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We are happy to help.

[1] Re McLean [2021] NZHC 1463.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust 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 Trust 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

Contracting out agreements for relationships late in life

Estate, Property, Relationships, Trusts
0

A wise move as financial affairs are more complex

You may think that a ‘pre nup’ is most commonly used when a young couple begins a relationship and there is a significant difference in their financial position. However, these agreements, formally known as contracting out agreements (COAs), can be entered into at any time during a relationship. They are particularly useful for couples entering into a de facto relationship, or marrying later in life, as both parties are more likely to come to the relationship with more complex financial affairs.

 

 

Why have a COA?

One of the couple may have been through a previous separation or the loss of a spouse. They may have children – dependent or adult. They may also have trust or company structures that make their overall asset profile less straightforward from a relationship property perspective than younger couples who are just getting started with their lives together.

In these cases, a COA can give both parties (and their families) clarity about what will happen to their assets if one of them dies, or if they decide to separate.

A COA is a way of opting out of the default rules as to how the division of property is dealt with under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). Without a COA, the default approach would apply; this generally means that relationship property assets are divided 50:50. An equal split, however, is not always appropriate. In complex cases, parties can end up in protracted court cases trying to figure out how the PRA applies to their particular situation.

While the default rules are a helpful fallback position where people cannot agree how property will be divided, the PRA does not necessarily reflect what all couples would regard as ‘fairness.’ The legislation also does not take account of fact-specific or unusual cases. COAs allow couples to set in place clear and bespoke rules that apply to their particular circumstances, and their specific assets, in the event their relationship or marriage breaks down.

 

 

Opens up discussion

One of the benefits of considering a COA is that it opens up the discussion between a couple as to what they would like to happen to their property, or what they might consider fair, in the event that one of them dies or they separate. Often we find that couples have never had this conversation, but have made assumptions about what will happen or what their partner thinks should happen.

In particular, these assumptions can be harshly tested and shown to be wrong when a partner dies unexpectedly. The surviving partner may find that they have radically different expectations about what will happen compared with the deceased partner’s children and any other parties involved in such an estate.

The same issue can arise if a couple separates. Efforts to resolve relationship property issues may be made in circumstances where the partners’ perceptions of fairness have changed over time. There may have been unequal financial contributions made during the relationship or owing to events, such as infidelity, that have occurred during or which ended the relationship.

 

 

Complex finances

Where a couple has a complex financial situation, including trust and company structures, a COA should be supported by documents between the parties and the trusts or companies, so that no assets fall through the cracks or fail to be taken into consideration. It is important for couples to seek independent advice about the types of documents required, and their effect.

 

 

Review a COA regularly

It is also critical that couples review their COA as life changes. When properties are bought and sold, home improvements funded or other big changes happen, the COA may become out of date and difficult to apply. A new agreement, or an amendment to an existing agreement, can ensure that everyone has clarity about what the changes mean and what their effect will be if there is a death or separation.

A COA can only be enforced if both parties have received independent legal advice and both lawyers certify the agreement. This requirement ensures that both parties are fully informed about the effect of the agreement.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust 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 Trust 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

Over the fence

House, Property, Rural
0

Service tenancies on the farm

Arrangements where an employer provides housing accommodation to their employees, such as where a farm worker who lives on the farm, are known as ‘service tenancies.’

A service tenancy is governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1986; it must be recorded with a written agreement. Regardless of whether your tenant pays rent for the property, it is still considered a service tenancy. A tenancy agreement may be incorporated into an employment agreement, however it is beneficial if they are two separate documents.

The Act sets out the rights and responsibilities for service tenancies – for both landlords and tenants. As a landlord you must provide the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness, comply with healthy homes standards, smoke alarm requirements, and any health and safety obligations. Your tenants must pay the rent when due, keep the property reasonably clean and have the right of quiet enjoyment.

A notable difference between service tenancy agreements and other tenancy arrangements is the notice period required to end the service tenancy. If you are terminating a worker’s employment, or your employee has decided to leave, both parties must give each other at least 14 days’ notice of the intention to end the tenancy.

In situations where the employment has ended you may give your tenant less than 14 days’ notice if you believe substantial damage will be done to the property if they continue living in the property, or you need the accommodation for a new employee starting in less than 14 days and no other accommodation is available.

 

Checking terms of engagement regarding liability

In farming there are often multiple parties involved in the overall enterprise. In the seed industry, for example, there is often the supplier, grower and cleaner.

The terms of engagement is a legally binding agreement that sets out the rights and obligations of each party in the overall structure. It is important to understand the terms you have agreed to particularly regarding liability so that you know if/when you could be liable for the seed and any damage caused to it.

The terms of engagement can differ depending on the structure of the arrangement. Whether your land is leased by a business to grow seed or whether you buy and grow the seed yourself can alter the rights and obligations. Different parties are liable for the seed from the time it is planted, through to harvesting and cleaning. For example, if the seed is damaged during the cleaning process it is important to know whether you are still liable or whether the seed cleaning company, if outsourced, has assumed liability for the damage.

Understanding your liability under the terms of engagement and ensuring that you have the appropriate cover in place is important. Who is liable, and what rights and obligations are owed differ depending on what process is followed.

 

 

Farm lease coming to an end – what’s required?

Under a farm lease the lessee commonly pays the farm owner (lessor) to run an independent farming operation on the leased land. Such a lease often gives the lessee access to the land, building and other infrastructure on the property or portion of the property.

Although this arrangement is mutually beneficial to both parties, it is not a shared responsibility. Your lessee is responsible for maintaining the land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease.

The duration of the farm lease should be included in the lease document. There are also prescribed obligations to comply with when the lease expires. Your lessee often has to ensure that, at the end of the lease, the land is returned in an acceptable state as agreed to in the lease terms, and is also required to remove alterations or additional fixtures they may have installed, and to destock the land.

If your lessee does not comply with these lease terms, they may have to pay the costs and expenses associated with removing fixtures.

 

If you would like some guidance on any of these topics in Over the fence, please contact us. We are here to help.

 

 

 

 

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

Over the fence

Property, Relationships, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Contract grazing

Contract grazing is one of the ways you can farm that does not require land ownership. It is an arrangement where land ownership, livestock ownership and organising the grazing can all be managed separately.

Any species of livestock that are bred for meat or dairy (for example: cattle, sheep, goats or deer) can be the subject of contract grazing arrangements.

When involved in contract grazing, it’s imperative that you have a written contract that ensures a mutual understanding and definition of the obligations and responsibilities amongst the parties.

It is also important to include an animal health programme ensuring the animals’ welfare is protected and maintained, including the day-to-day management, health management, animal arrival obligations and reproduction requirements. The contract should include how and when payments should be made, and how any conflicts could be resolved.

The arrangement can involve up to a maximum of three separate entities each carrying out a specific role – the landowner, the livestock owner and the grazier (grazing manager). The grazier oversees the grazing activities and provides management expertise to the land and livestock owners.

If you are involved in contract grazing, don’t hesitate to contact us when you need to organise the contract.

90-day trial periods available again for all employers

As it had indicated pre-election, the government reinstated the 90-day trial periods for all employers. The 90-day trial period has had something of a flip-flop history.

First introduced in 2008, trial periods were initially applicable for employers with 19 or fewer employees; the overarching idea was that it would reduce the risks that employers face when hiring a potential employee. In 2010, the 90-day trial period was extended to all organisations – whatever their size. In 2018, the Labour coalition amended the law back to being applicable to only employers who had fewer than 20 employees. However, since December 2023, the 90-day trial periods have been reinstated for organisations of all sizes. There is ongoing debate that the 90-day trials diminish the risks for employers and increases the uncertainty for employees.

A 90-day trial period can be used for your employees if they have not previously worked for you. For you to include a trial period when hiring a new employee, you and your prospective employee must agree to the trial period before they start work. The trial provision must be included in their employment agreement to be able to terminate within that trial period. If you want to dismiss your ‘trialled’ employee, it’s essential the correct steps are taken during the process.

You should note that your dismissed employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance in respect of the dismissal if it is within the trial period. It’s important to be aware, however, this does not prevent your employee raising a personal grievance on other potential qualifying grounds such as discrimination or bullying.

We strongly recommend you talk with us early if you intend including a trial period or using a trial period to dismiss your employee. Getting it wrong can cause much distress for them, and a great deal of money and time for you.

Minimising phosphorus in waterways

Most farmers work hard to manage the water quality on their properties. They change grazing arrangements, manage their fertiliser applications, fence riverbanks and wetlands, plant trees and place sediment traps.

Dairy farm fertiliser effluent contains phosphorus that may enter freshwater from run off or leaching from paddocks. Although phosphorus is essential for plant growth and crucial for food security, it leaves a devastating footprint on the environment. A key ingredient in synthetic fertilisers, the damaging impacts are seen when phosphorus contaminates lakes, rivers and (ultimately) the ocean. Phosphorus can encourage the growth of algae in fresh water that pollute and degrade the health, mauri and wairau of our water. It means our waters may not be suitable for swimming, fishing and drinking, and affects its biodiversity.

The good news is, however, that in many areas the amount of phosphorus in our waterways is declining. All farmers should minimise the impact of phosphorous leaching by stock exclusion, creating riparian buffers, undertaking planting and preventing runoff from critical source areas.

The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM 2020) provides guidelines for monitoring and managing dissolved reactive phosphorus in rivers and how freshwater should be managed. Farmers are recommended to apply phosphorus to paddocks only if necessary. An increase in plant productivity could lead to a decrease in run off and less erosion. Using a phosphorus index ensures you can find paddocks that have high potential for phosphorus loss and therefore avoid using that fertiliser.

 

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

Live animal exports

Latest news, News, Property, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Government intends to lift the ban

In April 2023, following intense pressure from animal welfare organisations, the Labour government banned live animal exports. The basis of the ban was centred on an independent review that New Zealand’s international reputation was being damaged by its live animal export programme because of animal welfare standards being breached.

The government’s plan

With the ongoing pressure from SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) and other animal welfare organisations, the government is proceeding with caution. It intends to introduce amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 that will impose strict regulations and ensure a ‘gold standard’ of care. This includes fit-for-purpose live export ships and certification regimes for the livestock and their destination country. The government believes these regulations will protect animal welfare and safety.

The government has not indicated the timing for these proposed legislative changes.

 

The good . . .

The answer is obvious – revenue. In 2022, before the ban on live animal exports, revenue of $524 million was generated for the farming sector. Reports say the ban resulted in a loss of between $50,000– $116,000/year per farm[1] that, in the current economic climate, is significant to those who have lost this source of revenue. The return of live animal exports may bring some financial relief to farmers. With the level of red tape involved, the actual benefit of live animal exports is unclear.

 

The bad . . .

No animal, except of course those of the aquatic variety, is designed to sustain long journeys by sea. Exporting live animals to China, for example, can take anywhere between 15–40 days and, during that time, the animals have endured rough seas, long periods of standing in their own excrement, heat stress and injuries. The conditions during the journey are aggravated further because once the ship docks, there are no assurances of continuing animal welfare and safety on land. Many importing countries lack the minimum welfare standards that New Zealand enforces.

And the ugly

While petitions have been submitted and lobbyists are in full force in New Zealand, elsewhere in the world live animal exporting continues to be practised. Earlier this year, 2,000 cattle and 14,000 sheep spent two weeks enroute from Perth to the Middle East, only to be turned around and returned to port at Fremantle where they remained on the ship for almost six weeks while the exporter attempted to obtain a new export permit. The Australian government is now under immense pressure to follow through with its own election promise to ban live animal exports.

Will our government follow through on lifting the ban?

That remains unknown. Each side of the argument will continue to pressure the government to make what that side believes is the right decision.

There remains a strong belief that live animal export represents such a small share of agricultural revenue (0.2%)[2] since 2015 that the damage to New Zealand’s ‘clean’ reputation is far worse than the benefit of the export receipts.

What farmers can certainly expect is that if the live animal export ban is overturned, there will be stricter regulation and more red tape, and the costs associated with those increased regulations may be onerous. Farmers can expect an update to this process this year.

[1] Livestock Export New Zealand.

[2] Ibid.

 

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

Significant Natural Areas

Latest news, News, Property, Rural
0

Suspended while government overhauls RMA

Associate Minister for the Environment, Andrew Hoggard, announced on 14 March 2024 that the government will suspend the Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) requirements while it overhauls the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It comes as a timely announcement after the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) unsuccessful prosecutions[1] of two rural landowners due to the council having wrongly identified wetlands on private farmland.

So what are SNAs, how do they currently affect our rural landowners and how will they be addressed in the future?

Defining an SNA

SNAs are areas containing ‘significant indigenous vegetation’ and ‘significant habitats of indigenous fauna’ that must be protected to ensure ongoing biodiversity. The basis for defining and identifying SNAs is in section 6 of the RMA:

‘6 Matters of national importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide [our emphasis] for the following matters of national importance:

. . .

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna: . . . ’

 

While the RMA is nearly 33 years old, it was only in August 2023, when the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity came into force, that a mandatory standardised approach and criteria were introduced to protect SNAs under s6. In practical terms, the Policy Statement required regional councils to identify and map SNAs within their territory (including on private land) and include them in their district plans by August 2028.

 

Implications for rural landowners

Once an SNA has been identified, it means that the area is noted on the council’s records. The use to which that land can then be put is more controlled. That doesn’t necessarily mean that existing uses of that land will be stopped – although it could. It does mean, however, that generally speaking existing activities are unlikely to be able to be intensified and new activities are likely to be subject to tighter controls – if permitted at all.

There is no direct government compensation for a landowner who has an SNA identified on their land. The SNA identification process has been somewhat controversial. This is partly because the RMA does not define ‘significant’ and, as a result, it has been left to each council to interpret this, largely using case law and ecological guidance.

Regional councils’ interpretation and identification of areas to protect under the RMA has recently been highlighted by the GWRC’s two unsuccessful prosecutions of rural landowners, one of which has been labeled by the Court of Appeal as a ‘miscarriage of justice.’

In both cases, the GWRC was found to have incorrectly identified wetlands on private farmland. Although the GWRC’s prosecutions were unsuccessful in both cases, they illustrate how severe the penalties can be under the RMA. In one case, Mrs Crosbie was fined $118,742 as the owner of the property, and Mr Page was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment (which he had already served prior to the Court of Appeal hearing).

The future of SNAs

The message from this government has been very clear – stop mapping and imposing SNAs for three years while it reviews the RMA. Mr Hoggard has said that quickly suspending the SNA requirements was to ensure councils did not waste resources and efforts on requirements that were likely to change. He has also asked officials to review existing SNAs.

The suspension, however, will not change the need for councils to protect areas of national importance under s6 of the RMA. Arguably, regional councils could still identify areas on private land to protect, and they may impose restrictions on private landowners on the use of such land. Nevertheless, with the clear message from the government to not waste resources in this area, it is unlikely that we will see regional councils identifying new areas to protect until the government provides further guidance to those councils or new resource management laws are passed.

[1] Page v Greater Wellington Regional Council [2024] NZCA 51 and Greater Wellington Regional Council v Adams [2022] NZEnvc 025.

 

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

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]