+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

rurallaw

Postscript

Environmental Law, Planning Ahead, Property Law, Resource Management, Rural Law
0

RMA replacement legislation reported back from select committee

 

On 20 July, the select committee reported back on the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, that are set to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The committee received 3,204 submissions and heard presentations from 178 submitters.

Whilst key features of the new system have been retained, the select committee recommended some improvements (that the government supports) that will refine and clarify some aspects of the bills.

After feedback from a range of submitters, the timeframe to implement the transition period from the RMA to the two new statutes has been extended from 30 months to 39 months.

The Labour Party has indicated that if it forms a government in November, it will not repeal this new legislation. The party does, however, state that it has some serious misgivings about some aspects, particularly the regulatory relief provisions.

In the meantime, there is some hard work to be done to incorporate the committee’s recommendations and present the bills again to Parliament for a second reading – all before the House rises in September for the 7 November election.

For more information on the Environment Committee’s report go here.[1]

[1]  https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/environment/tab report#filterformsearchtarget 

 

Fineprint’s 100th edition!

The eagle-eyed amongst you may have noticed we are publishing the 100th edition of Fineprint. This is not only a significant milestone for any publication, but also an affirmation to all our readers, that Fineprint continues to resonate with you in terms of relevant content.

Established in April 1997, we have moved from two-colour printed hard copy to publishing a full-colour beautifully-designed edition (thank you Mission Hall Creative) as you see today. Over the years, we have shifted from hard copy only, to now mostly publishing electronically. We have moved with the times.

Our biggest thank you goes to you, our readers, who continue to enjoy reading Fineprint and have given us valuable feedback in terms of topics to cover. We will continue publishing interesting, useful and sometimes thought-provoking content that not only covers legal issues, but also the wider business and social communities. If you would like to give us feedback, please email the editor at: [email protected].

Thank you and kia ora.

 

 

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, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Over the fence

Environmental Law, Forestry, Local Government, Property, Rural Law, Rural Sector
0

High Court upholds personal liability on forestry directors for environmental costs

A recent New Zealand High Court decision[1] has reinforced that company directors can be held personally liable for environmental damage caused by forestry operations.

The court determined that the directors of the companies involved should have taken action to clean up the forestry work. Failing to do so resulted in safety concerns: the land was prone to erosion and was steeply forested, resulting in a downstream of left-over woody debris, slash and sediment that was harmful to the environment and could be harmful in a flood.

The appeal affirmed the decision reached in the Environment Court in 2025.

The result of the High Court’s decision means that company directors in the rural forestry sector must take notice of the work completed on site and actively take steps to avoid issues. Directors cannot avoid liability by relying on corporate structures alone.

The directors had a duty to ensure consents and the Resource Management Act 1991 were complied with, and their failure to do so had serious financial consequences for them. As directors may be found personally liable, the culpability and costs for environmental breaches may not be limited to the assets of the company and may have financial implications for the directors personally.

 

Wilding pines: Budget 2026 injection

Wilding pines are self-seeded conifers. These trees can have environmental benefits including providing timber and shelter, storing carbon, decreasing erosion, and improving water and soil when planted correctly.

However, wilding pines can cause issues including invading tussock grasslands or native landscapes, drying out water catchments and raising the risk for wildfires. The impact can differ depending on the area.

To help manage wilding pines, in the 2026 Budget the government committed an additional $79 million to be spent over the next three years on the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme lifting the total committed funding to $109 million. The funding will go towards protecting farmland, water supplies, reducing wildfire risk in affected areas and the protection of native biodiversity.

New Zealand’s pine industry has become one of the country’s most important land uses shaping the economy, environment and rural communities. Managed plantations earn billions in export revenue each year. Wilding pines can jeopardise this.

The funding increase reflects New Zealand’s value for biosecurity protection and forward future-based thinking. Managing the spread of wilding pines will be mitigated through collaborative governance as volunteers, landowners, iwi and community trusts are also committed towards wilding pine control.

 

Rural Roading Resilience investment

Rural roads are relied on by communities, tourists and freight operators; damage to these roads can lead to communities being cut off in severe weather events and a risk to health and safety of those on the road. These roads provide, amongst other things, access for freight, school transport, tourism and emergency access.

The 2026 Budget committed funds to the Rural Roading Resilience project. Its purpose is to strengthen roads rather than continually repairing them once the damage is done. The Budget allocated $400 million towards a package of state highway resilience upgrades.

When severe weather events damage rural roads, access to the wider rural community can be limited until the issues are rectified. Strengthening roads before an issue arises aims to limit the impact of severe weather events on rural communities and to allow freight routes to continue with minimal disruption.

The funding will be used towards improving drainage, slope stabilisation and rockfall protection. It will also fund the development of flood mapping systems and emergency management tools, including hazard maps and evacuation or emergency information. This will help local councils and communities to plan for flood risks. The focus will be on predicted areas of consistent vulnerability. It is hoped better preparation will minimise the long-term costs incurred by taxpayers.

[1] Samnic Forest Management Ltd v Gisborne District Council [2026] NZHC 1880.

 

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

Methamphetamine in farm worker accommodation

Employment Law, Farm Accommodation, Landlord Obligations, Methamphetamine Contamination, Rural, Tenancy Law
0

Providing housing for a rural workforce is often essential to run a successful farming operation, but it also puts a farm owner into the role of a residential landlord for legal purposes.

Whether the occupier is a contract milker, sharemilker or general farm employee, the same baseline responsibilities apply as they would in any residential tenancy. In recent years, however, methamphetamine contamination has become an increasingly practical and legal risk area for all landlords to manage.

 

Landlord obligations

The core legal point is straightforward: if you provide residential premises, you must meet the statutory duties imposed on landlords. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and must comply with buildings, and health and safety requirements that apply to the premises.

Landlords must follow contaminant regulations. If the landlord knows the property is contaminated and it hasn’t been properly cleaned, it cannot be let to a new tenant. As well, an existing tenant may only remain there in limited, regulated circumstances during clean-up.

 

Meth testing is now a live issue (especially on farms)

Farm accommodation is uniquely exposed to harm because it often involves high turnover, seasonal employment, limited day-to-day oversight and shared use by staff, contractors and visitors. These factors can make contamination — whether historical, accidental or intentional — harder to trace and harder to prove.

Adding to the risk, recent rural workplace testing data reported by The Drug Detection Agency in the farming media indicates drug use detected in provincial and rural workplaces has risen sharply in some regions. While workplace testing data is not the same as housing contamination data, it is a useful indicator that substance use remains a live workforce issue in parts of the rural economy, and it helps explain why farmers are increasingly thinking about worker accommodation risk management.[1]

 

Getting it right from the start

Even where meth contamination is detected, disputes often turn on evidence. When contamination concerns arise, the landlord needs evidence that contamination arose during the relevant person’s occupancy and, without a baseline test, landlords can face significant difficulty recovering costs or showing they acted reasonably.

This evidential theme is also reflected in the courts. In a 2021 case,[2] the judge observed that the ‘significant problem’ for the landlord’s claim was the absence of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy. If initial testing had shown no meth residue, the residue detected at the end could only have occurred during the tenancy.

The courts have also addressed whether testing can occur during an inspection. The High Court has indicated that non-invasive methamphetamine testing may fall within a general inspection power in a tenancy agreement. The court also noted landlords’ obligations to provide and maintain a habitable property and to comply with relevant legislative requirements, in a context where testing was used to assess habitability.

 

When testing and decontamination are mandatory

Since April 2026, regulations made under the Residential Tenancies Act provide a process for identifying and managing methamphetamine contamination in residential tenancy premises.

The regulations require a landlord to arrange testing in accordance with the prescribed method where Police or a local authority notify the landlord that manufacture has, or is likely to have, taken place, or where a valid screening assessment indicates contamination and the landlord is notified. Where decontamination work is required, the person engaged to carry out decontamination must be independent of those who performed the testing.

 

Future practical considerations for farmers

A structured, documented testing regime is a practical way to manage legal risk and reduce disputes. Recommended best practice includes:

  1. A pre-tenancy baseline meth test by a qualified tester
  2. Post-tenancy (or between-tenancy) testing, and
  3. Careful record-keeping of certificates, reports, photographs and accommodation agreements.

Finally, consider including clear testing clauses in accommodation agreements (including where housing is part of an employment or sharemilking arrangement) to set expectations and reduce misunderstandings.

Meth testing is not about assuming the worst of workers; it is about ensuring accommodation is safe, healthy and legally defensible. This is particularly important in a sector where workforce mobility, remote locations and emerging substance use trends can combine to create real operational health and safety exposure for farmers.

[1] Report on TDDA data in Q1 2026.

[2] Eren Ltd v Martin [2021] NZDC 15210.

 

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

Rob & Jess Take the Next Step: From Farm Assistants to Sharemilkers

Agribusiness, Employment Law, Legal Guidance, Property & Farming, Rural
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Lucy Sim

Over the Fence

Disputes Resolution, ETS & Forestry, Farming Best Practice, Health & Safety, Law Changes, Rural Property
0

New limits on farmland to forestry conversions

The amount of farmland being converted to exotic forestry and registered in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been limited with the introduction of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme-Forestry Conversions) Amendment Act 2025. The legislation came into force on 31 October 2025.

‘Farmland’ is classified according to the Land Use Capability (LUC) scale. Classification is based on the farmland’s long-term ability to support various productive uses. Features such as climate, soil, slope, vegetation and erodibility are taken into consideration. The classes include:

  • Classes 1 to 4 – arable land for a range of cultivations
  • Classes 5 to 7 – non-arable land suitable for pastoral farming and forestry, and
  • Class 8 – severe restrictions around land use.

Since 31 October, there are new limits on how much exotic forest can be registered on the ETS. The restrictions impact post-1989 forest land classified within LUC classes 1 to 6 that was not already forestry land on 31 October 2025, where the forest species on the land are mostly exotic. If one of the following exceptions apply, however, the land can still enter the ETS:

  • Indigenous forest land
  • Exempt as Māori land
  • High or severe erosion prone land in a regional or district plan
  • Crown afforestation land
  • Unmapped and not on the national LUC scale map
  • Unfarmed land, or
  • Classed as 7 or 8 on the LUC scale.

You can check your land’s classification on the national LUC map or have your own LUC assessment completed.

If land is restricted from conversion to forestry under the Act you may still register up to 25% of restricted land on an individual farm in the ETS scheme. There is also a biannual national ballot for land classed as 6 on the LUC scale to allow a further 15,000 hectares annually to enter the ETS scheme. The 25% allowance is of your total land within the farm boundary including any non-restricted land.

The new legislation aims to protect the future of New Zealand food production, while still allowing sustainable growth in the forestry sector. It also protects farmers’ ability to diversify their farmland.

 

Increase in Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction

From 24 January 2026, the Disputes Tribunal’s financial jurisdiction will increase from $30,000 to $60,000. These changes will improve New Zealanders’ access to cost-effective justice.

Filing fee increase: The Tribunal’s filing fees will also increase as they are set in tiers according to the amount in dispute. The filing fee for claims of $30,001 or more will be $468.

The tiered filing fee system reflects the amount of time taken to hear the dispute with larger claims assumed to take longer and have greater impact on the parties. While the new tier is higher than the current cost to file a claim in the District Court, the Tribunal does not charge additional hearing fees so access to justice is still improved.

Tribunal process: The Disputes Tribunal provides timely, low-cost, and accessible resolutions for many civil or contractual disputes. Hearings are run by a referee in an informal setting, unlike the formal court process. Lawyers are not permitted.

The Tribunal does not deal with undisputed debts, disputed debt valued over $60,000, employment issues, tenancy issues, social benefit disputes, wills or estate disputes, land disputes, intellectual property or family law. For these disputes there are other means of seeking justice such as the District or Family Court and so on.

Good for resolving contractual disputes: For farmers, this expansion provides a more accessible avenue for resolving contractual disputes. It offers a cheaper, faster alternative to the court system and avoids the common issue where civil claims between $30,000 and $60,000 are uneconomic to pursue. Previously, claims were partly abandoned to limit a claim to $30,000 and stay within the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. The ability to abandon part of a claim will still be available to bring larger claims down to $60,000 but, as before, one large claim cannot be broken up into multiple smaller claims.

Time limits: It is still important to be mindful of any applicable time limits involved in a claim. For example, some contract milking agreements require specific notice of disputes to be raised within 28 days of either becoming aware of the issue or the end of the season, whichever occurs earlier. While those clauses may not apply to claims before the Disputes Tribunal, it would be wise to ensure they are met to avoid any argument, especially if the Tribunal’s jurisdiction will be exceeded.

Although we cannot appear at the Disputes Tribunal, if you would like some advice on a potential claim or defence we are happy to help.

 

Health and safety considerations for farm visits

With the growing popularity of farm visits and stays, it is important to understand the health and safety implications that come with hosting visitors on your farm.

Farm hosts must take all reasonably practicable steps to eliminate or minimise risks, considering the likelihood and severity of harm, what visitors can reasonably be expected to know, and the availability, suitability, and cost of the ways to eliminate or minimise those risks. All this comes under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

Whether your farm guests are staying overnight or just visiting an operating farm or workplace, it is important to consider if they will be in a vicinity of animals, heavy machinery or hazardous substances. Procedures need to be in place to mitigate the risk of damage or harm to your visitors, other workers and animals. The legislation states that this responsibility falls to the person in charge of the business or undertaking (PCBU).

It is good practice to provide all your farm guests with health and safety information, and requirements before they arrive or, at the latest, on their arrival. Where possible, your guests should sign a written confirmation that they have been provided with the information and requirements. Warnings and prohibited areas should also be clearly displayed onsite, so it is clear to all visitors the immediate dangers present.

The PCBU must warn authorised visitors of any work-related, or out of the ordinary, hazards that may cause them serious harm. For many people who are visiting a farm the usual hazards that farmers would always avoid may not be immediately obvious. Examples of these are chemicals such as herbicides and pesticides, animals, machinery, and water hazards such as oxidation ponds and troughs.

This duty applies only to authorised visitors who have the farmer’s or owner’s permission to be on the farm. A PCBU will not be liable under the Act for harm suffered by people who enter your property without permission.

Visitors also have responsibilities. They must take reasonable care to ensure their actions, or lack of, don’t put themselves or others at risk. They must also comply with any reasonable instructions given by the PCBU, as far as practicable.

If you are establishing a farm stay or walk over the summer, we’re happy to help you set this up.

 

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

Over the fence

Estate, House, Latest news
0

Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill – submissions open

Introduced to the House in July by the then Minister of Land Information, the Hon Eugenie Sage, the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill was drafted in early 2019 following consultation on enduring stewardship of Crown pastoral land. Submissions are now open for you to have your say on this proposed legislation.

Continue reading

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

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]