Key Takeaways
- Under the NAIT Act, anyone trading livestock must link a NAIT number to a physical address where the animals are kept, enabling traceability from nine months of age to death.
- William and Kathryn Reid incorporated Northsouth Livestock in 2020 and acted as agents buying dairy cattle from the South Island.
- The NAIT number they used was tied to a tiny beachside property on Bream Bay Drive, Ruakākā—clearly incapable of housing the thousands of cattle they registered.
- MPI investigators found no animals on the site despite records showing hundreds of “alive” cattle, confirming the Reids had supplied false location information.
- The prosecution argues the false registration was a deliberate convenience that created a biosecurity risk by making the animals untraceable.
- William Reid’s defence claims he was only responsible for transport and that the NAIT number reflected his “person in charge of an animal” status, not a farm location.
- Kathryn Reid’s defence asserts she honestly believed the address met NAIT obligations and never claimed it was a farm.
- MPI officer Rick Solomon testified that the property appeared typical coastal land with no livestock, and interview excerpts show the Reids acknowledged the address was incorrect.
- The Reids explained that cattle often disappeared in transit, prompting them to photograph and share images as a workaround.
- Judge Peter Davey has reserved his decision for late June; the case is reported by Whangārei‑based journalist Shannon Pitman of NZME.
Introduction to the NAIT Act and Its Purpose
Under the National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) Act, anyone involved in the trade of livestock must provide a NAIT number that is linked to a physical address where the animals are being kept. The system is designed to follow stock from the age of nine months until death, recording every movement so that authorities can quickly locate animals in the event of a disease outbreak or food‑safety incident. By ensuring traceability, the NAIT scheme supports national biosecurity, protects human health, and helps maintain market confidence in New Zealand’s meat and dairy exports. Failure to provide accurate location information undermines these objectives and can expose the industry to significant risk.
Background of the Reids and Northsouth Livestock
William and Kathryn Reid have a long history of farming in the South Island. In 2020 they formalised their operations by incorporating Northsouth Livestock, a business that acted as an intermediary for farmers in both the North and South Islands seeking to purchase or sell herds of dairy cattle. The couple sourced animals primarily from South Island farms, attracted by the perceived higher quality of the stock. Once purchased, the cattle were loaded onto trucks and transported northward to their intended destinations, with the Reids responsible for arranging the logistics and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.
NAIT Registration and the Bream Bay Address
To meet NAIT obligations when buying South Island cattle, the Reids obtained a NAIT number. The address associated with that number was a modest beachside property of less than an acre located on Bream Bay Drive, Ruakākā, in Northland. The property is essentially a lifestyle block—characterized by a small dwelling, limited pasture, and no facilities capable of housing large numbers of livestock. Despite this, the NAIT records linked to the Reids’ number listed hundreds, and eventually thousands, of cows as being “held” at that address, a clear mismatch between the registered location and the actual capacity of the site.
MPI Investigation Findings
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) investigators first examined the NAIT data in 2023 and noticed that several hundred animals were recorded as alive under the Reids’ NAIT number. When officers visited the Bream Bay property for a site inspection, they observed no cattle whatsoever; the land appeared to be a typical coastal residential lot with no livestock infrastructure. MPI officer Rick Solomon told the court that the property “just looked like a typical coastal beach property,” confirming that the NAIT registration did not reflect reality. The discrepancy indicated that the Reids had knowingly submitted false information about where the animals were kept.
Prosecution’s Argument: Convenience Creating Biosecurity Risk
In opening Crown submissions, prosecutor Ina Stewart asserted that the Reids traded livestock for approximately three years, logging details for about 1,800 cows while being aware that the address they supplied was incapable of housing any livestock. Stewart emphasized that “no animals were ever held on the property,” describing it as a lifestyle block that was “unable to hold livestock.” This false registration created a gap in the traceability chain, making it impossible to determine whether the animals had interacted with other herds—a situation that could amplify biosecurity hazards. The prosecution contended that the Reids’ conduct was a matter of convenience that deliberately undermined the NAIT system, rendering the animals effectively untraceable and posing a risk to both animal and human health.
Defence for William Reid: Transport Role and PICA Status
William Reid’s counsel, Wayne McKean, argued that his client’s responsibility was limited to the transport of animals and that the NAIT number was obtained primarily to register himself as a “person in charge of an animal” (PICA), not to claim a farm location. McKean maintained that the address provided by Kathryn Reid was simply declared as William’s residence and the base from which he operated his business, not as a place where livestock were kept. He contended that each time an animal was registered to William’s NAIT number, the declaration was that the animal was “under my charge while I’m transporting it to another farm,” not that it would reside at the Bream Bay address. The defence suggested that the NAIT Act’s requirements could be satisfied by this interpretation, at least in William’s view.
Defence for Kathryn Reid: Honest Belief in Compliance
Kathryn Reid’s lawyer, Rebecca Hunter‑Kelson, submitted that Kathryn registered the address at her husband’s request, believing it fulfilled their NAIT obligations. She emphasized that Kathryn never stated the property was a farm; rather, she understood the NAIT number as a procedural requirement linked to their business address. Hunter‑Kelson argued that Kathryn acted with an honest and genuine belief that she was complying with the law, and that the NAIT Act’s wording is not clear enough to definitively define what constitutes a compliant “location” for a trader who does not keep animals on‑site. The defence therefore urged the court to consider a lack of intent to deceive.
Evidence from MPI Officer and Interview Excerpts
MPI officer Rick Solomon provided pivotal testimony, noting that when he first checked the NAIT records in 2023 the system indicated several hundred animals alive under the Reids’ NAIT number. Upon attending the property, however, he found “none at all.” Solomon also referenced specific NAIT entries showing cattle moved from a South Island NAIT number to the Reids’ number with no subsequent movement recorded. During an evidential interview played to the court, William Reid admitted he did not have personal access to the NAIT system; his wife handled the registrations. When Solomon questioned whether the animals had ever come to the Bream Bay address, William replied “No,” and acknowledged that he would need to look up their actual destination if asked. The interview also revealed the Reids’ coping mechanism for frequent livestock losses in transit: they began photographing the animals and sharing the images with all parties involved as a way to monitor what was happening on the road.
Disappearing Cows and Transportation Challenges
William Reid explained to MPI that the couple often faced problems with animals disappearing from trucks during transport. He stated that, to mitigate this issue, they now photograph each animal and distribute the pictures to everyone involved in the supply chain, asserting that this was “the only way to do it.” This admission underscored the fragility of their supply chain and raised further questions about the reliability of their NAIT reporting. If cattle were regularly going missing en route, the failure to record accurate locations compounded the risk that untraceable animals could intermix with other herds, potentially spreading disease without detection.
Current Status of the Case and Reporter Background
Justice Peter Davey has reserved his judgment, with a decision expected in late June. The outcome will hinge on whether the court finds that the Reids’ false NAIT registration constituted a breach of the Act sufficient to warrant penalties, or whether defences based on transport roles and honest belief prevail. The case has been reported by Shannon Pitman, a Whangārei‑based journalist for Open Justice covering courts in Te Tok erau. Of Ngāpuhi/Ngāti Pūkenga descent, Pitman has five years of experience in digital media and joined NZME in 2023, bringing a local perspective to the proceedings. Her coverage highlights the intersection of agricultural practice, regulatory compliance, and biosecurity in New Zealand’s livestock sector.