{"id":"nsw:act-2019-015","name":"Right to Farm Act 2019","slug":"right-to-farm-act-2019","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"nsw","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"15 of 2019","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":29120,"registerId":"nsw-act-2019-015-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-01","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name of Act","content":"#### 1 Name of Act\n\n1 Name of Act\n\n> This Act is the [Right to Farm Act 2019](/view/html/inforce/current/act-2019-015).","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commencement","content":"#### 2 Commencement\n\n2 Commencement\n\n> This Act commences on the date of assent to this Act.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions","content":"#### 3 Definitions\n\n3 Definitions\n\n> > (1) In this Act—\n> > \n> > agricultural activity means an activity carried out for, or in connection with, agriculture.\n> > \n> > agriculture includes aquaculture and forestry.\n> > \n> > commercial agricultural activity means an activity carried out for or in connection with a primary production business within the meaning of the [Income Tax Assessment Act 1997](http://www.legislation.gov.au/) of the Commonwealth.\n> > \n> > Note—\n> > \n> > The [Interpretation Act 1987](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1987-015) contains definitions and other provisions that affect the interpretation and application of this Act.\n> \n> > (2) Notes included in this Act do not form part of this Act.","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Commercial agricultural activities do not constitute nuisance","content":"#### 4 Commercial agricultural activities do not constitute nuisance\n\n4 Commercial agricultural activities do not constitute nuisance\n\n> No action lies in respect of nuisance by reason only of the carrying out of any of the following activities if the activity is carried out lawfully and not negligently and that type of activity has been carried out on the land for at least 12 months—\n> \n> > (a) a commercial agricultural activity,\n> \n> > (b) an activity carried out for the purposes of any of the following—\n> > \n> > > (i) any business or undertaking in which cattle, poultry, pigs, goats, horses, sheep or other livestock are kept or bred for commercial purposes (for example, a dairy, saleyard or feedlot),\n> > \n> > > (ii) a business or undertaking for the commercial production of products derived from the slaughter of animals (including poultry) or the processing of skins or wool of animals, including abattoirs, knackeries, tanneries, woolscours and rendering plants,\n> > \n> > > (iii) a business or undertaking for forestry (including timber mills) or aquaculture,\n> > \n> > > (iv) a show or competition involving livestock (including a rodeo).","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Courts to not order cessation of agricultural activity if other order available","content":"#### 5 Courts to not order cessation of agricultural activity if other order available\n\n5 Courts to not order cessation of agricultural activity if other order available\n\n> > (1) This section applies if in proceedings a court finds that a commercial agricultural activity carried out by a party to the proceedings constitutes a nuisance.\n> \n> > (2) The court must not order the complete cessation of the commercial agricultural activity if the court is satisfied that it could make an order that would permit the continuation of the activity in a manner—\n> > \n> > > (a) that is managed, modified or reduced, and\n> > \n> > > (b) consistent with an efficient and commercially viable agricultural operation, and\n> > \n> > > (c) unlikely to significantly disturb the other party to the proceedings.\n> \n> > (3) Subsection (2) does not limit or otherwise prejudice the power of a court to make any other order it thinks fit in respect of the nuisance, including an order as to damages or costs.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Regulations","content":"#### 6 Regulations\n\n6 Regulations\n\n> The Governor may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, for or with respect to any matter that by this Act is required or permitted to be prescribed or that is necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"Schedule 1","sectionType":"schedule","heading":"Savings, transitional and other provisions","content":"# Schedule 1 Savings, transitional and other provisions\n\nSchedule 1 Savings, transitional and other provisions","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"Part 1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Provisions consequent on enactment of this Act","content":"# Part 1 Provisions consequent on enactment of this Act\n\nPart 1 Provisions consequent on enactment of this Act","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"Schedule 2","sectionType":"schedule","heading":null,"content":"# Schedule 2\n\nSchedule 2 (Repealed)\n\n**sch 2:** Rep 1987 No 15, sec 30C.","sortOrder":10}],"analysis":{"summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Based on the available metadata and the Act's title and responsible minister, the law appears to have been enacted for its stated purpose — protecting agricultural operators from nuisance-related legal action. There is no indication from the provided information that the scope changed from its original intent. The Act has remained unamended since its commencement on 22 November 2019."},"complexity_factors":["The actual substantive provisions of the Act are not included in the provided text — only metadata is available, limiting full analysis","Interaction with existing common law concepts like private nuisance (a judge-made legal principle about interference with enjoyment of land) adds moderate legal complexity","Interplay with planning and development law (local council decision-making) creates cross-jurisdictional complexity","Defining what constitutes 'normal' or 'reasonable' farming practice can be contested and may require agricultural expertise to assess","Balancing property rights of farmers against rights of neighbouring landowners involves competing legal principles"],"plain_english_summary":"## Right to Farm Act 2019 (NSW)\n\n**What this law does:**\nThis is a New South Wales law designed to protect farmers and agricultural businesses from legal complaints (particularly nuisance claims) made by neighbours or nearby residents who object to normal farming activities — things like noise from machinery, smells from livestock, dust, or working at odd hours.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **Farmers and agricultural operators** in NSW — they get stronger legal protection against complaints and lawsuits from people who move near farms and then object to normal farm activities.\n- **People who live near farms** — it becomes harder to successfully sue or complain about farming activities that are considered \"normal\" or \"reasonable\" for that type of operation.\n- **Local councils** — when assessing development applications (planning approvals) near farms, they must consider the potential impact on farming operations.\n\n**Why it matters:**\nA common problem in many countries is called the \"right to farm\" issue — someone buys a rural property near an existing farm, then complains that the farm is too noisy, smelly, or disruptive. This can expose farmers to costly legal battles even when they're doing nothing unusual. This law essentially tells courts and regulators: if a farm was operating normally before the complainant arrived, or if it's following standard agricultural practices, the farmer has a strong legal defence.\n\n**In plain terms:** If you move next to a farm, you generally can't sue the farmer for doing normal farm things. The farm was there first, and the law backs them up.\n\n**Note:** The document provided contains only the metadata and status information for this Act — not the full text of its provisions. The summary above is based on the Act's known purpose and title."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The supplied text sets the Act's scope by defining protected activities, conditions (lawful, not negligent, 12 months' prior activity), limiting available court orders, and providing for regulations and limited transitional provisions. The instrument as provided does not show any amendments or modifications to that scope; it establishes the protections and limits in the terms presented (sections 3–5; Schedule 1, Part 1)."},"complexity_factors":["Short and focused statute with few sections, reducing overall complexity","Key protective conditions are conditional (lawful, not negligent, 12 months' prior activity) which require factual determinations (section 4)","Cross-reference to an external statute for the definition of \"commercial agricultural activity\" creates dependence on another piece of legislation (section 3(1))","Restriction on judicial remedy requires courts to balance commercial viability and disturbance when considering alternative orders (section 5(2)), which can generate complex factual and legal analysis","Transitional regulation power with possible retrospective operation and a two-year expiry introduces time-limited complexity for implementation (Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1)","Exclusion of proceedings already commenced adds a temporal boundary that must be checked in litigation (Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 2)"],"plain_english_summary":"### What this Act does, in plain English\n\n- The Act protects certain farming and related commercial rural activities from being treated as a legal nuisance in most cases. If an activity is a \"commercial agricultural activity\" and it is carried out lawfully, not negligently, and of a type that has been carried out on the land for at least 12 months, a neighbour cannot bring a nuisance claim based only on that activity (section 4).\n\n- The Act also restricts the kinds of court orders that can stop an agricultural business entirely. If a court finds a commercial agricultural activity is a nuisance, the court must not order the complete cessation of that activity if it can instead make an order allowing the activity to continue in a managed, modified or reduced way that remains commercially viable and is unlikely to significantly disturb the other party (section 5(1)–(2)). Courts retain power to order other remedies such as damages or costs (section 5(3)).\n\n- The Act takes effect on the date it receives assent (section 2) and defines key terms (section 3). \"Agriculture\" explicitly includes aquaculture and forestry; \"commercial agricultural activity\" is tied to the meaning given in the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (section 3(1)).\n\n- Regulations (including transitional regulations with limited retrospective effect) may be made to support the Act's implementation; transitional regulations may operate back to the commencement date but the transitional power expires two years after commencement (Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1). The Act does not apply to proceedings already commenced before the Act started (Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 2). The Governor may make regulations generally (section 6).\n\n### Who pays and who decides (mechanics)\n\n- Who benefits: Persons carrying out \"commercial agricultural activities\" (as defined) face reduced exposure to nuisance suits where the statutory conditions are met (section 4). This reduces the legal risk of injunctive relief that would stop operations entirely (section 5(2)).\n\n- Who bears costs: Neighbouring landowners or others who would otherwise bring nuisance claims lose or have limited access to such claims where the statutory conditions apply (section 4). Courts may still award damages or costs against agricultural operators where appropriate (section 5(3)).\n\n- Who decides: Courts continue to decide whether an activity is a nuisance. If a nuisance is found, courts must follow the statutory constraint on ordering complete cessation and consider alternative orders that permit continued commercial operation consistent with section 5(2). Regulators (through regulations) and the Governor can make rules to implement the Act (section 6; Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1).\n\n### Behavioural and market effects (mechanical implications)\n\n- Legal exposure and bargaining power: By removing nuisance liability in specified cases, the Act reduces the legal costs and injunction risk for covered agricultural operators, which can change negotiation leverage between farmers and neighbours (section 4; section 5). That may affect how parties bargain over location, investments, and mitigation measures.\n\n- Entry and investment incentives: Operators of commercial agricultural businesses may face fewer legal obstacles when continuing or expanding activities that meet the Act's conditions, because courts are barred from ordering total cessation where alternatives exist (section 4; section 5(2)).\n\n- Limits on private enforcement: Individuals harmed by noise, smells or other impacts from agricultural activities that are lawful, non-negligent and of 12 months' standing will have reduced access to nuisance remedies (section 4). However, non-tort remedies (such as damages) remain available (section 5(3)).\n\n- Scope defined by external tax law: The reach of the protection turns on the statutory definition of \"commercial agricultural activity,\" which refers to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; that cross-reference determines which enterprises qualify (section 3(1)).\n\n### Compliance burdens and conditions\n\n- To get the statutory protection, an operator must carry out the activity lawfully and not negligently, and the activity type must have been carried on that land for at least 12 months (section 4). Those conditions require operators to ensure legal compliance and avoid negligence.\n\n- Courts retain discretion to fashion other remedies (including damages and costs), so operators may still face monetary liabilities even when protected from total cessation orders (section 5(3)).\n\n### Discretion, trade-offs and risks (mechanical points)\n\n- The Act narrows one remedy (complete cessation) but preserves others; it thereby shifts dispute outcomes from injunctions to other remedies where courts find a nuisance (section 5(2)–(3)).\n\n- The Act leaves technical questions to courts and to the meaning in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (section 3(1)), so the practical boundary of covered activities will be determined by litigation and by how the cross-reference is interpreted.\n\n- Transitional regulations may be made and can operate back to commencement (limited to the commencement date) to facilitate transition, but must be declared transitional and expire after two years (Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 1).\n\n### What it matters for\n\n- The Act changes the legal risk profile for commercial agricultural operators and for neighbours who might bring nuisance claims. It reduces the likelihood that courts will order farms or related businesses to stop operating entirely, while leaving courts the power to require changes, monetary compensation, or other remedies (sections 4 and 5)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly focused on its original purpose: providing nuisance immunity for established commercial agricultural activities and limiting injunctive relief against farms. The scope has not expanded beyond this core 'right to farm' protection."},"complexity_factors":["Very short statute (6 substantive sections plus schedules)","Only 4 defined terms in section 3, with straightforward definitions","Minimal cross-referencing (only references to Commonwealth tax law for 'primary production business' definition and standard Interpretation Act)","Simple conditional structure: 12-month operation + lawful + non-negligent = immunity from nuisance","Single limitation in section 5 (court cannot order cessation if lesser order available)","No nested exceptions or complex procedural requirements","Schedule 2 is repealed, leaving only transitional provisions in Schedule 1"],"plain_english_summary":"This law protects farmers from being sued for 'nuisance' simply because they're running a legitimate farming business.\n\n**What it does:**\n- **Shields established farms from nuisance lawsuits**: If a commercial farming activity has been running lawfully and non-negligently for at least 12 months, neighbours can't sue just because the farm causes noise, smells, dust, or other typical farming impacts. This covers everything from dairy operations and feedlots to abattoirs, timber mills, and even rodeos.\n- **Limits court orders against farmers**: Even if a court does find that a farm is causing a nuisance, it cannot order the farm to shut down completely if there's a way to modify or manage the operation instead—provided the farm can still run efficiently and commercially, and the fix won't significantly disturb the neighbour.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n- **Farmers and rural landholders** running commercial agricultural operations (including forestry and aquaculture)\n- **Neighbours of farms** who might want to complain about farming impacts\n- **Courts** hearing disputes between farmers and neighbours\n\n**Why it matters:**\nThis is commonly called 'right to farm' legislation. It aims to stop urban newcomers from moving next to established farms and then suing over farming smells, noises, or activities that were already there. It strikes a balance: farms must operate lawfully and carefully (not negligently), but they get protection from being shut down by nuisance claims if they've been operating for over a year."},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/right-to-farm-act-2019","history":"/api/acts/right-to-farm-act-2019/history","analysis":"/api/acts/right-to-farm-act-2019/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/right-to-farm-act-2019/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/right-to-farm-act-2019/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/right-to-farm-act-2019/documents"}}