Rural

Rob and Jess have been working as farm assistants for Bob for the past 3 years.

Bob is wanting to take a step back from the day-to-day running of the farm and has proposed that Rob and Jess take a big step up and share milk his farm.

This is a dream come true for Rob and Jess but it is also a bit overwhelming – there is so much to think about and organise.

They need to sign a sharemilking contract, buy cows and machinery and hire staff, as well as find a way to pay for everything!

It is all very new to Rob and Jess and they want to make sure that they are setting themselves up properly.

Rob and Jess meet with their lawyer who advised them on the sharemilking contract, drafted a stock purchase agreement and an employment agreement and assisted them with completing their financing with the bank.

This has made Rob and Jess feel much more relaxed and they can get on with their favourite part – farming!

 

Lucy Sim


Vacant possession

What does it mean?

If you are buying a property and intending to live in it, one of the first things that you should ensure is that the property is being sold with vacant possession.

Vacant possession means that you receive the property without the previous owners or tenants still occupying the property. This is an important feature of every property transaction; it is difficult to move in if someone else is still living in your new home. As a purchaser you might also include a clause requiring all rubbish and chattels to be removed by settlement date too, with the property to be left in a clean and tidy state.

Timing for vacant possession

The usual position is that vacant possession needs to be given to the buyer no later than 4:00pm on the settlement date. Best practice if you are selling is to have moved out as soon as possible, ideally before the settlement date so that there are no unnecessary delays on the actual day. This isn’t always possible if you are settling on the property you’re moving to on the same day. In this instance, it is important that you let us know not to settle until you can provide vacant possession. You must have all of your belongings moved, and any rubbish cleared from the property so your buyers can move in straightaway.

At the same time, it is prudent that the property that you are moving into is also vacant.

Clear communication with us regarding timing and/or pre-planning or storing items ahead of your settlement can help alleviate this kind of pressure on the settlement date. The times for performance of your settlement day obligations are all recorded in clause 3 of the standard sale and purchase agreement of real estate, along with the remedies available to buyers where vacant possession cannot be provided.

Tenanted properties

The circumstances where a property might not be sold with vacant possession would usually include a tenanted property being bought for an investment purpose where the buyer wants to retain the current tenant for rental income. Due to this being a relatively unusual occurrence, sellers looking to make their sale as attractive as possible should consider selling with vacant possession so their potential sales market is not limited.

If you are selling a property that is tenanted and want to provide vacant possession, you should ensure that you give your tenants the requisite notice under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 that they need to move out in the required time period. Failing to do so could result in delays to the settlement of your sale that could potentially cause penalty interest to be payable to the purchaser.

Unable to provide vacant possession?

If you cannot provide vacant possession for your buyer on the settlement date, there are some actions that may be taken by the buyer set out in clause 3.13 of the agreement.

Refusal to settle: If you cannot move out and are still occupying the property or if your tenant has not moved out due to not being given the requisite notice or some other dispute, the buyer may refuse to settle. This can be a serious problem where you are relying on funds from your sale to complete a purchase; it may result in a chain of defaults for which you (as the originating defaulting party) may be liable. The cost for delaying settlement is generally prescribed by the penalty interest rate that is recorded on the front page of the agreement.

Withholding funds: If you have moved out but left belongings at the property, the buyer may seek to withhold a portion of the purchase price on settlement until this is removed. If you do not remove these items within an agreed time period, the buyer may retain those withheld funds. Again, if you require every penny from your sale proceeds, this could also trigger a chain of defaults.

Compensation claim: In some instances the buyer may claim compensation from you under the compensation process in clause 10 of the agreement. This will be a claim for the cost of removing any items left behind that the buyer has had to dispose of or any other costs that the buyer has incurred as a result of you failing to provide vacant possession. A disputed claim for compensation could result in a delay to settlement while the dispute is resolved.

Get organised

Due to the severity of the consequences of not providing vacant possession and the potential cost associated with failing to do so, it is crucial that you discuss with us your transaction timeline to ensure that your settlement proceeds smoothly rather than turning into an expensive nightmare.

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


Tenancy terminations and pets

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 has significantly updated the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the laws governing the relationship between landlords and tenants.

Some of these updates took effect on 30 January and others are expected to  roll out in the remainder of 2025. These updates transform the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants – for better or for worse. We summarise the key updates below.

Termination of tenancies

No reason needed to terminate tenancy: Since 30 January 2025, landlords are no longer required to provide a reason to their tenants for terminating a periodic tenancy; they simply have to state they are giving 90 days’ notice of termination. For clarity, a ‘periodic tenancy’ is a standard tenancy with no end date, unlike a ‘fixed term’ tenancy which lasts for a set amount of time, say 12 months. Before 30 January 2025, landlords had to give grounds for terminating a tenancy, such as for demolition or extensive renovations.

Terminating on ‘special grounds’: Landlords now only need to give 42 days’ notice when they are terminating the tenancy on special grounds, including if a family member needs to live in the property as their main residence, or the property has been sold and needs to be vacated for the new owners to take over. Until 30 January,  landlords had to give 63 days’ notice.

More rights for tenants: The legal rights and abilities of tenants have also increased. Tenants now have up to 12 months to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order declaring a termination notice to be unlawful and that the landlord has retaliated against the tenant for enforcing their legal rights, or in response to legal actions taken against the landlord by another person or body. If a tenant applies within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, they can request that the notice be cancelled.

Before 30 January 2025, tenants only had 28 days to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal in respect of a notice in general.

Tenants also now only need to give 21 days’ notice for ending a periodic tenancy. Previously, they had to give at least 28 days’ notice.

The Amendment Act also confirms that tenants may leave their tenancy at shorter notice if they, or one of their dependents, are experiencing family violence.

It will be interesting to see how these amendments play out, especially when reviewing future decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal, including where tenants dispute termination notices. We touch upon other changes and updates to the powers of the Tenancy Tribunal below.

As an aside, the ways in which landlords and tenants can give notice to one another has changed. The Amendment Act confirms that landlords and tenants can give notices in more modern ways, such as over text or messenger, rather than a physical written notice.

Pets

In the second half of 2025, we expect to see major law changes relating to pets kept in rental premises. Landlords will be able to require their tenant to pay a ‘pet bond,’ on top of their original bond, which can  be an additional two weeks’ rent on top of the original bond. A tenant must obtain their landlord’s written consent to keep a pet on the premises. A landlord may refuse the request only on reasonable grounds, including the premises not being suitable for the type of pet or vice versa. It could be that the breed of dog is too large, and/or the nature of the breed is considered destructive or aggressive and/or could be disruptive to neighbouring properties.

If a tenant’s pet dies during the tenancy, the tenant is entitled to ask for the return of the pet bond from the landlord less any compensation for any damage, and reasonable wear and tear attributable to the pet.

We look forward to seeing how these new rules relating to pets play out.

Tenancy Tribunal

Since 20 March 2025, the Tenancy Tribunal should become quicker and more efficient in its day-to-day operations. The Tribunal now has, for example, the ability to determine matters ‘on the papers’ (considering an application and response, then making a decision) without the need for a hearing.

In more complex and technical cases, and where there are major factual disputes, however, it is likely that the Tribunal will still require a proper hearing.


 

Natural disaster risk and insurance

When you have lending secured by a mortgage on your home, it will be a condition of that lending that you have full replacement insurance for your house. This is a requirement for any new lending (and your lender won’t allow you to draw down the loan without seeing evidence that this in place), and an ongoing requirement with existing lending.

Insurers are now commonly asking whether the local council has recorded that a property could be impacted by any natural hazards (for example, whether it is in a flood zone). If it is noted that the property is potentially impacted by a natural hazard, the insurer may have some follow up questions before deciding on whether it will offer insurance. It may ask whether the local council has completed any remedial work to address the hazard, or whether any specific work has been completed with the property to reduce the impact of the hazard, such as the property being built on piles to elevate it above the anticipated flooding level.

Insurers are also asking questions about whether the property has previously been affected by natural hazard events, such as flooding, earthquakes or landslides/slips.  As above, if it has, an insurer is likely to have follow up questions regarding any remedial work that may have been completed.

Depending on the potential hazards, some insurers may be reluctant to offer insurance cover. If you are considering buying a property that could potentially be impacted by natural hazards, we recommend you confirm you can obtain full replacement insurance before submitting an offer or within the period of your finance condition.

Unconsented works: what can go wrong when selling?

Completing work on your property without obtaining a building consent may seem like a good way to renovate your property without the time delays or cost of your local council involvement. It is, however, likely to lead to significant headaches during your ownership or when you sell your property.

Should you suffer a loss to your property that is caused by non-compliant work, such as installing a wet-area shower without a building consent and the shower room then floods and causes water damage to your property, you may find that your insurer declines your claim. Not only can this mean you will need to fund the cost of repairs yourself, but it can also have implications in obtaining other insurance policies in the future as you will need to disclose that you have previously had a claim denied.

When selling your property, you have an obligation to disclose to buyers any work you have completed but for which you have not obtained the required consent. Additionally, buyers will often review either a Land Information Memorandum or the Property File as part of their due diligence. If the buyer (or their lawyer) notices that there are renovations to the property which required a building consent and it was not obtained, the buyer may not be able to obtain insurance or finance.

Any unconsented works will need to be disclosed to both the insurer and the lender.  Depending on the nature of the work (and the insurer), insurers may decline to cover the property with the unconsented work.

If the buyer can’t obtain full replacement insurance, they will not be able to confirm satisfaction of a finance condition. Even if the buyer can obtain insurance, their lender may not accept the property as security; this means the buyer will be unable to confirm satisfaction of the finance condition.

We recommend you always obtain the required building consent before beginning any building work.

If you have already completed work without a building consent, talk to us about the best way to approach your local council to rectify the issue.

If you aren’t sure whether your next project requires consent, Can I Build It is a good tool which can be used as a guideline; the website can be found here.


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

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 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


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

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


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