+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

NZLaw

Business briefs

Commercial Law, Consumer Protection, Employment Law, Privacy Law, Regulatory Compliance, Trade & Investment
0

Commerce Commission – unconscionable conduct

For the first time, the Commerce Commission has filed proceedings under the prohibition on unconscionable conduct in the Fair Trading Act 1986. This development suggests that active enforcement in this area is underway.

Unconscionable conduct is business behaviour that falls well below accepted New Zealand standards and goes beyond ordinary commercial practice to conduct that is clearly unfair and unreasonable. This is one of several areas the Commission has identified as an enforcement priority.

The Commission has taken action against Brand Developers Limited (trading as The TV Shop) and Tech Vault Enterprises Limited (trading as HouseSmile), alleging both used high-pressure sales tactics on vulnerable consumers, including people with cognitive impairments or serious illnesses. The Commission considers this conduct a clear departure from acceptable business standards.

Businesses found in breach of the prohibition risk a fine of up to $600,000 and individuals may be liable for a fine of up to $200,000. Courts may also order businesses to compensate affected customers.

This action serves as a timely reminder to all businesses to ensure their sales practices are up to scratch, especially when they are dealing with vulnerable customers.

 

Overseas Investment Act 2005 reform

The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Act came into force on 6 March 2026, delivering a significant overhaul of New Zealand’s foreign investment framework.

The reforms are designed to make it easier and faster for overseas investors to invest in New Zealand, while ensuring the government retains the ability to scrutinise transactions that could affect New Zealand’s national interests.

Part of the reform involved streamlining the overseas investment application process. Previously, overseas investment applications had to satisfy several separate tests. A single national interest test now applies to transactions involving significant business assets and sensitive land, other than farmland, fishing quota and residential land (for which the existing consent pathways remain). Applications are assessed through a three-stage process:

  1. Risk identification: The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) assesses the application for any national interest concerns. If none are identified, consent is granted. The statutory timeframe for decisions under this stage is up to 15 working days.
  2. Risk assessment: If concerns are identified, a more detailed assessment follows. Consent can still be granted at this stage, with or without conditions. The statutory timeframe for review under this stage increases by 55 working days.
  3. Ministerial decision: In cases where the transaction may be contrary to New Zealand’s national interest, the matter may be referred to the Minister of Finance who can decline consent. There is no fixed statutory timeframe for a ministerial decision.

For business owners looking to attract overseas investment or to sell to a foreign buyer, this framework should make the consent process faster and more straightforward. That said, the regime still applies and any agreement must be specifically conditional on OIO consent being obtained before the deal proceeds.

 

New obligations for businesses collecting personal information from third parties

On 1 May 2026, Information Privacy Principle 3A (IPP3A) came into effect, expanding the notification requirement under the Privacy Act 2020 to cover indirect collection of personal information.

Previously, businesses had no obligation to notify individuals when collecting their personal information from a third party. IPP3A has changed that.

What your business must disclose: From now on, when your business collects personal information indirectly, you must take reasonable steps, as soon as is reasonably practicable, to make the individual aware of the:

  • Fact that their information has been collected
  • Purpose of the collection
  • Intended recipients of the information
  • Name and address of the agency, or agencies, collecting and holding the information
  • If applicable, which law authorises or requires the collection, and
  • Rights of the individual to access and correct their information.

Exceptions: IPP3A does not require notification in all circumstances. Exceptions include, but are not limited to, where:

  • The individual has already been notified
  • The information is publicly available
  • Compliance is not reasonably practicable, and/or
  • It is necessary for law enforcement or court proceedings.

Please note the above is to be treated as a guide rather than an exhaustive list. We recommend seeking tailored legal advice before relying on any exception.

Next steps: If you haven’t already, you may want to consider building notification into your existing policies and this should be communicated clearly to individuals. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has released guidance on IPP3A which provides a helpful starting point for understanding your obligations. Non-compliance may result in a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner, which may lead to a formal investigation and have potentially significant consequences for your business, so it is important you take steps now to ensure your processes are up to date.

For more detailed information about IPP3A together with examples of how it works, click here. If you have any questions about how IPP3A applies specifically to your organisation, please feel free to contact us.

 

Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 – key changes

The Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 came into force on 21 February 2026, introducing some significant changes to the New Zealand employment law framework. Some of the key changes of which businesses should be aware are listed below.

Independent contractors: The Act introduces a new gateway test to determine whether a worker is an employee or a contractor. To qualify as a ‘specified contractor,’ five criteria must be met that cover matters such as having a written agreement, freedom to work for others, flexible hours, the ability to decline work and having had a reasonable opportunity to seek legal advice. There is more information about the test here.

Personal grievances: Where an employee’s conduct amounts to serious misconduct and has contributed to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance, no remedies will be awarded. Where the conduct falls short of serious misconduct but still contributed to the grievance, remedies may be reduced by up to 100%.

High-income earner: Employees earning $200,000+ per year in total remuneration will no longer be able to bring a personal grievance or file proceedings in relation to an unjustified dismissal. A 12-month transitional protection applies to those already in roles when the legislation came into force.

Collective agreements: The requirement to apply collective agreement terms to new employees during their first 30 days, and the automatic sharing of new employee information with the union, will no longer apply.

Justification test: The section 103A justification test has been amended to take into account whether an employee obstructed the employer’s process. Significant procedural failures will no longer render a dismissal unjustifiable where the employee was not actually treated unfairly.

If you would like to discuss any aspect of how this new legislation affects your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial 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 Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Health and Safety, Regulatory Compliance, Risk Management, Workplace Regulation
0

Expected to be enacted in the spring

The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament on 8 February 2026 and passed its first reading on 12 February 2026. It is currently before the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Submissions closed at the end of March and the committee is scheduled to report back to Parliament by 12 June 2026. It is anticipated that the Bill will be passed before the election (early November).

If enacted, the Bill will represent the most significant reform of health and safety law in New Zealand since the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) was passed in 2015.

 

Purpose of Bill

Workplace Relations and Safety Minister, the Hon Brooke van Velden, said that the Bill is intended to reduce compliance obligations, focus on preventing serious harm and clarify businesses’ obligations under the HSWA.[1] The key proposed changes in the Bill are:

  • Increased focus on preventing serious harm
  • Reducing compliance obligations for small businesses
  • Clarification of the health and safety obligations of landowners, and
  • Clarification of the relationship between health and safety legislation, and other legal requirements.

 

Introducing ‘critical risk’

The Bill introduces a new defined term of ‘critical risk.’ Small businesses must focus on avoiding critical risks. All other businesses must manage all risks but are required to ‘prioritise’ critical risks.

The Bill defines a ‘critical risk’ as a risk associated with one of the matters specified in Schedule 1A of the Bill; this lists a number of specific high-risk activities such as working with asbestos and other hazardous substances. A critical risk also includes any hazard that is likely to result in death, a notifiable injury or illness, a notifiable incident or an occupational disease listed in Schedule 2 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.

Identifying what the critical risks are for a particular business is likely to be one of the more challenging aspects of the new legislation.

 

The impact on small to medium-sized businesses

The most significant change contained in the Bill is the narrowing of the duties of small to medium-sized businesses, referred to as ‘small PCBUs,’ to risks that are defined as critical risks under the Act.

This does not mean that small businesses have no obligations in relation to other risks. They are still required to provide adequate facilities to ensure the safety of their employees.

A small PCBU will be defined as a business with fewer than 20 employees. Businesses that have a fluctuating workforce will qualify provided that they have fewer than 20 employees for at least nine months of the year. This change is likely to have a significant impact on the compliance obligations of businesses in New Zealand, given that approximately 97% of businesses would qualify as a small PCBU.[1]

 

Obligations of landowners and recreational activities

Potential exposure to prosecution under health and safety legislation in New Zealand has long been a concern for landowners who wish to make their land available for recreational activities.

In the past, this has been a particular concern for rural landowners who have often avoided providing access to their land due to such concerns. It has also discouraged public landowners, such as schools and councils, from allowing their land to be used for recreational activities.

The potential liability of landowners was recently highlighted by the prosecution of the owner of Whakaari/White Island following the eruption in 2019, which resulted in the deaths of 22 people. The landowner was initially convicted in the District Court under the HSWA, despite not directly operating the tours to the island.[2] The High Court overturned this conviction on appeal.[3]

The passing of the Bill would mean that landowners would not generally owe health and safety obligations to people using their land for recreational activities.

 

The Health and Safety at Work Act and other legislation

The Bill would clarify the relationship between general health and safety legislation, and other legislation that applies to specific industries such as the aviation and maritime sectors.

In the past, there has been confusion as to whether or not businesses in industries covered by specific legislation have additional duties under the HSWA. The Bill clarifies that compliance with industry-specific legislation or approved industry codes of practice is also compliance with the HSWA, so there are no additional obligations.

The Bill also states that the owners of earthquake-prone buildings do not need to take additional steps under the HSWA, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Building Act 2004.

The Bill is intended to reduce the compliance work that is required by businesses under current health and safety legislation, which has become an expensive ’tick-box’ exercise for many. However, it will still be important for small businesses to identify the ‘critical risks’ in their businesses and to take steps to mitigate them.

If you have any concerns about the impact that this proposed legislation may have on your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

[1] New Zealand business demography statistics at February 2025, Statistics New Zealand.

[2] WorkSafe New Zealand v Whakaari Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 4149.

[3] Whakaari Management Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2025] NZHC 288.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commerical 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 Commerical eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Budget 2026

Government & Policy, Infrastructure & Development, Public Sector, Social Welfare Law, Wealth & Retirement Planning
0

Securing New Zealand’s future says the Minister of Finance

Despite pre-Budget announcements for the health, education and defence sectors, this Budget certainly contained some meaty content.

The government’s broader approach could therefore be characterised as a ‘meat and veg now, dessert later’ strategy to economic management.

With a net operating package of an average $2.146 billion pa ($8.272 billion over the next four years), the health sector is a major winner, followed by education (including tertiary), defence and intelligence, law and order, etc totaling new expenditure of $14.666 billion over the next four years.

On the other side of the coin, the Minister has anticipated savings of $6.394 billion over the next four years, making the net package of spending of $8.272 billion over the same period.

 

Health

  • A $5.5 billion increase in funding for frontline health services
  • Funding for three-day postnatal stays ($34 million) and $16 million allocated to specialist paediatric palliative care
  • Pharmac has additional funding ($54 million) to buy more medicines
  • $682 million for capital investment includes a new tower block for Whangārei Hospital, redevelopment at Palmerston North and Hawke’s Bay Regional Hospitals, and
  • Funding to lower the eligibility age for free bowel screening from 58 years to
  • 56 years; benefitting 200,000 Kiwis.

 

Education

The government’s aim is to lift student achievement in schools. The cancellation of the final year fees-free initiative will help fund preparing young people for trades and other vocational education. The main points are:

  • $131 million to help students meet standards for the three Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic)
  • Supporting the refreshed curriculum and new national qualifications implementation
  • Continuing the Healthy School Lunches Programme
  • Doubling the number of trades academy places providing free trades training for year 11-13 students, and
  • Around 230 new classrooms will be built, and there is a funding increase for school property maintenance and daily operations.

 

Defence and foreign affairs

  • Increased funding to retain current defence force staff levels, as well as increasing numbers in key areas
  • $110 million for international development cooperation, with particular focus on the Pacific, and
  • More funding to enable aircraft, ships (including keeping our two Anzac-class frigates ship-shape) and land forces to continue to operate.

 

Social housing and welfare

  • Increasing the accommodation supplement for people in private rentals, and increasing income-related rents for people in social housing
  • Funding for up to 2,250 additional social houses
  • More case management help to support solo parents into work, and
  • $45 million for extended community food support and children’s breakfast programmes.

 

Infrastructure

The government acknowledges that New Zealand’s current infrastructure must be not only be maintained, but also expanded through new investment.

  • The construction of the Cambridge to Piarere Expressway
  • Renewing and upgrading the rail network, particularly in Auckland and Wellington
  • Financial incentives to councils to encourage housing growth
  • Investment in hospitals, schools, courthouses, police stations and defence assets, and
  • Funding to drive the reforms to the resource management system.

These investments are in addition to previously approved current and pipeline projects.

 

Law and order

The government’s focus is to reduce crime and keep New Zealanders safe. Proposals include:

  • $503 million for frontline Corrections services
  • More support ($50 million) for frontline policing
  • Funding to reform the firearms safety system, and
  • $21 million for Customs to combat drug smuggling and transnational crime.

 

Fuel response

New Zealand is currently facing unprecedented pressure on its energy supplies resulting from the hostilities in the Middle East. The government will introduce:

  • A $50/week increase to the In-Work Tax Credit for up to a year to help working families with increased fuel costs
  • Funding for additional strategic fuel reserves to firm-up the country’s fuel resilience, if required
  • A temporary increase in mileage rates for support workers and people travelling for specialist treatment
  • Additional funding for Fire and Emergency, Corrections, Policy, Customs and Education to maintain frontline activities during this period, as well as
  • A $450 million contingency fund for future fuel-related costs.

Energy security is now top-of-mind in this current uncertain fuel climate. The government proposes:

  • Capital investment in Genesis Energy to accelerate the development of new generation and firming capacity, and
  • A new loan guarantee scheme to support businesses to transition away from the use of gas.

 

Public service

The proposed cuts to the public service have already been announced, and the reception has been mixed. The government wants to see improved productivity and greater efficiency to reprioritise frontline services while reducing the public service headcount.

 

Other initiatives include:

  • $200 million will be raised by a new tax on banks to help cover Reserve Bank costs
  • Rules will be changed to tax loans made by companies to shareholders that remain outstanding six months after the company is removed from the Companies Register
  • Stricter regulations for charities: a limit of $100,000 has been set for people claiming tax deductions for making charitable donations
  • More funding to control the dratted wilding pines
  • $184 million for Oranga Tamariki to protect and support children
  • Fringe Benefit Tax rules for private motor vehicles will be simplified
  • Making the SuperGold Card an official form of ID, and
  • Funding for new technology to improve our emergency management system.

 

NZ Superannuation

A vexed topic for any political party. Although not covered in the Budget, with the ballooning costs of National Super (projected to be $31.2 billion in 2030), all recent governments have grappled with future funding. Raising the age of entitlement, albeit slowly, and means testing are only two of the many measures proposed to alleviate the pressures on government funds. It is clear that the funding of NZ Super is a major issue and will need to be strongly addressed in the near future.

Overall the government hopes the Budget funding will lead to an increased GDP and a healthier economic environment.

To read the Budget in more detail, click here for the Minister’s Budget speech. The Treasury’s website, click here, is also very helpful.

If you would like to discuss more about the government’s proposals, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial 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 Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Over the fence

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Rural & Agricultural Law, Succession Planning, Trusts & Asset Planning, Wills & Estates
0

Biosecurity overhaul

In July 2025, the Ministry of Primary Industries released its proposed ‘Biosecurity System Action Plan.’ It is intended to guide new legislation to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993, and to overhaul current biosecurity regimes to improve process, obligations and rights. This will impact importing/exporting, practices on farm and government accessibility to farms.

The action plan is presented in two tranches. The first focuses on immediate priorities – clarifying roles, modernising processes and providing training tools. The second tranche will build on successful initiatives, consider social and cultural impacts and develop long term resolutions. Significant progress on both tranches by 2030 is proposed.

Key proposed amendments following submissions and consultation include:

  • Placing greater decision-making discretion with regional councils and management agencies – including the ability to create exemptions, issue permits for pests and produce small scale management plans
  • Increasing and introducing new penalties, including for obstructing a lawful search
  • The ability to grant one-off or ad hoc permits for imported goods, and
  • Removing the need for the current exemption for regional councils to enter private land to manage pests.

A draft bill is anticipated to be presented to Parliament in late 2026.

To read more on the Biosecurity System Action Plan, the steering group workshops and the proposed next steps, click here.

 

Employee v contractor

On 21 February 2026, a new ‘gateway test’ was introduced to determine whether an individual is an employee or a contractor in terms of employment law. The gateway test does not apply retrospectively.

Gateway test: An individual is a contractor if they meet all the gateway test criteria. These are:

  • There must be a written agreement stating they are an independent contractor or are not an employee
  • No restriction from working for others (except while undertaking agreed work)
  • They are not required to work at a specified time/period OR they can subcontract the work, subject to legally required or justifiable vetting
  • Additional future work can be declined without the arrangement being terminated, and
  • There has been a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the arrangement.

If all criteria are satisfied, the individual is a contractor. If any of the criteria is not met or for claims brought prior to 21 February 2026 the common law test (below) applies.

The four factors below are considered together to determine whether an individual is a contractor:

  1. Intention – what did the parties intend the relationship to be? Consider entitlements received – for example, contractors are not entitled to holiday pay.
  2. Control v independence – high employer control over hours, work and methods may be indicative of an employer/employee relationship
  3. Integration – is the role fundamental to an employer’s business and continuous in nature, and
  4. Fundamental/economic reality – does the economic reality reflect a person in business on their own account? Consider fee structure, tax obligations, ability for the individual to profit and who bears financial risk.

The distinction between an employee and contractor is highly relevant for the rural sector as you may have both contractors (such as sharemilkers and contract milkers) and employees (farm hands, managers, etc) working on your property.

 

Wills and EPAs: essential for rural sector

For people who are responsible for farms and other major assets, it is important to ensure you have a current will and Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs). If you don’t have these and you die unexpectedly, lose mental capacity, or are unable to attend to your personal affairs for a period, it could lead to not only farming operations being disrupted, but also family uncertainty and having to spend time and money on sorting things out.

Will: Your will sets out your instructions about the distribution of your property to your family after you die. Even if you have a will, it is good practice to regularly review it, so it reflects your current situation and wishes.

If you don’t have a will, there is legislation[1] that decides how your estate is divided up; this arrangement may not be what you would wish. To prevent this, it’s optimal (and much easier) to ensure you have a valid will that reflects your wishes. Your family will thank you for it.

EPA: An EPA is a legal document that allows a trusted person (your attorney) to manage your affairs and personal care. There are two forms of EPA – one covering property affairs and the other about your personal wellbeing. An EPA for personal care only applies if you lose mental capacity, while an EPA for property can also apply while you have capacity.

For a property EPA, your attorney could be a trusted friend or relative, or you could appoint a trustee company to manage your property matters.

For a personal care and welfare EPA, you can only appoint a person as your attorney.

We can help you set up EPAs and a will or, if you already have them, review them so they reflect your current situation.

[1] Administration Act 1969.

 

 

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.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

WorkSafe’s heightened focus on farm safety

Employment Law, Health & Safety, Regulatory Compliance, Rural & Agricultural Law, Workplace Regulation
0

Development of Approved Codes of Practice

WorkSafe New Zealand has promised greater attention to safety in the agricultural sector when it announced the new four-year ‘Statement of Intent’ on 4 December 2025.

In recent years, WorkSafe has significantly increased its focus on the agricultural sector reflecting the industry’s persistently high rates of serious injury and fatalities. Farming remains one of the most hazardous occupations in New Zealand, and WorkSafe’s evolving approach aims to address the root causes of harm while working more collaboratively with those on the land.

A key development has been the designation of agriculture as a priority high-risk sector. Alongside the other sectors classified as high-risk (construction, manufacturing and forestry), farming now receives a significantly greater share of WorkSafe’s attention and resources.

This prioritisation is embedded in the regulator’s broader strategy which centres on reducing fatalities, minimising serious injuries and targeting the activities most likely to cause harm. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all regulatory model, WorkSafe is increasingly tailoring its interventions to reflect the unique risks present on farms.

 

Greater attention

One of the most visible aspects of WorkSafe’s effort is the development of Approved Codes of Practice (ACOPs) specific to agriculture. These codes are designed to clarify what ‘good practice’ looks like in practical, farm-based scenarios.

Current and emerging ACOPs focus heavily on the use of vehicles and machinery – areas consistently identified as leading causes of death and injury on farms. This includes guidance on quad bikes, tractors, utes and side-by-side vehicles, as well as their safe operation on uneven terrain and proper maintenance procedures.

Additional codes address responsibilities in multi-operator environments and provide clearer expectations around child safety on farms – an issue of ongoing concern in rural communities.

Alongside regulatory guidance, WorkSafe has expanded its on-the-ground presence. Inspectors are increasingly visiting farms not only to assess compliance, but also to engage directly with farmers and workers.

Hundreds of visits have been carried out in concentrated periods, with around 1,000 farm visits conducted between October and December 2025 with a focus on observing real-world practices involving machinery, hazardous substances and general risk management.

These visits are not purely enforcement-driven; they are also intended to provide practical advice and identify common issues across the sector. This hands-on approach allows WorkSafe to gather valuable data while building relationships within the farming community.

 

More collaboration

Another important element of WorkSafe’s strategy is its emphasis on education and industry collaboration. Acknowledging that lasting improvements in safety require cultural change, the regulator has partnered with industry groups and events to promote safer practices. Campaigns and resources such as ‘Keep safe, keep farming’ aim to integrate health and safety into everyday decision-making on farms.

By working with organisations that already have credibility in rural communities, WorkSafe’s aim is to influence behaviour in a way that traditional enforcement alone cannot achieve.

Perhaps the most notable shift in WorkSafe’s approach is its move toward a more balanced model of regulation, combining enforcement with proactive guidance.

While WorkSafe retains the ability to take enforcement action where necessary, there is now a stronger emphasis on helping farmers understand and meet their obligations before incidents occur.

This reflects an understanding that many farmers operate in complex, resource-constrained environments where practical, accessible advice can be more effective than punitive measures alone.

 

Looking ahead

WorkSafe New Zealand’s activities in the agricultural sector represent an evolving strategy.

Through targeted regulation, increased farm visits, collaborative education efforts and a focus on the most significant risks, the regulator is working to improve safety outcomes across one of New Zealand’s most vital industries. While challenges remain, the current approach signals a commitment to reducing harm through both accountability and support.

To read more on WorkSafe’s ACOPs, 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.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

KiwiSaver changes open the door to first farm ownership

Banking & Finance, Government & Policy, Property Law, Rural & Agricultural Law, Wealth & Retirement Planning
0

Good news for rural workers

The government has announced important changes to KiwiSaver that will make it easier for farmers and rural workers to use their KiwiSaver to buy their first farm. These reforms acknowledge the unique way in which farms are owned and operated in New Zealand.

For many in the rural sector, particularly sharemilkers, contract milkers and farm managers eager to climb the property ladder, this represents a meaningful step toward farm ownership.

Legislation giving effect to these changes will be introduced to Parliament in the middle of the year.

 

Key changes

Until now, KiwiSaver first-home withdrawals have been limited to residential property purchases, with strict requirements that the buyer both owns and lives in the home. This has created barriers for those pursuing farm ownership, as farms are often:

  • Purchased through companies or trusts, rather than in an individual’s name, and
  • Used as both a business and a place of residence, sometimes with accommodation arrangements tied to employment.

The upcoming changes are designed to address these challenges by allowing eligible KiwiSaver members to withdraw their funds to buy a first farm, even where the ownership structure is more complex.

 

Who can benefit?

The updated rules will apply to people who would ordinarily qualify for KiwiSaver first-home withdrawal, who have contributed to KiwiSaver for at least three years and not previously owned a home (or being approved as a ‘second chance’ buyer). The changes are aimed at first-time farm buyers, not those expanding existing farming operations.

 

Key conditions

While the rules are becoming more flexible, there are still some important conditions for first-time farm buyers:

  • Control of the farm: You must have a meaningful ownership interest in the entity purchasing the farm (for example, a majority shareholding or controlling interest). This ensures KiwiSaver is being used to support genuine ownership, not passive investment
  • Connection to the property: The farm must still have a residential element connected to you. While the strict ‘live in the home’ rule is being relaxed, the purchase must still align with the intent of helping you secure your primary place of living and working
  • First property focus: The withdrawal remains limited to your first property purchase (or equivalent approved situation), and
  • Standard application process: You will still need to apply through your KiwiSaver provider, providing supporting documents such as a signed sale and purchase agreement and statutory declarations.

 

Why this matters for farmers

For many in the dairy and wider farming sector, progressing from employment or sharemilking into ownership has always required significant capital. KiwiSaver is often one of the few accumulated assets available to younger farmers. By allowing KiwiSaver funds to be used in farm purchases — and recognising company and trust structures – the law is now better aligned with how farming businesses actually operate.

This change is expected to improve access to deposits for first-time farm buyers, support succession planning within the rural sector and help younger farmers transition into ownership earlier.

 

Considerations before proceeding

While the changes are positive, there is still some complexity involved. Before relying on KiwiSaver funds for a farm purchase, it is important to consider:

  • How the farm purchase will be legally structured
  • Whether your level of ownership meets the control requirements
  • The impact on lending and finance arrangements, and
  • Ensuring your application meets your KiwiSaver provider’s requirements.

We recommend you seek legal and financial advice early in the process; this will help ensure everything is set up correctly from the outset.

 

Final thoughts

These reforms mark a practical and long-overdue shift in KiwiSaver policy. By acknowledging that farms are both homes and businesses, the government will create a more realistic pathway for rural New Zealanders to enter farm ownership.

With the changes in the legislative pipeline, if you are considering farm ownership, now is a good time to start planning and take advice on how best to position yourself.

 

 

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.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

New Zealand Superannuation beneficiaries

Elder Law, Government & Policy, Government Policy, Immigration & Travel, Social Welfare Law, Wealth & Retirement Planning
0

New Zealand Superannuation beneficiaries

 

Overseas travel

Getting ready for a trip overseas, and suddenly the burden of your NZ Super benefit weighs on your mind? Many wonder how their island getaway or their skiing holiday will impact their payments.

Travel is split into three distinct categories by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) so the length of your overseas adventure becomes important.

 

Travelling overseas for 26 weeks or less

If you are travelling for less than 26 weeks, and you are only receiving New Zealand Superannuation (NZ Super) or a Veteran’s Pension, you do not need to notify MSD. You will continue to receive these payments while you are away.

If you receive other payments such as an accommodation supplement or disability allowance, however, you must contact MSD. You may still be eligible for these payments for up to 28 days while you are away. However, you will need to be careful when travelling for long periods. If your trip lasts more than 30 weeks, you may have to pay back the full 26 weeks of payment you received. This all depends on whether your delay is expected or unexpected.

 

Travelling overseas for more than 26 weeks

If you are travelling for more than 26 weeks, you may still be able to receive NZ Super or Veteran’s Pension payments. This section applies to those who still intend to keep New Zealand as their place of residence; it involves an application being made at least six weeks before you leave New Zealand. The assessment covers various aspects including things like time spent living in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. Any other payments you receive will cease when you begin your travel.

 

Living overseas

If you are intending to move overseas, you may be happy to know that this does not immediately mean you will stop receiving your NZ Super or Veteran’s Pension payments. In this situation, you must also apply at least six weeks in advance of your departure from New Zealand. How much ongoing NZ Super or Veteran’s Pension you receive will depend on similar assessment criteria to travel longer than 26 weeks (see above), as well as the country you are moving to and its relationship with New Zealand. For example, New Zealand has transferable arrangements with 22 Pacific countries.

The last thing you want to worry about when away on holiday is your NZ Super. Rest assured, if it is only a short trip, you need not worry; if it is a long sojourn, a touch of preparation may alleviate your stress.

For the specifics of applications and further detail around other payments and arrangements relating to your overseas journey, Work and Income New Zealand’s website www.workandincome.govt.nz is very helpful or contact them on 0800 552 002.

 

Contacting the Office of the Privacy Commissioner

The Office of the Privacy Commission (OPC) has changed how it responds to enquiries.

Until recently, the OPC had operated a bespoke service with a dedicated email address and 0800 number to ask privacy questions. Many of those queries could have been answered by looking at their website or their contacting the organisation’s privacy officer.

With a massive increase in enquiries, the OPC has changed how New Zealanders can contact it.

The email address ([email protected]) is no longer operational and any emails sent to that address are not answered.

The 0800 803 909 number remains. From 1 May 2026, an automated message will give callers a suite of options to choose from, rather than a personalised response.

The OPC’s website can help answer privacy questions, including outlining your privacy rights.

Privacy breach notification: There are no changes to the way to contact the OPC of a notifiable privacy breach. The online NotifyUs reporting tool is unchanged and will help you assess the seriousness of the privacy breach.

 

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, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Navigating redundancy

Employment Law, Human Resources, Regulatory Compliance, Risk Management, Workplace Regulation, Workplace Rights
0

Understanding the legal process for employers

Redundancy refers to a situation where an employee’s position is deemed superfluous to an employer’s needs. Understandably, a redundancy proposal can bring stress and uncertainty to those affected. Unfortunately, it is a term that many New Zealanders may be familiar with.

We provide a summary of the required process, and obligations by you, as an employer, in proposing a potential redundancy in your organisation.

 

Lawful redundancy

For a redundancy to be lawful, it must be both justified and carried out through a fair process. A redundancy is justified only where there is a genuine commercial reason for it; redundancy cannot be used as a means to dismiss a poor performing employee or as an alternative to a disciplinary process for misconduct.

‘Genuine commercial reasons’ may include a downturn in work/revenue, declining financial performance, organisational restructuring, or the merger or acquisition of a business. Courts are increasingly applying scrutiny into the ‘commercial rationale’ for a redundancy.

However, even where a genuine reason exists, the dismissal will not be lawful unless the correct process is followed.

 

Process

The process that all employers must follow includes:
• Providing your employees with relevant information about the proposed change and the potential impact on their employment if the proposal is adopted
• Consultation with your employees and considering their feedback (and enabling your employees opportunities to seek advice or support within the consultation period)
• Considering alternatives to redundancy, and
• Following any additional procedural requirements specified in the relevant employment agreement or policy documents.

 

Providing information

The Employment Relations Act 2000 sets out that an employer who is proposing to make a decision that will, or is likely to, have an adverse effect on the continuation of employment of one or more of his or her employees, is required to provide the affected employees with access to relevant information about the decision.

The term ‘relevant information’ will depend on the specific circumstances. It includes, however, information necessary for employees to understand the rationale for the proposed change and to enable them to provide informed feedback. Your employee is entitled to ask for additional information relevant to your proposal. While an employer is not required to provide confidential information, they must be able to genuinely demonstrate that disclosure would cause actual, unreasonable prejudice, and must show that they have explored alternative options for confidential consultation.

 

Consultation

You are not only required to provide a potentially affected employee with all relevant information, but you must also ensure there is a genuine opportunity for your employee to comment on that information before any decision is made. This includes providing sufficient time to provide feedback.

You must approach this process with an open mind and genuinely consider any feedback received before deciding whether to proceed with the proposed change. Without genuine consultation, the redundancy may be deemed a pre-determined outcome, and a breach of your obligation as their employer to act in good faith.

 

Selection criteria

In circumstances where you are reducing a number of same/similar roles, a fair and reasonable selection process must be followed to decide which of your employees will be appointed to the remaining roles. Clear and relevant selection criteria should be provided to your employees in advance, and their feedback sought. This includes providing details as to how that criteria will be assessed and weighed.

 

Redeployment

If a role is disestablished, you have an obligation to consider redeployment opportunities within your organisation for any of your affected employees. The affected employee/s continuing employment must be considered before a new or vacant role is advertised externally. Redeployment must be considered for an affected employee, even if some (reasonable) training or upskilling may be required.

Your obligation to consider all redeployment options, stems from an employer’s statutory requirement of good faith – to be active and constructive in maintaining the employment relationship, including being responsive and communicative.

 

A challenging time

Proposed redundancy can be a challenging and uncertain time for all; but understanding the legal framework and the required process can help you to navigate this with more confidence.

It is also important to carefully review employment agreements and relevant workplace policies to carefully identify any relevant provisions, including any entitlement to redundancy compensation.

If your organisation is contemplating redundancies, we recommend you talk with us at the outset; this will help you and your employees better understand their rights and obligations.

 

 

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, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Cleared for take-off

Aviation Law, Privacy Law, Regulatory Compliance, Technology Law, Transport & Infrastructure
0

Using your drone the right way

Over the past decade, drones have gone from niche gadgets to everyday tools. Drones help farmers to check stock, let filmmakers capture sweeping aerial. shots and give hobbyists a fun way to explore the skies. In New Zealand, drones are part of a fast-growing aviation sector: with that growth comes a clear need for sensible rules to keep people, property and other aircraft safe.

Whether you’re a teenager flying a drone in the backyard or a business experimenting with new technology, knowing the rules helps everyone share the skies safely.

New Zealand has a well-developed structure for drone regulation overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). In this article, we explain the Civil Aviation Rules that govern drone use in New Zealand.

 

CAA Rules

Civil Aviation Rules Part 101 sets out the provisions that must be adhered to when piloting a drone that weighs under 25kg. These are the default rules for everyday recreational and simple commercial use of drones. Any drone that weighs more than 25kg requires certification from the CAA in accordance with Part 102 of the CAA Rules. Most commercial drones, however, weigh less than 25kg.

 

When and where can you fly a drone?

It is important to be familiar with the Rules before flying your drone. A drone is considered a remotely piloted aircraft, so it can be a hazard to people, property and other aircraft. Under Part 101 of the CAA Rules, drone pilots must:
• Fly below 120 metres (400 feet)
• Always ensure the drone is within their line of sight
• Fly only during daylight hours and in good weather
• Stay at least four km away from airports and aerodromes (unless specific conditions are met), and
• Not fly over homes without the property owner’s consent.

 

Privacy issues

Drone rules aren’t just about aircraft safety; they’re also about protecting people on the ground. The requirement to get consent before flying over people or private property helps reduce anxiety and avoid misunderstandings. In practice, this means:
• Asking before flying over someone’s property
• Being mindful when operating near crowds, and
• Avoiding capturing photos or videos when people reasonably expect privacy.

Some public areas, such as national parks, require separate permits from the Department of Conservation.

 

What can you do about drones over your property?

No, you cannot shoot down a drone flying over your property! This would open you up to prosecution under the Summary Offences Act 1981, the Crimes Act 1961 and the Arms Act 1983. Any complaints about drones intruding over private property without consent or in breach of the CAA Rules should be addressed to the Privacy Commissioner or the CAA.

 

Penalties

As drones are legally treated as aircraft in New Zealand, unsafe flying isn’t just ‘messing around.’ Breaches of the Civil Aviation Act 2023 and the Civil Aviation Rules carry significant penalties. Under the CAA Rules, fines can vary, usually ranging from around $500 for minor breaches, such as flying too close to an airport, and up to $10,000 for serious violations such as endangering or tampering with an aircraft. For companies that breach drone rules, the maximum fines are higher – up to $30,000.

The Civil Aviation Act 2023 which came into force on 5 April 2025 states that the CAA and the Police have the power to require a drone operator to provide any information that may help identify the pilot in command. Refusing to provide that information is itself an offence.

 

Understand the Rules

Drones open up exciting possibilities, but they also turn every operator, no matter how young, into a participant in New Zealand’s aviation system. By understanding the Rules, keeping safety in mind and showing respect for other’s privacy, we can ensure drones remain a positive and innovative part of Aotearoa’s future.

 

 

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, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Trustee decision-making

Estate Planning, Trust Law, Trustee Duties, Wealth & Asset Planning, Wills & Succession
0

How much weight should settlors’ directions carry?

It is estimated that there are between 300,000 to 500,000 trusts in New Zealand, and it is often said that we have one of the highest numbers of trusts per capita in the world. Although the reasons for having a trust are not quite as compelling as they used to be, trusts remain a large part of the legal and asset planning landscape. Trusts arise in many contexts including property ownership, investments, relationship property, insolvency and estates – to name a few.

We explore some of the interplay between settlors and trustees of a trust, particularly in relation to directions given by the settlors to trustees. It is very common for settlors to provide a form of guidance to trustees as to how the trust should be administered. However, must trustees follow the settlor’s directions? Should they follow those directions? What effect, if any, do a settlor’s wishes have on the trustees’ administration of the trust?

 

Operation of a trust

It is useful to begin with a reminder of the core mechanics of a trust. When assets are settled on a trust, they are transferred from the ownership of the settlors to the trustees. The trustees manage those assets for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries, and in accordance with the purpose and terms of the trust.

A settlor can also act as a trustee, but trustees must exercise their powers independently and in accordance with their duties to the beneficiaries. This is often achieved by having an independent trustee. The role of an independent trustee is becoming increasingly important and a lack of separation between the settlors, trustees and beneficiaries may undermine the trust’s purpose and leave it vulnerable to challenge.

It is for this reason that a settlor may choose to give written directions to the trustees about how the trust’s assets should be managed, how various beneficiaries should be treated, how the assets should be distributed and when that distribution should happen.

These directions take various forms but are often referred to as a ‘letter of wishes’ or a ‘memorandum of guidance.’ They are typically separate from the trust deed and kept with the core documents of the trust. Settlors can update these documents over time and they are often referred to or repeated in the settlor’s will. It is common for these directions to take effect on the settlor’s death or incapacity.

 

Effect of settlor guidance in trustee decisions

Guidance of this sort is not legally binding on trustees, but it is still an important consideration. As discussed above, the role of a trustee is to administer the trust in the best interests of the beneficiaries. A trustee is not an agent – nor puppet – of the settlor.

Trustees must exercise their own independent judgement when making decisions about the administration of the trust. They must consider all relevant factors. A settlor’s expressed wishes are one such factor, provided those wishes are consistent with the purposes and terms of the trust.

There is some authority in case law to suggest that this guidance is a mandatory consideration for trustees,[1] but it is clear that – as a minimum – trustees should read and understand the document. The Court of Appeal stated in the Chambers case, ‘It is necessary for trustees to read and understand a memorandum of guidance to discern the settlor’s wishes, and then with those wishes in mind make an independent assessment of the appropriate course of action, taking into account not just the memoranda, but all relevant factors.’

 

Independent decision-making

Trustees should take particular care when exercising powers in a way that departs from the settlor’s expressed wishes, as these decisions are more likely to be challenged by beneficiaries.

Although trustees are not ordinarily required to give reasons for their decisions, if that reason is challenged, they may be required to show that their decision was properly reached. Where a beneficiary can convince a court that there is a genuine and substantial dispute about whether a decision was reasonably open to the trustees, the court may scrutinise the decision-making process.

In those circumstances, trustees will need to show that the decision was within their powers, was made for a proper purpose and was rational, that it took into account relevant considerations and ignored irrelevant ones, and that the decision was reasonably open to the trustees in the circumstances. This list is not exhaustive but illustrates that the exercise of trustee powers can be complex.

 

Other options for trustees

Where trustees propose to make a decision that departs significantly from the wishes of the settlor – or involves a particularly significant or ‘momentous’ decision regarding trust assets or beneficiaries – the trustees should consider applying to the High Court for a ‘blessing order.’ This type of application takes advantage of the High Court’s supervisory role in relation to trusts and asks the court to ensure that the trustees have properly formed their view and that the proposed decision is one that is reasonably open to them. If granted, the order can provide trustees with protection from later challenge.

Difficulties can arise where the settlor’s later wishes differ from the context and purpose for which the trust was originally established. Over time, a settlor’s intentions may evolve; guidance provided years after the establishment of the trust may sit uneasily with the trust’s original objectives. In such cases, trustees may conclude that the later expression of wishes carries less weight than the underlying purposes of the trust, given the trustees’ duty to administer the trust in accordance with those purposes.

If faced with this situation it would be worth discussing with us whether there are powers to vary the trust and to add/remove beneficiaries, and whether restructuring the trust through these means may achieve a more secure outcome.

While it is common for settlors to leave written guidance for trustees, such documents are not binding but instead form part of the broader context that trustees should consider when making decisions. Trustees must ultimately exercise their own independent judgement. They should neither follow a settlor’s wishes blindly nor disregard them entirely.

Where significant decisions are required and uncertainty exists, it would be prudent to take legal advice and consider all available options including whether to seek the guidance of the High Court through an application for a blessing order.

 

[1] Chambers v S R Hamilton Corporate Trustee Ltd [2017] NZCA 131.

 

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, 2025.     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]