Southland Farming Company Slapped With Hefty Fine
A large-scale Southland farming company has been fined $82,500 for discharging effluent in a manner which could have entered waterways.
Gladvale Farms Ltd committed the offending on two occasions in October 2019 at an Oreti Plains farm, north of Invercargill.
The company was sentenced on Monday after being found guilty in February following an August 2024 judge-alone trial.
Legal action against the company began when Environment Southland alleged the Resource Management Act had been breached through effluent discharge on or into land which could have resulted in the contaminant entering water.
It was alleged the defendant irrigated at night without monitoring due to employees being off duty.
The judgement said although it was not necessary to prove the contaminant had entered or impacted the waterway, there was sufficient evidence to show it had.
Steps taken to mitigate against the discharge were not sufficient, including using a digger to move effluent further into a paddock.
Appearing by video feed from Christchurch, Judge Steven told the court that 90 percent of the fine would go to the council.
Gladvale Farms Ltd operates five dairy farms in Southland with 3700 cows across 3300 acres, according to its website.
Stuff has previously reported fines against the company of $27,000 in 2018/19, and $18,750 in 2017.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Scoop
Resignation Of PM's Press Secretary Highlights Gaps In NZ Law On Covert Recording And Harassment
The sudden resignation this week of one of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed body parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
The Spinoff
05-06-2025
- The Spinoff
How were the alleged actions of the PM's press secretary not illegal?
The case of a senior Beehive staffer who resigned over allegations that police said didn't meet the threshold for prosecution highlights the limits of existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. The sudden resignation this week of one of prime minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed bodies parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.
Otago Daily Times
05-06-2025
- Otago Daily Times
Company fined $12k for large wastewater spill
By Keiller MacDuff of RNZ The company responsible for a wastewater spill that killed thousands of fish in a Canterbury creek has been convicted and fined $12,000. Fibreboard manufacturers Daiken New Zealand had pleaded guilty to the charge late last year, which carried a maximum penalty of $600,000. The company is wholly owned by major Japanese multinational conglomerate Daiken Corporation but is not associated with air conditioner manufacturer Daikin Industries. The charge - brought by the Canterbury Regional Council under the Resource Management Act - was of discharging of a contaminant onto or into land in a manner that resulted in the contaminant entering water, after wastewater spilled from the medium density fibreboard (MDF) factory into Saltwater Creek, a tributary of the Rakahuri/Ashley River. The spill, which happened overnight on 31 August 2023, saw wastewater contaminated by substances used in the MDF refining processes, including paraffin, urea, formaldehyde, resin, bacteria, and surfactants, as well as a small amount of treated human waste. The court heard the spill was caused by a failure in piping waste from one part of Daiken's wastewater system to another. Daiken's wastewater system was made up of an oxidation pond, an aerated pond, storage lagoons and a partially suspended lagoon (PSL), which is about 30 metres from Saltwater Creek. Recently installed Venturi manual pumps operated continuously to keep the PSL at a constant level. When a Daiken employee noticed the outlet tube of first of the new pumps was vibrating, he fixed a custom-made brace to it. But when two other pumps were installed shortly before the spill, their tubes were left unsecured. One of the tubes broke overnight, resulting in about 1500-1700 m3 of wastewater spilling onto land and into Saltwater Creek. Lawyers representing Daiken said the employee who secured the pipe on the first tube was away when the other two were installed. In his absence, the company's mechanical co-ordinator contracted another company to install pump supports, and another to attend to the commissioning of the pumps. Neither installed braces. A senior representative of one of the companies told his counterpart at Daiken he was happy with the installation, and not concerned with "a little bit of movement". On the basis of that advice, and after organising for another contractor to complete the bracing the next day, Daiken's co-ordinator left the pumps running overnight. The judge described the person involved as a reliable senior employee with about 50 years experience, and classed the incident as a "one off lapse of judgement". Regional council officers at the scene after the spill recorded the creek as a "very turbid light brown" with a "strong odour of MDT effluent". Council reports and subsequent scientific analysis found the discharge resulted in "a severe and rapid drop in dissolved oxygen concentrations", with the decline in water quality persisting through most downstream river reaches for at least ten hours, and likely extended to the estuary - even with dilution - resulting in at least four to 10 hours of "severe and extensive degradation of water quality", Judge Hassan said. "Thousands of aquatic fauna would have perished, including likely the total downstream populations of some taxa including inanga, brown trout and bully" mostly by suffocation, with those left alive suffering "acute stress". Saltwater Creek is made up of a myriad of spring fed channels, and provided habitat for several threatened and endangered species, including the kana kana or pouched lamprey, long and short fin eels, inanga (whitebait), blue gill and giant bullies. Whitebait spawn in the river margins and wetlands of Saltwater Creek between autumn and winter, and surveys prior to the discharge identified declines in kākahi - fresh water mussels - which have a threat status of at risk. Other species included common smelt and black flounder. Te Aka Aka/Ashley estuary is classified as an area of significant natural value in the Regional Coastal Environmental Plan, and as an wetland of ecological and representative importance by the Department of Conservation, Judge Hassan said. The discharge coincided with the opening of the annual white-bait season. Anglers and whitebaiters were told to avoid the area, landowners and water users were warned of the risk to stock, and Te Whatu Ora was notified. The regional council's lawyers suggested a starting point of $130,000, while the company's legal counsel suggested a conviction and discharge would be appropriate, and, if not, a starting point of $130,000 was supported by precedent. On Wednesday, Judge Hassan convicted the company, and fined them $12,000. Judge Hassan found Daiken's offending to have caused a temporary severe environmental consequence, with experts predicting it would have taken 12 months for the ecology to recover, as well as cultural harm and harm to the wider community. Daiken had a commendable history of "responsible local environmental stewardship," the judge said, noting a wetland restoration project on the company's land in conjunction with the Waimakariri Biodiversity Trust. Judge Hassan said he considered the nature of the environment affected, the extent of harm inflicted, deliberateness and attitudinal factors, and found Daiken's culpability to be low. Through a restorative justice process, Daiken committed to pay $15,000 to Waimakariri Biodiversity Trust, and $15,000 to the Sefton Saltwater Creek Catchment Group, and agreed to contribute at least $20,000 towards consultants to carry out assessments and baseline exploratory work across the wider catchment. The company also proactively engaged with Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu and Te Ngāi Tuahuriri, committing to work together on enhancing the health of the creek, including providing regularly monitoring and improvement updates, Judge Hassan said. The terms of these payments were set out in an enforcement order, which requires Daiken make the payments by specified dates. After adopted a starting fine in the range in the order of $80,000, Judge Hassan discounted it for Daiken's guilty plea, good character and remorse, then accounted for the other financial commitments, resulting in the final fine of $12,000. The Rangiora company is wholly owned by Japan's Daiken Corporation, which made 210 billion yen (NZ$2 billion) in revenue and 3.9 billion yen (NZ$45m) in profit in the 2023/2024 financial year. Daiken New Zealand's revenue over the same period was NZ$185.5 million, and its profit after tax was $19.9m. Environment Canterbury compliance manager Jennifer Rochford said the fine was lower than the council expected, but it respected the decision of the court.
