+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Rural

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

Postscript

Commercial, First Job, House, Property, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Incorporated societies: must reregister by April 2026

The clock is ticking for New Zealand’s 24,000 incorporated societies to reregister by 5 April 2026. Under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022, if your incorporated society does not reregister by this time, it will automatically cease to exist.

During the next two years, every existing incorporated society must decide whether to retain its incorporated status by seeking reregistration. If it opts to reregister, it must check that its constitution (the rules of the society) comply with the requirements of the new Act. This will almost always involve amendments being made to the constitution and, in a significant number of cases, an entirely new constitution being adopted.

There is quite a list of requirements to reregister. To learn more, go to:

www.is-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz If you need advice on any aspect of reregistering, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Minimum wage increases

 On 1 April the minimum wage increased. This covers:

  • Adult minimum wage increased from $22.70 to $23.15/hour
  • Starting-out and training minimum wage rose from $18.16 to $18.52/hour

Remember that all rates are gross and before any lawful deductions such as PAYE, student loan repayments, child support, etc.

Make sure your payroll people, HR/finance teams and your accountant are all aware of these changes.

Before you dig

Whether you want to replace a fence around your property, are a contractor installing a new cable along a street or a new gas pipe, or are working for the council in resurfacing the road, it is vital that you check there are no cables or pipes below ground.

beforeUdig is an online service which enables anyone undertaking design and excavation works to obtain information on the location of cables, pipes and other utility assets in and around any proposed dig site.

It provides a ‘one stop shop’ for contractors to communicate about their planned activities with utilities and asset owners.

To find out more, go to www.beforeudig.co.nz/home.

 

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

Do I still need a trust?

Commercial, Estate, House, Property, Retirement, Rural, Trusts, Your Own Business
0

Thousands of Kiwis have, over the years, established family trusts for a variety of reasons. However, it’s well worth considering whether those reasons are still relevant today and evaluating whether your trust may have outlived its usefulness.

You may have established your family trust for:

  1. Avoiding estate duty: before 1992 it was common for high value assets (such as farms) to be transferred to a trust so your personal estate would not have to pay estate duty
  2. Eligibility for the residential care subsidy: trusts were often settled to increase the likelihood of being eligible for the residential care subsidy; the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) only considered assets you owned personally when considering eligibility for the subsidy
  3. Minimising tax: Fluctuating tax rates over the years have sometimes provided a lower tax rate for trusts than the highest rate of personal tax
  4. Creditor protection: Transferring your personal assets to trust ownership means that your personal creditors may have more difficulty accessing those assets to recover personal debts you owe
  5. Estate planning: Children may make claims against their parents’ estates where they believe their parents have made no, or inadequate, provision for them. Transferring assets to a trust during one’s lifetime leaves little or nothing for children to claim against on your death. Trusts also allow assets to be ring-fenced to help with the care of differently abled children
  6. Relationship property: settling a trust, either before your relationship is ‘in contemplation’ or afterwards (provided a contracting out agreement is also signed), is one way to help remove assets from the potential pool of relationship property that would be available for division if your relationship ends.

Things have changed

These days, however, estate (and gift) duty is no more, the top personal tax rates will soon be realigned with trust tax rates, and MSD takes a closer look at trusts when considering residential care subsidy applications. There has also been increasing court action on trusts where it is believed they may have been used to avoid creditors, claims by children and relationship property claims.

In addition, there are further consequences in settling trusts in New Zealand if you are an American citizen, from the UK (even though you may be tax resident in New Zealand), or if you are tax resident in Australia.

Notwithstanding the above, trusts are still very useful vehicles, particularly for creditor protection, estate planning and relationship property purposes.

Trust deeds, however, should be carefully drafted and have the correct documentation in place around them. Excellent legal, accounting and tax advice is needed to ensure that your trust will do the job you want it to.

If you have a family trust that may no longer be fit for purpose, or you think you need an asset protection plan, please talk with us about the options available to you.

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

Over the fence

Property, Relationships, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Family home v homestead: implications for relationship property

When a relationship breaks down, it is always difficult dividing up your joint assets.  It is important when deciding the division of relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) following a separation, or when forming a contracting out agreement, to accurately classify the home in which you and your partner/spouse live. The overall structure of the property will define whether your home is classified as the ‘family home’ or a ‘homestead.’

Family home: The PRA defines the family home as a property, including all land, buildings and improvements, which a couple generally, or primarily, reside in as their family residence. The property within the whole title must be used for the benefit of the relationship to be classified as the family home. In this case, all land under that title must be shared equally in a separation situation unless you as a couple have a contracting out agreement specifying the division of the property.

Homestead: Where only part of the property within the whole title is used for the benefit of the relationship, the portion attributable to the relationship may be considered the ‘homestead’ instead of the ‘family home.’ In this case, the remainder of the property may not be subject to the PRA principles of equal sharing, particularly if it is owned by a third party such as parents of one of the parties.

A family home will be considered a homestead if a portion of the property within the title is used by a couple as their general, or primary, family residence but the remainder of the title is used for the overall economic gain of another entity. This is more common in the rural context where couples reside on the farm but only a portion of the overall title contains the family home and the remainder is used for the economic gain of their rural business.

In this case, only the portion of the title considered to be the homestead would be considered in the division of relationship property, with the remaining property possibly not subject to the equal sharing principles of the PRA.

 

Road user charges and when to pay them?

The government imposes taxes on fuel through a road user charge (RUC) to collect funds for the maintenance and development of our roads. For most people, this tax is included in the petrol price.

Some vehicle owners, however, must pay the RUC and their fuel separately. If you own a vehicle weighing more than 3.5 tonnes, or a vehicle weighing less than 3.5 tonnes that runs on untaxed diesel, you must pay the RUC.

Your RUC licence is paid in advance to allow you to travel the distance purchased – usually in blocks of 1,000 kilometres.

You must always display the appropriate RUC licence on the inside of the passenger’s side of the front windscreen of your vehicle. Once your vehicle has travelled the distance covered by the RUC licence, you must renew your licence.

Owners must keep records of their vehicle use and have a hub odometer installed to accurately measure the distance it travels. Most vehicles that are subject to RUCs are sold with a hub odometer pre-installed.

Electric cars (EVs) do not currently incur RUCs. The new government, however, has indicated that EVs will pay the RUC from 1 April 2024 onwards.

 

Casual employees v seasonal workers

Seasonal workers are employed in certain sectors (particularly agricultural and horticultural areas) with the exclusive purpose of doing seasonal work, usually to assist with an increase in seasonal production requirements. Although seasonal work is temporary by nature, employers must be aware of the minimum entitlements for seasonal workers. There is a distinction between ‘casual’ workers and ‘seasonal workers’ in general. The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires specific clauses in employment agreements for these workers.

Casual employment: a casual worker is employed to work on shifts that are offered and accepted. There is no requirement for them to accept work you offer. In between periods of work, this worker is not considered to be employed by you.

Seasonal work: generally speaking, a seasonal worker is employed to work the entire season. These people are permanent employees on a fixed-term basis who are likely to be employed under a fixed-term agreement[1]. It is important that your seasonal worker’s employment agreement is drafted according to the specifics of the job.

If you need help with employing this summer’s casual and seasonal workers, please don’t hesitate to contact us. It’s vital to get these employment agreements correct – both for you and your employees.

[1] Section 66, Employment Relations Act 2000.

 

 

 

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

Three Waters and Resource Management Act 1991 replacement legislation

Property, Rural
0

To be repealed by new government

The 2023 election has resulted in a National Party-led coalition, that campaigned on a commitment to repeal the Labour government’s Three Waters legislation and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) replacement legislation. It has confirmed that these statutes will be repealed within its first 100 days in office.

 

Three Waters to be Local Water Done Well

The previous government introduced Three Waters to reform water management by shifting it away from New Zealand’s 67 councils, and handing it to four large co-governed regional entities. It was entitled ‘Three Waters’ as the legislation related to three main types of water infrastructure: storm water, drinking water and wastewater. In April this year, after much criticism, Three Waters was renamed Affordable Water with 10 publicly owned water services entities to be established.

The new government intends to introduce its Local Water Done Well plan that will:

  • Repeal Three Waters and scrap the co-governed mega-entities
  • Restore council ownership and control
  • Set water quality and infrastructure investment rules, and
  • Ensure water services are financially sustainable.

Within one year of repealing Three Waters, councils will be required to deliver a plan detailing how they will transition their water services to the new model that meets water quality and infrastructure investments rules, while being financially sustainable in the long-term. Communities, via their local council, will retain ownership of their assets.

Under Local Water Done Well, a Water Services Regulator will be introduced; its role will be to set and enforce water quality standards across New Zealand. It will also be responsible for developing and enforcing rules around the management of stormwater and wastewater that will include setting standards for acceptable discharge and mitigating environmental risks to rivers and beaches.

Local councils will have to present a model for the delivery of water services that is financially sustainable and meets the strict rules for water quality and water infrastructure. If a council cannot achieve financial sustainability by, for example, gaining access to long-term borrowing, the government will provide limited one-off funding to bridge the gap. Support will be decided on a case-by-case basis; Crown funding can only be used for projects needed to transition to a sustainable footing, not for day-to-day delivery of water services.

 

Resource Management Act 1991

In February 2021, the Labour government announced that the RMA would be repealed and replaced with three new statutes: the Spatial Planning Act, the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Climate Adaption Act. The first two statutes were passed in August; the Climate Adaption Bill did not pass before October’s general election. Early in its election campaign, the National Party labelled the RMA-replacement legislation as complex and pledged to repeal them within its first 100 days of office.

The National Party had agreed that the RMA needed fixing but instead campaigned on its own changes.

The National Party’s coalition agreement with ACT and New Zealand First reflects all parties’ commitment to reduce red tape. In particular, the government wants to make it easier to obtain consents for infrastructure (including renewable energy), building houses, and aquaculture and other primary industries. The coalition agreement also presents a desire for ‘allowing farmers to farm’ which suggests the red tape cut from the RMA will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy and more time spent actually farming.

The new government has stated that it will begin to work on a longer-term programme to repeal the RMA, however the detail of this plan is yet to be announced. We will keep you informed during that process.

 

 

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

National, ACT and New Zealand First coalition

News, Rural
0

What can agriculture expect?

All three political parties that make up the governing coalition campaigned on the premise that agriculture is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy. Each party stated that the rural sector should be supported, rather than what they saw as being hindered by government, particularly in the areas of regulation, red tape and climate policy.

In this edition, we cover the proposed repeal of the Three Waters and resource management replacement legislation in the next article, but what else are we likely to see from this government?

 

The parties’ agreements

There are two separate agreements between the coalition partners – the National-ACT Coalition Agreement and the National-New Zealand First Coalition Agreement.  Both agreements should be read in conjunction with the other and, in the agriculture area, are quite similar in their aims. Both agreements contain commitments to:

 

  • Reduce red tape and regulatory blocks
  • Reverse the ban on live animal exports while still ensuring high standards of animal welfare
  • Reform the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  • Improve farm environment plans so they are more cost-effective and pragmatic for farmers, and to be administered by regional councils and targeted at a catchment level
  • Replace the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to better reflect the interests of all water users, and
  • Liberalise genetic engineering laws.

 

Some differences in approach

There are some areas, however, where the coalition agreements aren’t exactly the same, but look to achieve similar outcomes. For example, in the National-ACT agreement, the parties agree to maintain a split-gas approach to methane and carbon-dioxide through to 2050, and to review the methane science and targets in 2024 for consistency, with no additional warming from agricultural methane emissions.

 

The National-ACT coalition agreement also contains a commitment to amend the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to limit ministerial decisions to national security concerns (to keep politics out of it as much as possible) and to make decision making more timely.  The National-New Zealand First agreement commits to incentivise the uptake of emissions reduction mitigations such as low methane genetics and low methane producing animal feed.

 

In addition, that document also contains an agreement to amend the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry regulations to place a duty upon harvesters to contain and remove post-harvest slash.  Much of the regulation and red tape that has been criticised by the three coalition parties comes from a need to comply with international obligations. A change of government does not mean a change of those obligations and, for example, just in the last week or so the New Zealand government has signed up to the COP28 Declaration on Food Production and Sustainable Agricultural Adaptations. The Declaration seeks to protect the livelihoods of farmers while, at the same time, recognises that agriculture and food production has to ‘urgently adapt to respond to climate change.’

 

The UAE Climate Change and Environment Minister, Mariam Almheiri, said, “Countries must put food systems and agriculture at the heart of their climate ambitions, addressing both global emissions and protecting the lives and livelihoods of farmers living on the front line of climate change.”  Somewhat predictably, Greenpeace New Zealand responded by saying that this country needs to transition to a more organic farming system and that the New Zealand government should introduce policies that bring us into line with global commitments.

 

While the three coalition partners are indicating a new support for agriculture, and with the two associate Ministers of Agriculture both being farmers, a more practical approach to deal with climate and water issues is being signalled. New Zealand has international commitments that it must fulfil, as well as already recognised issues of water quality. These issues will not go away.

 

 

Looking ahead

It will be interesting to see, in practical terms, what is likely to happen in the agriculture sector over the course of this administration.  In terms of the immediate changes or focus on specific issues that are likely to arise, the government’s 49-point 100-day plan includes the repeal of the Water Services Entities Act 2022, the Spatial Planning Act 2023 and Natural and Built Environment Act 2023. The only other items that directly relate to agriculture are the government’s commitment to improve the quality of regulation, to cease implementation of new Significant Natural Areas and to seek advice on the operation of the existing areas.

 

Apart from those issues, there is a commitment to meet with councils and communities to establish reasonable requirements for the recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle and other major recent flooding events that have had a severe impact on some rural communities, particularly on the East Coast, Hawke’s Bay and the greater Auckland area.  As much as anything, we can expect to see a more collaborative approach to issues such as climate change and protecting the natural environment that, in the eyes of many in the agricultural sector, gives the sector (as one of the main drivers of our economy) the respect it deserves.

 

 

 

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

Postscript

Commercial, News, Property, Rural
0

Firearms Registry now up and running

The new Firearms Registry opened on 24 June 2023.

It is now mandatory for firearms licence holders to provide information about their firearms items. The development of the Firearms Registry follows major changes to New Zealand’s firearms laws made after the March 2019 terrorist attacks at two Christchurch mosques.

Firearms owners must register:

  • Non-prohibited firearms, including Specially
  • Dangerous Airguns (PCPs)
  • Prohibited firearms and magazines
  • Pistols
  • Restricted weapons
  • Major parts, and
  • Pistol carbine conversion kits.

You must also register firearms that do not work.

Antique firearms or airguns are not required to be registered. Registration is also not required for ammunition in your possession, nor do you need to record sales or purchase of ammunition to or from other firearms licence holders.

You can register online here: https://www.firearmssafetyauthority.govt.nz/firearms-registry or by phone at 0800 844 431 (04 499 2870) 8.30am-5pm, Monday to Friday.

 

Looking after your mental health

These days everyone is being advised to take care of their mental health, as well as making sure their physical (and emotional) needs are met. In busy working days, it’s easy (and tempting) to think things will sort themselves out if you are under pressure.

To help you manage your mental health and day-to-day activities, Spark Business Lab and The Institute of Organisational Psychology has designed an e-learning series to help you run your business more effectively and to help make your life easier.

The videos have practical advice, you can download useful tips and templates you can use every day. Go here to get started: www.business.govt.nz/wellbeing-support/brave-in-business-e-learning/

 

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

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

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]