Edmonds Judd

Animal Welfare Act 1999

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

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

Over the fence

Rural
0

Obligations of working dog owners

There are a range of legal obligations and responsibilities associated with owning working dogs. ‘Working dogs’ are specifically defined under the Dog Control Act 1996 and include dogs used solely or principally for the purpose of herding or driving stock.

Registration and microchipping: Working dogs do not have to be microchipped unless they are kept on the farm as a family pet or used for recreational hunting. While working dogs may not need microchipping, they must be registered and wear a collar with a council-provided disc or label.

When registering a working dog, you must specify that they are a working dog. If you don’t register or micro-chip (where required) working dogs, you can be fined up to $3,000.

Dangerous dogs: If your working dog attacks a person, another animal or protected wildlife, you may be fined up to $3,000 and your dog may be destroyed. If your dog causes serious injury (or death) to a person, animal or to protected wildlife you may be imprisoned for up to three years and/or fined up to $20,000.

If your dog attacks a person or animal and no destruction order is made, your local council can still classify your dog as dangerous, meaning it must be kept within a fenced area, neutered, muzzled and kept on a leash in public places. You will also be liable for higher registration fees and cannot dispose of the dog to another person without the written consent of your local council.

Protection of working dogs: You must ensure your dogs receive proper care and attention, including sufficient food, water and adequate exercise. Failing to care for your dogs is considered an offence and you could be imprisoned for up to three months or fined up to $5,000.

Local councils also have the power to impose certain obligations regarding dog controls. Therefore, it is crucial to check your local council’s policies regarding working dogs to ensure you are compliant.

MPI: Animal welfare checks

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) regulates animal welfare and ensures the safe treatment of animals in New Zealand. Since 1 July 2023, MPI is responsible for delivering inspectorate services for all animal species in New Zealand.

The Animal Welfare Act 1999 provides the legislative framework for the care, treatment and obligations relating to animals, including when using animals for the purposes of research, testing and teaching. MPI inspectors have wide-reaching authority under the Act. This allows them to enforce the rules under the legislation and to ensure that animals are being treated and cared for properly.

In particular, section 127 of the Act authorises an inspector to enter onto private land, premises, vehicles, aircraft or ships (without a warrant) to carry out a routine inspection on an animal. The power of entry does not require an inspector to hold a belief that any offence has been committed. However, inspectors may only enter onto private land at a reasonable time and evidence must be provided to the animal’s owner of the inspector’s identity. No force must be used; entry into private dwellings or a marae can only be undertaken with a search warrant.

If nobody is present at the time of entry, the inspector must leave in a prominent place a written statement of the time and date of entry, the purpose of entry, the condition of the animals inspected, the animals removed (if any), and the address of the police station or other office to which enquiries can be made.

If an inspector has reasonable grounds to believe an animal has been mistreated, they can move that animal to a place chosen by them. Inspectors may also remove an animal if they believe it requires veterinary care or the owner is disqualified from owning animals. The animal will be kept at the chosen location until a judge orders the animal be returned to the owner, or the owner is charged and the animal is forfeited to the Crown.

Firearms Registry opened 24 June 2023

After the Christchurch terrorist attacks, the government introduced laws strengthening the management of firearm use, including establishing a Firearms Register. The Register opened on 24 June 2023.

All New Zealand firearms licence holders must now register all non-prohibited firearms, restricted weapons, pistols, major parts, prohibited firearms/magazines and pistol carbine conversion kits. Do note that firearms that do not work must still be registered.

Licence holders have until 24 June 2028 to register the items listed on the previous page. However, there are a number of activating circumstances that will require someone to register the items sooner. Examples of the activating circumstances are where a firearm is being purchased or sold, where a firearm has been lost or stolen, or where a person is applying for a new (or renewing an existing) firearms licence/endorsement.

Individual firearms licence holders do not need to register antique firearms or airguns (excluding specifically dangerous airguns). Individuals are also not required to register  ammunition in their possession, nor to record sales or purchases of ammunition to or from other firearms licence holders.

To find out more about the Firearms Registry, click here.

 

 

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