Edmonds Judd

Rural

Fencing Feuds: How the Fencing Act Can Keep the Peace

Commercial, Employment, House, Kids, Latest news, Media, News, Property, Rural
0

Fences may not create friendships, but they do help make properties look tidy and defined. However, disagreements over who should pay for them can quickly turn a friendly wave into a frosty silence. Fortunately, the Fencing Act 1978 sets clear rules to help property owners handle fencing disputes without unnecessary stress.

 

Who Pays for the Fence?

If you are building or replacing a fence on a shared boundary, your neighbour is generally required to share the cost—provided the fence is “adequate,” meaning it’s reasonably fit for purpose. Before you start digging, discuss your plans with your neighbour. If you cannot agree, the Fencing Act provides a formal process to resolve disputes.

 

A Formal Process with Strict Timeframes

If you want your neighbour to contribute, you must serve them with a fencing notice detailing the fence type, cost, and who will build it. They have 21 days to agree or object. If they don’t respond, they are deemed to have accepted and must pay their share.

 

If they object, they must issue a cross-notice within 21 days, outlining their concerns or suggesting changes. If no agreement is reached, mediation, arbitration, a Disputes Tribunal, or a District Court ruling may be needed.

 

Common Fencing Issues

What if my neighbour wants a premium fence, but I prefer something simple?
They can only require you to pay half the cost of an adequate fence—not a luxury upgrade.

 

What if my neighbour sells their house mid-process?
You will need to start over with the new owner.

 

Can my neighbour refuse to let the builder step onto their land?
Yes, but you can seek a court order for reasonable access.

 

What if they damage the fence?
They must cover the full repair cost.

 

What if urgent repairs are needed while they are overseas?
You can fix the fence and recover half the cost when they return.

 

Fencing Around Swimming Pools

If your neighbour installs a swimming pool near the boundary, they must fence it in. You may need to contribute, but only up to the cost of a standard boundary fence.

 

Height Restrictions

Most fences can be built without needing council consent. However, local council rules may impose restrictions, particularly in heritage areas, so it is always worth checking before starting work.

 

Need Help?

Navigating fencing laws can be tricky but getting it right the first time saves headaches. If you need advice or assistance, the team at Edmonds Judd are here to help your fencing project go smoothly— hopefully without neighbourly disputes turning into courtroom battles.

 

Fiona Jack

Over the fence

Animals, Employment, Overseas, Property, Rural
0

Requirements when transporting livestock

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 outlines the standards and guidelines when transporting all live animals.

All animals must be provided with reasonably comfortable and secure accommodation when being transported. Animals must not be transported in a manner that causes unnecessary pain or distress, and regular welfare checks must be completed.

The legislation is supported by the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 that outline the regulations that must be followed at each stage of transporting an animal, including but not limited to:

  • Requirements for a transportation vehicle
  • Preparing animals for transport
  • Loading and unloading
  • The journey
  • Special requirements depending on the mode of transportation, and
  • Documentation required.

Animals must not be transported where they are unfit for travel unless a veterinary certificate is obtained. This includes where the animal has:

  • Ingrown horns
  • Bleeding horns or antlers
  • Lameness
  • Late-term pregnancy
  • Injured or diseased udders, or
  • Eye cancer.

In such cases, a veterinarian should be consulted. The veterinarian, at their discretion, may certify in writing that they consider the animal to be fit for transportation. The certification is only valid for seven days from the date of examination.

It is important to understand the requirements, as transportation of an unfit animal will constitute an infringement offence to the owner of the animal.

 

Recent NZ-UAE free trade agreement

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of New Zealand’s largest markets in the Middle East, with goods and services exports totaling NZ$1.1 billion for the year ended 30 June 2024. Negotiations for a trade agreement, to be known as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), between New Zealand and the UAE concluded in Wellington on 26 September 2024.

The agreement will now undergo legal verification to prepare it for signature and public release. Once signed, both New Zealand and UAE will still need to take further steps before it becomes enforceable.

The key outcomes of the CEPA include:

  • A significant expansion of New Zealand’s free trade
  • New Zealand will have the best available access to the UAE market, with New Zealand goods exporters able to access the market duty-free. The CEPA will eliminate tariffs on 98.5% of exports to the UAE. This is planned to increase to 99% after three years. The initial access includes all New Zealand dairy, meat, horticulture and industrial products, and
  • The UAE is a key export destination and hub in the Gulf region. It offers significant opportunities to enhance cooperation across many areas, including agriculture and sustainable energy.

The UAE’s high-value market offers export growth for New Zealand companies, aligning with the government’s ambitious goal of doubling export value to the region within the next decade. Importantly, this also benefits our rural sectors, driving economic benefits across the country.

 

Employment contracts for seasonal workers

In September, important changes were announced to the Recognised Seasonal Employee Scheme (RSE) to support the growth of New Zealand horticulture and viticulture.

A notable change is the increase for the 2024–25 season RSE cap where 1,250 more workers can obtain an RSE Visa, thus increasing the cap to 20,750 workers.

 

Changes for employers

Employers are no longer required to offer their employees an average of 30 hours per week. Instead, they must offer a 30-hour minimum week calculated over a four-week period, for example: 120 hours within a four-week period. This is to account for fluctuation of working hours for weather-dependent roles and to minimise the number of hours having to be paid for unworked hours.

Previously all workers had to be paid at least 10% above the minimum wage. This is now only applicable where the worker is returning for their third or subsequent season, otherwise RSE workers only need to be paid at least minimum wage.

Employers may now impose a temporary increase on accommodation costs of 15% or $15.00, whichever is lesser of the two, for a 12-month period. If, however, the RSE employee was offered an accommodation cost agreement before 2 September 2024, then an increase cannot be imposed.

An employee’s ability to move between employers/regions has now increased from 14 to 21 days either side of the worker’s current move date where it is approved by the Agreement to Recruit (ATR). This is beneficial for employers with multiple worksites.

 

Changes for employees

RSE employees are now eligible for multi-entry visas, allowing them to return home for important events without needing to apply for another visa.

RSE employees may also be able to train, study or develop their skills while living in New Zealand, even if it does not directly relate to their role. They will, however, need to ensure they still meet their employment agreement requirements.

There is also no longer a requirement to be screened for HIV.

In response to these changes, RSE employer/employee actions may differ, depending on where you are in the ATR process.

If you are unsure of your obligations, don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

 

 

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

The moral dilemma of virtual fencing

Animals, Rural
0

The popularity of virtual fencing is increasing quickly amongst dairy farmers, as an efficient method to contain and move stock.

The technology works through a collar around, say, a cow’s neck that moves it by sounds and guides it from left to right. If the cow steps over the virtual boundary, it is first guided back by sound and, if that cue is ignored, it is given a low energy shock (significantly weaker than an electric fence). It is also capable of guiding cows to walk themselves to the milking shed.

It’s not difficult to see why farmers around the country are inspired by this technology. It potentially removes the need for human labour which is not only in short supply, but is also accompanied by overwhelming regulation (think Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, Employment Relations Act 2000, Immigration Act 2009 – to name a few).

 

No brainer. . . why the opposition?

On 17 October 2024, submissions were heard before Parliament’s petitions committee from industry leaders (Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) and the SPCA) after a Golden Bay dairy farmer lodged a petition due to the impacts of virtual fencing on animal welfare. The petition received 414 signatures, with concerns that the technology was cruel and could have a long term ‘brainwashing’ effect on stock. The petitioners want cows to be left to be cows, and not made to behave like robots.

One of the companies that provides virtual fencing (Halter), has said in its own submissions that there are safeguards in place to protect animal welfare and, that when cows learn the system (estimated to be within a week), they only experience the cues for 96 seconds of the day. Compared with the conventional methods of herding cattle with quad bikes or dogs, virtual technology arguably induces less stress. Cows can walk at their own pace and experience less lameness.

 

Efficient and ethical farming or dystopian nightmare?

Neither MPI nor the NZVA have identified any evidence that virtual fencing is a risk to animal welfare.

MPI has only received one complaint and on investigation found no concerns for the safety of animals. That being said, the industry leaders are still seeking regulations for the technology to mitigate welfare risks from any new agri-technologies, as that industry develops fast.

At this stage, there is no suggestion that virtual fencing systems do not already meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, Regulations or Codes of Welfare. There is already a legal requirement that wearable collars, such as those used for virtual fencing, do not cause injury to animals and are handled in a way that minimises risk of pain, injury or distress.

However, a draft code specific to virtual fencing and best farming practice has been prepared by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee that will amend minimum standards to safeguard cattle welfare even further in respect to emerging technologies.

Following the hearing of submissions, recommendations will be decided by the petitions committee and presented to Parliament. The government will then decide what action, if any, will be taken within 90 days. Ultimately, though, the risk of harm seems extremely low, with changes unlikely to impact those already using the technology.

 

 

 

 

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

Calf Grazing: ensuring welfare and legal compliance beyond the farm

Rural, Your Own Business
0

With calving season coming to an end, many farmers will soon be sending their calves off to grazing. However, this does not mark the end of your responsibility for their welfare. As the owner, you remain fully accountable for the care of your animals, even while they are under the grazier’s supervision. While day-to-day care may be delegated, it’s crucial to carry out regular checks to ensure your animals are receiving proper attention. Relying solely on weight records or reports isn’t enough. We recommend attending weigh-ins or arranging for a local vet to perform Body Condition Scoring (BCS) to ensure adequate oversight. The cost of these measures is a valuable investment in correctly raised cattle.

Equally important is ensuring that your grazing contract clearly defines each party’s responsibilities and that these align with the Animal Welfare Act and relevant Codes of Welfare. If you’re unsure whether your contract offers sufficient protection, our farming team at Edmonds Judd can review or draft a contract that ensures compliance with your legal obligations.

If you’d like to discuss your responsibilities or receive a copy of the applicable Code of Welfare to go over with your grazier, contact our team.

Fiona Jack, Senior Associate (rural specialist)

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

The future of indoor pig farming

Rural
0

Concerns that policy is threatening indoor pig farming

Concern has been expressed by industry body, New Zealand Pork (NZP), that the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL) is threatening the future viability of indoor pig farms. It believes the NPS-HPL is preventing current indoor farms from increasing in size and is blocking new indoor farms from being established on productive land.

So what is the NPS-HPL, how does it affect current and future indoor pig farms, and what (if anything) is projected to change in the future?

The NPS-HPL was introduced on 17 October 2022. It was designed to protect productive land from encroaching urbanisation, such as housing, by restricting infrastructure development.

The NPS-HPL introduced a regime requiring regional councils to identify, map and protect land defined as ‘highly productive’ for use in ‘land-based primary production.’ Such identification relies on the Land Use Capability (LUC) system, which categorises land into eight classes of productivity. Land classified as LUC 1 is the most versatile and productive, and has the fewest limitations which makes it best suited for food and fibre production. LUC 8 is the least versatile and productive, and has the greatest number of limitations. LUC classes 1, 2 and 3 are protected by the NPS-HPL as ‘highly productive’ land.

 

Initial consultation on the proposed NPS-HPL suggested that the intention was to protect highly productive land for ‘primary production’ purposes. This was supported by NZP, but the published version of the NPS-HPL changed the wording from ‘primary production’ to ‘land-based [our emphasis] primary production’.

‘Land-based primary production’ is defined under section 1.3(1) of the NPS-HPL as, “production, from agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, or forestry activities, that is reliant on the soil resource of the land [our emphasis].”

 

Implications for indoor pig farming

NZP is concerned that while indoor pig farming is an intensive primary production activity that requires access to arable land, indoor pig farming is being interpreted by the Ministry for the Environment (MoE) and regional councils as being an ‘inappropriate land use’ under the NPS-HPL due to it not directly relying on the soil resource of the land. NZP states, “This interpretation of the policy will make it hard for new pig farms to be established and for existing farms to grow or change the way they do things.”

Farmers have expressed concern that there are no clear consenting pathways for building new, sector-specific infrastructure on highly productive land, nor are there pathways for the development of structures used for intensive indoor primary production and greenhouses.

Adding to that concern is that current indoor pig farmers may have to double their building footprints to comply with  code of welfare changes. One pork farmer stated that two-thirds of commercial pig farms in New Zealand are situated on land classified as ‘highly productive’ under the NPS-HPL. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has proposed changes to the code for pigs, including increasing the amount of space where young pigs live.

As such, NZP has identified that it could be difficult for pig farmers to construct new buildings on productive land to meet any new welfare rules. The pork farmer indicated that his business would need to build another five new indoor sheds to meet the welfare code changes.

 

The future

NZP has asked the government to change the NPS-HPL to make sure it protects good farming while still allowing for indoor pig farming.

The MoE and the Ministry for Primary Industries have consulted stakeholders about amendments to the NPS-HPL that would provide more clarity around what can be built on highly productive land. Consultation closed in October 2023, and ministers are due to seek Cabinet approvals to changes later this year. It is unclear exactly what changes are being proposed.

On 4 July 2024, however, Minister of Housing Chris Bishop unveiled six changes the government plans to boost housing growth. The minister said the changes would free up land for development, remove unnecessary planning barriers and “ensure abundant development opportunities in our key urban areas” by making it easier to build new houses. These proposed changes seem to contradict the NPS-HPL, but may well resolve the issues that indoor pig farmers face under it.

We will keep you informed of how the proposed changes progress.

 

 

 

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

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

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