Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill.

Mr Speaker—or Madam Deputy Speaker; we’ve got a bit of both—the purpose of this bill is to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to deter people from engaging in livestock rustling by identifying it as an aggravating factor at sentencing. I’m going to start tonight by saying that I would very much have liked to have introduced a bill with more teeth than this one has.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but can those who are leaving the House just have a bit of quiet and respect. Thank you.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just thought it wasn’t interesting. I would have very much liked to have introduced a bill with more teeth than this one, but I felt it may have been difficult to get general acceptance of a harder line, which I feel this bill will achieve—a general acceptance, I mean. I hope that that will become part of the discussion during the select committee stage, as I imagine submissions will point to the challenges faced particularly by those farmers who live in more remote parts of our beautiful country and the difficulty in getting a conviction for stock rustling.

There are commonly two types of livestock rustling: one where the odd animal is nicked for the freezer, which seems on the face of it pretty harmless, but nonetheless it’s worth a significant amount of money; and the other, which is organised and well organised, by driving stock from a farm and basically laundering them through a supposedly legitimate business.

Livestock rustling, defined as the theft of livestock from farms or properties, has in recent years become more prevalent and was established—or was estimated—to be costing the farming community over $120 million per year last year. With a lamb now being worth over $150 it’s probably much more than that. So you can see it’s a problem, but it’s not only an economic one, as I will try to illustrate a little later. To quote the Federated Farmers, “This activity is not only a threat to farming businesses but also creates risks to people’s safety in more isolated parts of rural New Zealand as often rustlers are armed and equipped with quite sophisticated tools to assist them.”

I don’t know how many of us in this House know what it’s like being woken in the middle of the night by gunshots in close proximity to your house. That house could be some kilometres from the nearest neighbour. To look out the window only to see vehicle lights just appearing over the hill, to go out not only to find bits of your sheep, deer, steer, or pig lying in the paddock with the best cuts gone down the road—that’s if you’re lucky. If you’re not lucky, you could find a truckload have gone down the road and the truckload could also consist of one’s beehives, or laying hens, which, of course, raises another topic for the select committee: just what is in fact covered as livestock. Livestock in the old days was easy to identify. It no longer is. I can tell you it’s a little scary, very annoying, and, of course, it’s theft by any measure to have your stock taken in the middle of the night.

One could equally go out to find your dog missing, your horse shot—this happened in my home town recently—animals mauled by rustlers’ dogs, and fences cut. It’s frustrating and, at times, devastating for families and individuals. A link can also be found between wilful trespass; poaching, which could involve the removal or killing of wild deer, trout, rabbits, and gamebirds without permission; general theft from farm buildings, all of which are behind farm fences and gates; and stock rustling. I use the farm fences and gates in this context because I see the crime of stock rustling as no different than the crime of burglary, which would most likely be the charge if one were prosecuted for taking something from an urban property or shed. This will be a topic for the select committee to deal with at an appropriate time.

I thought it worth quoting a passage from our distant past and it comes from a book called Ghosts of Otago by Georgiana Andersen and it reads, “Yes, he was involved in some stock rustling thing that went wrong and a shepherd got killed. He’s in the Arrowtown jail but they’re going to move him to Dunedin day after tomorrow. He’s scheduled to hang next Friday.” Lucy said. “I thought you might like the chance to … throw rotten eggs in his cell or something, before they take him away.”

I don’t propose anything or advocate anything quite as drastic as that for the poachers or rustlers of today. But it is an interesting reminder of our distant past and how seriously this crime was taken and the very different types of—I guess—sentences we have nowadays for very similar types of crime. The people who commit these crimes are usually people with some skills, quite a degree of fitness, and people with energy, because you need to have energy to chase livestock around hills in the middle of the night, and you need to have a little bit of dedication as well.

So the point I want to make is I don’t think putting them in prison is the answer, because these people are useful and often have plenty of ability. So I think it would be really quite nice to find another way of punishing these people for the crime—or, well, yeah, the crimes they commit, I guess. After all, energy is required, as I said, to commit these mischiefs, and those people with energy have got a use all over the place. These people also often have a sense of adventure and even remind me of my days as a student and the odd twilight market gardening adventure my fellow students often talked about, at night.

I would like to see the select committee look to giving the courts some unique penalties for these crimes, but that, of course, may be a step too far. For this reason, I’d have liked to have seen powers similar to those included in the Fisheries Act and Wild Animal Control Act included, which would give, or could give authorities the power to seize tools used to commit these crimes. However, I have chosen to leave that option to the select committee to consider. I’m sure if the bill gets through its first reading, a number of submissions will be received on this matter alone.

The statistics, such as they are, make a compelling case for a toughening up of this legislation. And I say “such as they are” as, unfortunately, the police stopped collecting statistics on this type of crime in 2014—this being one of the most compelling reasons for moving, as I have here, to give them more tools for prosecution to succeed and more incentive to follow these crimes with more vigour.

There is over $20 billion worth of livestock farmed in New Zealand and an estimated $120 million are stolen or rustled annually. In a 2016 farmer survey, 26 percent of respondents had stock stolen. In the last five years, 41 percent of those were reported to police, 44 percent of those were further investigated, and 4 percent of them resulted in a court appearance. That’s an interesting statistic in itself.

As I said, 2014 was the last year the police collected statistics, and in that year, 215 cases of livestock theft of over $1,000 were reported; 22 were resolved. In total in that year, 2014, 653 cases were reported and 50 were prosecuted or resolved—not a great success rate, but there are significant difficulties dealing with this type of crime. It’s a very difficult crime to detect, and it’s very difficult to detect the people that commit it. The real reason for that—and it’s also a reason you might ask why so much livestock are stolen in New Zealand, and a lot of it’s not even reported—is because the isolated terrain that we often farm in is a very difficult part of New Zealand to either identify people who are involved in these crimes or, in fact, to understand that the stock has gone missing, for quite some time after they’ve gone missing. That’s not because farmers neglect their stock; it’s just because of the difficult nature of the business we’re involved in.

One of the other big difficulties with stock rustling is identifying the animals stolen and proving that they’ve actually been stolen, or what they are, without suitable paperwork or identification. The ability to identify will be significantly enhanced as our animal traceability methods improve, and that may happen quickly, with a bit luck, but I do think it’s important that we have good traceability methods and processes in place, and it will help with this cause or this particular crime.

In one of the biggest cases reported in New Zealand history, 1,400 lambs were stolen, at an estimated value of $120,000. They were stolen in one night, and, as I explained earlier, you might ask how that could happen, but it can happen quite easily in isolated, rural New Zealand. At the same time, I go back to my point that these people have got to have a bit of energy, a bit of skill, and, frankly, a bit of talent. They’d be much better employed as shepherds than doing what they do, but, none the less, that’s what happens. There was also, in very recent times, the Canterbury case of the large number of cows that, I guess, went missing but, in fact, effectively, that’s the same thing as rustling.

So it’s a very difficult crime to detect. It’s a difficult crime for the police to prosecute, and the more incentive we can give the police to prosecute that and the more options we can give the courts, in my view, to punish them without necessarily—as I said, I don’t think locking them up is the answer. So I hope that the select committee will get the opportunity, as a result of this debate tonight, to consider all those factors as this bill moves forward.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present this bill at first reading to the House, and I’ll listen with interest to further discussion tonight.

I am delighted to speak on this bill, and to stand and speak not only on the bill but in support of the bill. This is an important bill, and I say to the member who put it forward, well done, sir. Good on you for taking the initiative and putting this issue—which is important to rural communities—in front of this House. I reassure you, don’t listen to those in your caucus that may ridicule you. The Labour Party has your back, comrade. We are right behind you on this issue. It is vitally important that this House sends a message to rural communities that the issues that are important to them are important to us, and so this bill tweaks the Sentencing Act 2002 to make livestock rustling, or the theft of livestock, an aggravating factor at the point of sentencing for the crime.

The bill is indeed a short one. But, as my old man said to me once, a short one is a good one, and the issue here is large.

I’m proud to be part of a party that takes a big-picture view of the issues facing a vital industry, which is our agriculture industry. We support this amendment to the Sentencing Act but I would also note the Labour Party’s commitment to the big-picture elements of addressing the crime itself and giving a lot of attention to the well-being of the industry generally by focusing on it in a different way.

The rural communities in New Zealand are under strain—I touched on this in an earlier speech today—but they are deserving of focus and of our energy in the House. The bill is aimed at deterring people from engaging in livestock rustling by identifying it as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and I imagine that it is that particular factor that might garner and attract particular attention in select committee. I welcome that because it is indeed an opportunity for members in this House to gain further insight into why this should be considered an aggravating factor.

Now, section 9(1) of the Sentencing Act 2002 provides generally that “In sentencing or otherwise dealing with an offender the court must take into account the following aggravating factors to the extent that they are applicable in the case:”, and it goes on to list quite a few, but there are a couple that would be particularly applicable to the theft of livestock. Mr McKelvie touched on the impacts of livestock rustling. It might be easy to ridicule this on first sight, but livestock is the lifeblood of a farm. Indeed, if it were not for livestock, there would be no industry. It is an asset to that industry, and it should be treated as seriously as any other core asset to any other business.

Labour supports the bill and strongly supports the underlying goal of deterring livestock rustling, but it is important that we also take this opportunity to identify the underlying causes of any increase in this particular crime. The questions, we propose, at select committee must be asked as to why has livestock rustling increased over the last few years, what are the driving causes behind it, and what has caused this issue to come here in the first place. We are committed to asking these questions, for this is a Government that is committed to rural communities. Indeed, we are a Government that reinstated the Minister for Rural Communities. Be it rural health or rural infrastructure, any issue that might be a national issue has a particular and different lens when looking through it from a rural perspective.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Who’s that Minister?

He’s—you’re a big fan. You talked about him earlier today.

This Government, by supporting this bill, is demonstrating that it does not matter which corner an idea comes from. It shouldn’t matter whose idea it is. If it’s a goodie, we should get behind it. As it happens, the bloke that came up with this idea just so happens to be a top bloke, and I am very proud to stand here and put forward the Government’s perspective in supporting you. You might not be very quick around the cricket field, Mr McKelvie, but if the cricket ball comes straight to you, I have confidence that you can stop it. I have only one example to go by, and that was when you dealt to the diplomats when we played them a couple of weeks ago. But I do acknowledge you for bringing this forward.

I want to provide a couple of examples to give members here that might not be familiar with the concept of livestock rustling just a further insight into this. There is a concern that this is becoming more prevalent. It does affect both commercial and small farms, and so we acknowledge the component within this bill that says it is not just commercial livestock but also smallholders’ livestock as well.

It is not just rural electorates that suffer this. In fact, it was the Minister of Finance—the MP for Wellington Central—who was the most recent Labour MP to deal with a situation of livestock rustling. There was once a cow stolen from Mākara Beach, and Grant Robertson went out and sorted that out. The case is still open, however, and he has asked me to put forward to the nation that if anybody has any information, they are to contact his office directly. If this bill had been in place then, then whoever committed that crime would be liable, regardless of the number of livestock on a farm. Just last year, there was an extreme example of 1,400 lambs taken from one property in Whanganui.

A survey of 1,000 farms conducted recently demonstrated that 26 percent of those respondents had dealt with some issue of livestock rustling at some point.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: 26 percent?

26 percent. There are also reports that say that up to 60 percent of those livestock rustling cases go under-reported. The question I pose here is that given the nature and the importance of this and how much emphasis our rural communities and our primary industries place on this matter, why would 60 percent of cases go under-reported? Is it because our police, up until recently, have been underfunded? That’s a question I think we should explore. Is it the case that many rural communities do no longer have a police presence within a 45-minute to an hour’s drive?

The underestimated impact of this goes beyond the particular farmer or the particular livestock owner. It’s also about our economy and our brand as a nation. Given that it’s estimated that $120 million per year is the impact on our farming community, and given that just on 1 February last year, the Guardian produced stories about “Backyard butchers and vigilante farmers: stock rustling on the rise in New Zealand”, talking about the illegal meat industry, what impact is this having on our brand as a “clean, green” world-class producer? Can we take the risk that with these stories going overseas—how will this affect consumer confidence in our products? It’s important that we do take this issue seriously, because if consumers cannot have confidence that the New Zealand meat they are eating has gone through the proper processes in a safe and legal manner, the impact on our economy is potentially significantly higher than the $120 million quoted in the Federated Farmers research that I touched on earlier.

I think we should also consider poverty as a driver. We all know that poverty can be a driver of crime in general, but given the nature of this crime and that livestock is obviously a food source, we cannot dismiss the impact of the situation that many in our communities find themselves in—the impoverished position that they find themselves in, which breeds desperation. If we’re going to be looking at this issue, we also need to be touching on the drivers of this issue.

In conclusion, the Labour Party is comfortable that the importance of the safety and well-being of this community of farmers and the importance that their livestock hold within the primary industries warrants an amendment to the Sentencing Act to recognise that this type of offending is damaging in many different ways. We look forward to hearing more about the issue of livestock rustling as this bill progresses through the House. I congratulate Ian McKelvie for putting it forward. The Labour Party supports you in this measure, sir. Thank you.

This is a great occasion to salute Ian McKelvie for the fine work that he has done getting this bill in front of the Parliament this evening, a bill that he got feedback from in his own electorate, where 50 percent of the lambs that are processed in New Zealand come from within two hours of Feilding, predominantly from his very large electorate of the Rangitīkei. He’s heard the drums beating in rural heartland, and he’s done something about it. Indeed, if I was fortunate enough to have been the Minister for Primary Industries under this Government—and now we sit in Opposition—I would have indeed been very keen to have taken this bill on as a Government bill. So I’m delighted that Ian McKelvie had some luck, got it out of the ballot, and tonight we are debating it.

I’m sure that there will be widespread support across the Parliament for this bill, because it has economic considerations for rural New Zealand. We’ve heard, from various speakers tonight, $120 million; I would say that, really, that is the tip of the iceberg, because there will be a whole lot of farmers that don’t bother to report a single loss or a couple of sheep, where, indeed, the boundary gate might have come open near the road or the boundary fence may have been cut right next to the road, and they could be very small-scale, but we’ve had numerous evidence in the last few years where there has been large-scale stock rustling. I know there will be a debate in the select committee about what the appropriate penalties are, and I’m sure we’ll get evidence from the Ministry of Justice, from the New Zealand Police, and the like. But, certainly, this is a bill that is worthy of detailed scrutiny by the Primary Production Committee, and I look forward to playing my constructive role on that committee when we hear from submitters.

I heard a very humorous story recently, when a school principal mate of mine recounted a story back to me about primary school—what we used to term—morning talks. I think it’s now “news on the mat”, where the kids go round, often on a Monday morning, and talk about what happened on the weekend. This one particular story was quite appropriate for this bill that we are debating this evening. It went something like this: “Oh, well, dad was driving. He went off the road. We went through the fence. We went down the bank a bit. The car was close to rolling, but it was OK because I was in the back seat and on either side of me I had these two sheep. So I, sort of, bounced from one ewe to another, and they were in full fleece.” We know that there are numerous examples of this up and down the country, where people for whatever reason think that it’s their right to cut the boundary fence next to the road or open the gate and take what is actually a personal property right, where farmers work hard to produce top-quality livestock. It’s not for other people to walk in there with their rifle or their knife and butcher the livestock in the corner of the paddock.

Actually, when you think about this issue, when you look at it large-scale, it’s not all to do with rural policing. We know there are issues to do with that, and the Government is addressing it, and the National Party had a plan, also, to have more policing rural communities. But, actually, people need to put their own hand up. When you think about processing a large number of livestock that have been, I guess, taken illegally, well, often it takes a stock transporting company. Often, it will involve a stock agent or a meat processing person or, indeed, a pet food processing outfit as well. So I guess in rural communities it’s important to have good intel.

The other part of this bill that will be discussed, no doubt, through the Primary Production Committee is the role that modern technology can play, whether it’s a camera where farmers can pool their resources and pay for a camera on a no-exit rural road to understand transport movements, people movements, in and out—also thinking about the use of drones and whether in future electronic ear tags can have a greater role. All of these things, I’m sure, will come up in the select committee. Once again, I acknowledge Ian McKelvie for bringing this bill to the House—a job well done.

It’s an absolute delight and pleasure to rise and speak in support of this member’s bill. To Ian McKelvie, the member that introduced it to this House—I commend you, good sir.

For those of us from rural communities who are out there in some of the regions that don’t get as much attention as the bigger cities with the lights, we know how hard times can be, particularly for those that are engaged in the primary industries in very remote regions. For example, up on the East Coast, the primary production sector is the backbone of our economic survival.

I guess that the lawyer in me has a few twinges when I’m looking at a piecemeal approach to law development around sentencing, and I’d like to see this type of legislation included into—or this particular point that the member is trying to address here, which is really the security of our regions, I’d like to see as part of a more comprehensive approach to our criminal justice law and sentencing law evolution. But I do acknowledge that there is a particular concern within our rural communities that they’ve simply—[Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Oh, sorry.

I was going to say, “Well, that was the quickest”—oh, jiggers. I know that I sometimes lose track of time—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the member. I was going for the mike. Sorry.

—but that really was quick.

So I probably want to just touch on a couple of points of consideration. Up there on the East Coast, we’re really seeing an increase where the margins have become so slim for many of our particularly family-based industries, as opposed to the corporate farmers. But for a lot of our smaller farmers, who are counting every penny and every cent that is made and spent on their farms, when there is a mass culling or an unlawful acquisition of stock taken from farms, that has massive implications for that family. What we are starting to see—and I hear it within my electorate, at the very least—is that times have been pretty tough for a lot of our farmers.

In particular, due to the stress of maintaining a number of our farms, we have a very concerning rise in mental health incidents amongst my farming population. I particularly just want to draw attention to the work of the Tai Rāwhiti agricultural women’s collective, who have been really campaigning around just how tough things have been in respect of small farmers who are counting their pennies but not quite making ends meet.

So, I guess from a pragmatic perspective, I do support the passage of this legislation. I guess my cautions are, though—and it was one of our sergeants up in Gisborne. He was making a comment in respect of stock theft about a year ago, and it was coming up to Christmas. He said, “You know, this is a time when a lot of stock is taken—up around Labour Day and these various statutory holidays, but in particular, getting close to Christmas.” Whilst we are making considerations in respect of the unlawful acquisition of stock from our farms, I too just want to make the note that things have been pretty hard out there in the regions. That doesn’t justify poor decisions and doing the wrong thing, but the theft spikes are occurring—well, this is what my local policeman was saying, anyway. They’re happening close to Christmas because of the burdens on those families.

So I guess, as we are considering the passage of this legislation—particularly in regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to our sentencing—there are a range of considerations that we need to take into account. But I have full faith in our Primary Production Committee that they will indeed nut those particulars out as this bill passes through the House.

So, to the member, thank you for bringing these issues of great concern to our regions to the House’s full attention. I commend this bill to the select committee. Thank you.

I also congratulate the member for Rangitīkei, Ian McKelvie, on bringing this very sensible bill to the House. This is a serious issue, it is a growing issue, and with the cost of meat that is in the supermarkets at retail level, it is only going to continue to grow without some specific attention.

Making a crime of livestock rustling an aggravating factor in sentencing and elevating its seriousness I think is a timely reminder, and New Zealand First totally supports this. In fact, I can reveal—the Opposition were very interested before the break in the 38-page, or was it the 33-page, document, but I can tell you that one of the policy development programmes that we had was indeed this very issue. So we support this totally, and we would, in fact, take it a little bit further. I think the member talked about confiscation of equipment—utes and trucks and whatever—and we would certainly support elevating that up. We probably wouldn’t go as far as capital punishment, which it may have been in the past, but I think that’s only the moderate members of this House. I think if you went into some parts of rural New Zealand and asked them, they probably would advocate for that. It is something that really concerns rural New Zealand.

The financial scale of this already has been mentioned by several speakers. The Federated Farmers survey said it was $120 million a year. I think that’s probably conservative. Let’s put some scale around that. The average sheep and beef farm, in the beef and lamb estimates for this year, will make $84,000. That’s before tax and before personal drawings. The average farmer is not wealthy. Yes, they have a landholding that holds some value, but their cash flow and their cash in the bank at the end of the year are often pretty thin, and that’s in a year when prices are quite elevated. Last year it was only $69,000, and as we know, in many parts of the country, including where we are in Otago and Southland, and I know in Taranaki and previously on the West Coast, it’s been very, very dry. There are other mitigating factors as well that are putting financial pressure on, and this is just another one that we can’t countenance.

This is an insidious crime. Farmers are largely defenceless. Properties are often large, they are remote, and they are isolated. The average age of sheep and beef farmers is 58, so you know through that that there are a number of farmers in their 60s and 70s and 80s living out in these remote places.

These are traumatic crimes, when people come on to your property, often armed. You can’t lock your gate. They’ll just cut the wires, as the Hon Nathan Guy just referred to before. My elderly neighbour has actually adopted some of the technology that was referred to before. He’s set up some infrared lights—he’s lost some stock—and that causes stress in itself because possums or whatever trip them off as well. So he’s constantly on edge with this technology and this threat. As has been witnessed before, there were the 1,400 lambs in Whanganui. I quote the farmer involved there: “It totally mentally debilitates you. Constantly making sure that everything’s alright. … I’m a mentally tough person, most farmers are. But I’m human also—I’m still struggling with it.”

As has been noted previously, 26 percent of farmers are thought to have been affected, but I would say most of us don’t know. I wouldn’t have a clue. It’s hard. When you’re mustering, you’re always missing a few here and there in a gully or through a fence or into another mob. It’s just hard to know exactly how many you’ve got, so you could lose within the margin of error and not know. So the 60 percent that don’t report—I would say that on top of that, there’s plenty of us that have been victims that would never know.

It shows how important the 1,800 extra police that this Government is committed to is. We need to be out in these rural areas in some scale with a police force to be able to deal with these crimes. These are now sophisticated crime syndicates and they deserve our attention. They are also armed on many occasions, and I would say that this is a preventative measure as well. Someone is going to get killed at some point.

So we look forward to progressing this measure through the House. Thank you.

Thank you. I’d just like to thank Ian McKelvie for bringing this legislation through to the House. Ian is a very respected farmer in his own right and has given a lot in his career to agriculture in New Zealand. From his days looking at FMG Insurance and Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust and on to his political career in local and central government, he’s a very well respected farmer that has the interests of his community and farmers in general. He will be remembered in the farming communities as somebody that has been a strong advocate in a very nice and peaceful way, and friendly way, but effective in what he’s done. And this is another step in his process.

💬 Rt Hon David Carter: Just reminding you, he’s still alive.

Now Mr Carter’s sitting there to take a little bit of the credit. But, no, Mr McKelvie, well done and congratulations.

💬 Ian McKelvie: Could be my father, David.

Yes, yes. So this bill—it’s great to see that there is support across the House as well. I’d just like to thank the Labour and New Zealand First parties that have spoken, for their kind words to Ian McKelvie but also for their support for the bill. I think that’s a good sign that we have that connection with these issues on the other side of the House as well. So we thank you for that support and look forward to that continuing through the select committee process and as we go through the rest of the parliamentary process.

It’s important that, I think, this House is seen as united in something like this, because it is a genuine interest and an issue that many farming communities and, increasingly, urban communities will find is something that they will have to deal with as well. I just wanted to touch on how that will actually happen over time. A lot of the examples that we’ve heard of today from the earlier speakers have been about farms in remote areas where there have been fences cut and stock taken, and generally on quite a large scale. But in areas closer to urban environments it is also a very big issue. It can be an issue that not only is about missing stock but it actually can be quite a difficult environmental issue to deal with as well if stock are killed on the premises or are taken away. In a difficult area, like close to an urban environment, if there are fences cut and there is the prospect of danger to those other people that are using roads and other access points it can be a very serious issue beyond just the stock rustling that is taking effect at that time.

Also, with changing land use you’re actually seeing that there’s a different way that stock rustling may actually be occurring and it might be quite good to have a look, in a wider scale, at some of our horticultural industries. You often hear of avocado theft these days, where people go into orchards and steal avocados.

💬 Hon Nathan Guy: Beehives.

Yes, and beehives are another example.

💬 Hon Member: A bit trickier.

It is real, it is happening, and you are seeing a change in some of those agricultural and horticultural areas where there is a change.

But the essence of it is that there must be an intention to steal. This is not an offence where somebody is in a shop, you know in the supermarket, they’re poor and they’re hungry and they take something because it’s there and they want it at that point. This generally involves a very intentional act. It is something that involves somebody taking time to actually work out where the stock are, how to access them, how to take them, and to find an end point to sell that stock to or to dispose of them. So it is a very intentional crime that is at a high level, and it deserves to have that high level of sentencing then, because somebody has taken it up that scale of consideration in exercising that activity.

I think it’s also important to look at the increasing value of stock. As we look at more value-add in what we produce, you’re going to get higher-value stock, stock of a higher quality that actually are more vulnerable to stock rustling over time. This is about protecting farmers that want to make those next steps in the generational change of agriculture, so that we move on to those higher-value products, we move on to that higher-value stock. It gives them a little bit of protection as they make those changes in their business. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this legislation, to vote it to the select committee.

Looking into it, it’s pretty astonishing that last summer, near Wanganui, somehow, 1,400 lambs were taken from a paddock. It’s quite incredible, because it would’ve taken maybe a couple of hours, definitely involved a couple of trucks, essentially, happening in plain sight—simply staggering. I can understand why it is such a worry to rural communities. When you see the estimate of $120 million of costs, when you take into account the isolated, rural nature of many of these properties that have been discussed in this debate, I can understand how it’s a real worry to people living in rural communities.

Looking into some Federated Farmers of New Zealand data, what we can see is that as a response, 38 percent of farmers have installed sensor lights, 20 percent have gone towards security cameras, and 35 percent have done practical things like moving their dog kennels to their sheds. On the other side of the coin, we also know that 60 percent don’t apply locks, which I think is the New Zealand we all grew up in, believe in, and want to see going forward, where you can have trust in your colleagues, your citizens, and your community—you can leave the gate open, you can leave the door open, and you won’t get robbed.

Now, many dairy owners in urban communities are probably listening to this debate tonight and saying, “Well, what about us?”, because we’ve all heard the terrifying stories of dairies and other retail outfits that have seen violent robberies. We see retail data showing retail crimes in the order of $1.2 billion a year—a huge issue. So while we’re supporting this bill to the first reading, we have to make the case in the select committee why this should be singled out as above the other communities, and I look forward to hearing from the member Ian McKelvie.

What we haven’t heard is the existing penalties and how they’re ineffective. In fact, I don’t believe anyone’s raised it. We need to make the case why it needs to be a specific requirement in the Sentencing Act 2002, because what I would point out is that there’s about a dozen existing requirements in the Sentencing Act 2002, for example, if the offence involved actual threatened violence; the use of a weapon; particular cruelty, for example; was vulnerable because of any other factor known to the offender; the issue of premeditation; the nature and extent of the connection between the offending and the offender’s participation in an organised crime group. Now, I raise these because what we’ve heard in the arguments for why we need a specific livestock rustling penalty is that, sometimes, weapons are used—that’s already in the legislation. Sometimes, it’s organised criminal groups—that’s already in the legislation. Sometimes, it’s premeditated—that’s already in the legislation. So we’ll be asking the member and we’ll be asking the submitters, the Ministry of Justice, and the select committee why we need to add a specific one.

Now, David Bennett raised the example of people taking avocados. Should we add avocado rustling as part of this? We heard it in the speech from that member. Dairy owners will be asking, “Why aren’t we included as an aggravating factor under the Sentencing Act 2002?” Now, we’re supporting it because we want to have that debate—little bit rich after the last debate we just had on the medicinal cannabis bill, but let’s have that debate.

What I want to ask in that select committee is why existing sentences have been ineffective. We haven’t seen evidence that extending the sentences, harsher criminal penalties, acts as a deterrent. When the evidence doesn’t show that, why would it happen in this case? So we look forward to the submitters appearing in front of the select committee. We are glad it’s going to go to the select committee, but the question this Parliament’s got to ask ourselves is: is it actually passing an effective bill that’s going to make a difference, that’s going to go above existing criterion legislation, or, really, is it just about trying to look good?

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m really delighted to take a call on this bill, the Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill. I too want to thank Ian McKelvie for bringing this bill to the House, and commend him for it.

This is something that’s had quite an impact on the people in Rangitata, the electorate where I live. I’m also really looking forward to having this bill come before the Primary Production Committee.

People out there may not be aware, and I certainly wasn’t until I looked into it further, but the issue of livestock rustling costs the farming community around $120 million per year. As the Hon Nathan Guy alluded to earlier, that probably really is just the tip of the iceberg because so many do not report, or as Mark Patterson alluded to as well, some people aren’t always even aware that stock has been taken.

This bill is a small and uncomplicated bill, but one that I think is really quite necessary, given the fact that we are seeing an increased rise in the cases of cattle rustling. This type of activity not only poses a threat to farming businesses, but potentially puts innocent people’s lives at risk. The purpose of this bill is to further deter people from undertaking the illegal activity of livestock rustling. The way that the bill does this is by identifying livestock rustling as an aggravating factor at sentencing. For the purposes of this bill, livestock has been defined as “animals kept as part of an agricultural operation, whether for commercial purposes or for private use.” It is good to see that this bill not only covers large farming operations but will also benefit small-time farming operations, or those who perhaps have lifestyle blocks with a few animals.

I want to tell a story of a young farmer I know, called John Totty, from Staveley in mid-Canterbury, who recently bought and took over his family farm, which is a huge undertaking in itself and also an expensive one. John had 14 calves stolen, at an approximate value of $10,000. Now some people might think that 14 calves is not that much, but the loss of these 14 calves had big implications. It was a real kick in the guts for a young man trying to make a real go of it.

These calves were Jersey calves, which are less common in the South Island, and they had a high breeding worth, through AI, and were actually replacement heifers—that is, replacement stock for breeding the following year. To replace these is no easy feat. John would have quite likely had to pay double the cost of his loss if he was to buy in-calf heifers to replace his loss. I’m not sure if many people realise that trying to insure stock for theft and death is hugely expensive, and we all know that it is a reality that farmers have stock die for various reasons. The more that die, the more claims you make, your insurance premiums will go up, therefore making it unviable to insure. Some insurance companies will only insure animals that are housed, which isn’t really that practical.

Because these were Jersey calves, he had to buy replacements from the North Island. Friesian cows are the common breed used in the South Island for dairying, not Jersey. So this ended up costing John far more than rearing his own replacement stock on the farm.

But it’s not only the financial impact. It is the psychological impact. A farm is often large and open or remote, and neighbours aren’t close by. It’s scary to know that someone has been wandering around your property, possibly armed with a weapon. I would find this really frightening, and I know people must surely be left feeling quite violated. We are supposed to feel safe in our homes.

The other thing to think about is that cattle rustling is most likely premeditated. As mentioned by the Hon David Bennett, this is not a crime by chance. A perpetrator would have scoped out the property, to know what livestock was there and how to get to it. Possibly it’s even someone that knows the farm or property.

I am happy to commend this bill to the House, to ensure that hard-working people like John can have the confidence that there is an additional deterrent in place to discourage livestock rustling. So I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start by commending Ian McKelvie for bringing this bill before the House. It’s a great opportunity to strengthen this for the rural space.

It’s also a privilege to follow on from the team of fantastic farmers we have on this side—firstly Ian McKelvie, then the Hon Nathan Guy, and the Hon David Bennett, all good farmers in their own right. So it’s a privilege to be following on from them, as the next speaker for the National Party.

I’d also like to thank the other parties across the House for supporting this bill through its first reading. Whilst there may well be some additional questions that they would like to see answered, I look forward to helping to answer those through the select committee process and I am indeed looking forward to having this presented before us at the Primary Production Committee.

What we’re talking about here is an aggravating factor at sentencing. Rustling should be an aggravating factor at sentencing. I think it’s an appropriate reflection of the escalating issue that we’re seeing in rural communities across New Zealand. We’ve heard a number of factors tonight that might potentially influence why someone may or may not do that, and the types of rustling that we’re seeing—whether it be the random one or two animals taken near the side of the road, or a more structured, cohesive stealing of a large number of animals. Regardless of that, the victims in either case are, rightly, left devastated. This is a violation of their property, their rights, and I think this is an appropriate way to acknowledge that.

This aggravating factor for rustling in particular is, I think, a good opportunity to acknowledge the remoteness of rural New Zealand and, by imposing a harsher penalty and creating this as an aggravating factor, it helps to perhaps alleviate some of the issues around that remoteness, the isolation, that might perhaps not deter criminals otherwise. So this could be that extra catalyst to make them question their decision around what they are doing.

It helps gives victims confidence to report the crime as well. This will be an additional deterrent to those criminals, and those victims then, hopefully, will have the confidence to step forward and say, “This is not right. This shouldn’t be happening. Let’s report it.” You can have confidence, as we’ve heard, that there are indeed many cases going unreported at this stage that should indeed be reported in the future.

It can be hard to defend against, as a farmer. When you have a big property, you don’t necessarily know exactly how many stock are in each paddock at any particular time. You can have the odd losses, so it may even be possible to have been a victim without realising it, as well.

Aside from that, though, it’s important to create this opportunity so that police can act. Whilst we had a great programme in place, rolling out additional police rurally to help with this, 140 extra rural police were coming on board—it’s great to see the Government continuing to focus on increasing police numbers. I look forward to seeing the distribution of those across rural areas. It will be a great way for them to start to pick up on some of these issues and progress a stronger action plan in this space to help reduce the incidence of livestock rustling.

Looking at the higher-scale end of it, in terms of the big numbers, I think there’s also a potential food safety risk here. If we’re talking about people taking significant numbers of animals from a property, where are those animals going? How are they being processed? How are they being sold or transitioned into the market? What’s happening with them, what are the processes being managed around that and the potential food safety risks that that could present as well?

Of course, we’ve also heard about the other areas in rural New Zealand, that there are issues with horticultural crime, apiculture, as well, fuels and bikes, chainsaws—all these areas. Rural areas within New Zealand are subject to crime, like the rest of the country, but taking into account this aggravating factor of livestock rustling at sentencing is, I think, a great way to help provide that additional deterrent in some of those more remote parts of New Zealand.

Again, I’d just like to commend Ian McKelvie for bringing this bill forward, and I thank the other parties for their support. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure for me to stand in support of this bill. I too would like to add my congratulations to the member for Rangitīkei, Ian McKelvie, a fine former chair of the Primary Production Committee, for bringing this bill to the House.

This is a very real issue that is affecting farmers, agribusinesses, the length and breadth of the country. It’s very welcome—it’s very welcome. I’m particularly looking forward to the submissions that will come, so we can, hopefully, maybe flesh it out, add further scope to the bill, perhaps, to ensure that we’re actually achieving what we want to achieve, which is to deter and to, appropriately, I guess, punish offenders, thieves—stock theft.

So I do appreciate the contribution from Mr Hughes in terms of looking at what happens at the moment, in terms of the criminal justice system and dealing with stock thieves in the court system. But I’d also like to acknowledge Mr McKelvie for, maybe, encouraging us to look at the scope of this bill to include further offences—such as, perhaps, theft of beehives, which we know is quite a big issue for the mānuka honey industry—and also the issue of forfeiture of property involved in the commissioning of these offences. I think some merit could be had by examining the provisions of the Fisheries Act, in particular sections 255, 255A, and 256, which impose forfeiture of property for those fish thieves—to use the term—which is, I guess, equivalent to stock thieves or livestock rustling. So I think there is some merit in, perhaps, looking at those provisions and seeing if an equivalent type of provision could apply in this particular bill. For all intents and purposes, the impact is the same, and why not forfeit property that is used to commit theft of other people’s property and their livestock?

I look at some of these examples: we are seeing massive, premeditated, sophisticated operations. It’s not just the odd ewe for a kai; we’re looking at, in one case in 2016, in the Rangitata-Ashburton district, 500 cattle disappearing—500 cattle. That is an amazingly large number of stock to just disappear, so in those instances we are looking at quite sophisticated operations, and there is a lot of profiteering happening along the supply chain from those that are involved in committing these offences. So I think looking at forfeiture provisions, which have been raised by Federated Farmers, could also be of benefit for inclusion in this bill.

What we’re wanting to do with this bill is add that deterrent, and make it an aggravating factor for those that are apprehended and put through the criminal justice system and are ultimately sentenced. But also we’re wanting to bolster the already brave efforts that are being undertaken by the rural communities themselves, and I’d like to acknowledge the CCTV cameras capturing number plates and the like—all of those initiatives that are going on around the country to try and apprehend offenders and deter offenders. Hopefully, this bill will be just another step, another element that will ultimately deter those offenders so we can protect our livestock and so we can add to the wealth of our rural communities, our exporters, and Aotearoa in general. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I just want to, firstly, thank all those parties for the support of this bill at first reading and, particularly, all those members who’ve made a contribution to the first reading tonight. I have to say that I think anyone who was listening to this debate tonight and any farmers would have to take great heart from the knowledge that all the members who have spoken tonight displayed. I thought that was pretty impressive, and I congratulate everyone who has spoken tonight, because I think the understanding of the issues is extremely good.

I want to comment on a couple of things that were talked about tonight. One was the issue that Gareth Hughes raised, and one of the conundrums or quandary*ies I faced when I introduced this bill was the issue of theft versus burglary. The challenge with that is that if you take something from a dairy, it’s burglary; if you take something from a farm, it’s theft. That’s one of the challenges that the select committee will need to deal with, because that’s where you get the difference in the sentencing. I’d argue that a fence is the same as a locked door, basically. I can’t see the difference. That’s one of the strange pieces of law that are a little difficult for me to get my head around.

I think the other thing, and Rino Tirikatene and a number of other speakers have touched on the fact, is that there are a number of other factors that come into stock rustling, and the same type of people commit so many of those crimes or offences. I think that’s an interesting topic for the select committee to deal with as well.

I want to thank the Labour Party for having my back, and I just remind Iain Lees-Galloway that the next time when there’s some election debate there are friends who’ve got my back. He often tries to have another bit of me—ha, ha! But I’ll remind him next time we’re stuck in some hall somewhere. But I do think it was pretty impressive tonight. Kiri Allan talked about the big lights of the city, and, of course, the interesting thing about the Rangitīkei is we have the most sheep in New Zealand and no traffic lights at all, so we are a remote part of New Zealand.

I won’t speak any further. I think it was a very good debate tonight, and I thank everyone who contributed to it, and congratulate them on the part they’ve played. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.