Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14271] 
Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill radically reforms the legislation relating to both second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. It is part of a package of measures being implemented by the Government to combat property crime. 
When this Government was elected in 1999 it committed itself to cracking down on burglary. For too long burglary had not been treated as a serious crime. Since then burglary cases have dropped from around 75000 cases per year to around 60000 cases per year. That is a significant improvement. Further the resolution rate for burglary has also improved from just 11 percent in 1999 to 17 percent last year. That is a huge improvement and we intend to do better. Those improvements reflect the support this Government has given to the police through record police numbers a record police budget of more than $1 billion a year and an increased police focus on burglary as a serious crime. This bill follows the Government’s recent toughening up on DNA legislation which means that DNA evidence can now be used to link suspects to burglaries and to improve further the resolution rate for those crimes. 
This bill has two main objectives—first to make it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods through second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers and second to make it easier for the police to recover stolen goods or solve property crimes. Both the Secondhand Dealers Act and the Pawnbrokers Act are hopelessly outdated laws. They do not reflect either the modern industries they are supposed to be regulating or the sorts of goods that are of particular interest to burglars and therefore to the police. For example the Secondhand Dealers Act still concerns itself with the disposal of fur coats and gramophones instead of computers cellphones DVD players and the like. There have been few amendments to either Act since they originally came into force. Reform is now urgently needed. 
There is currently no requirement for either second-hand dealers or pawnbrokers to verify the identity of their customers. Under the bill both second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers will be required to verify the identity of people who sell or pledge goods to them—in most cases by sighting an approved photo ID. That will make it harder for people who knowingly try to pass on stolen goods and it will assist the police in tracing where the stolen goods ending up in dealerships have come from. 
Under the bill second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers will be required to comply with various record-keeping and labelling requirements in order to keep track of the origins of goods in their possession. The Law and Order Committee recommended a number of changes to those provisions which will simplify the requirements related to record-keeping whilst ensuring that the information available to the police is of high quality. 
With regard to retention requirements the bill replaces the outdated list of furs suits and gramophones with a new and more generalised list of second-hand goods that must be retained for 14 days. That list includes items that are frequently targeted by burglars such as compact discs computers cameras and so on. The definitions are fairly generalised in order to accommodate the future popularity of goods that might not yet be in common circulation. Retention of those goods for 14 days will give the police an opportunity to ascertain whether the goods have in fact been illegally acquired and passed on to dealers. 
The bill provides for the licensing of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. One licence will now cover both second-hand dealing and pawnbroking. It also requires key individuals associated with second-hand dealing and pawnbroking businesses to be licensed in their own right. The select committee has recommended a number of changes to clause 6 which sets out who is to be regarded as engaging in the business of second-hand dealing and who is not. Those changes improve the clarity of that clause. Compliance costs for second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers have been kept as low as they reasonably can be while being mindful of the objectives of the legislation. 
Although the reforms envisaged by this bill are primarily aimed at making it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods and easier for the police to solve property crimes the bill’s provisions also have a consumer protection component particularly in relation to the duties of pawnbrokers. Pawnbrokers will now be required to retain goods pledged to them for a 3-month minimum unless they are redeemed before that date. After that if a pledge is unclaimed they will be obliged to offer it for sale. 
The bill specifies restrictions on how the pledge might initially be offered for sale. If the redemption price is not reached at that initial offering the goods may then be sold by any means the pawnbroker chooses as long as that is calculated to reach the best price. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to make it possible to offer the unredeemed pledge by Internet auction as well as public auction at the initial offering. That recognises that the Internet auction is a common way of selling goods today but still provides a way of selling that is transparent. 
I also intend to move a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage to allow pawnbrokers to purchase unredeemed pledges they have accepted—providing they do that only by way of an unconditional contract and only if both parties agree. That amendment will introduce some flexibility into the disposal of unredeemed goods while not unduly placing at risk consumers’ interests in achieving a fair price for their goods. 
Currently promoters of markets and fairs are not required to keep records of who is selling second-hand goods at their fair or market. This bill places record-keeping requirements on such promoters in order to assist the police. The requirements are not onerous. The committee recommended that similar provisions be introduced for Internet auctioneers. That reflects the increasing popularity of the Internet as a means of selling used goods and is a major improvement to the bill. 
In respect of enforcement the police will be entitled to search registers and to inspect any and all goods held by licensees for the purposes of second-hand dealing or pawnbroking. Those are powers the police are already able to exercise under the current law but the improved information available to them—for example verified identities of those who supply goods—will greatly improve the effectiveness of such inspections. 
Penalties in the bill will be much higher than the existing penalties in the Secondhand Dealers Act or Pawnbrokers Act. The maximum financial penalty under the current Secondhand Dealers Act is just $200 and under the Pawnbrokers Act is just $100. Those penalties are far too low to provide any deterrent effect. The maximum penalty under this bill for unlicensed trading as a second-hand dealer or pawnbroker will be $20000. Penalties for failure to comply with the obligations in relation to for example keeping a register will now be punishable by fines of up to $10000. 
This bill represents an important reform that will bring second-hand dealing and pawnbroking into the 21st century. It will make it harder for burglars to dispose of stolen goods via such dealers and it will make it easier for the police to track down criminals if they try to do that. It is another move by the Government in support of the police to crack down on burglary and these efforts are already beginning to deliver. I thank the Law and Order Committee for the work it has done on this bill and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I do not know whether it has escaped other members’ attention but it is very obvious to members on this side of the House that every Minister of the Government who has spoken on a bill this week has given some defence of the Government’s management of the law and order system in New Zealand. Every single one of them has ponied out the tired old myth that the crime rate is coming down in New Zealand. The fact is that violent crime is going up and the chances of people being bashed mugged or attacked by someone on parole are the highest they have ever been in this country. 
I would like to talk about the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill. I must say that at the Law and Order Committee it was a most interesting bill on which to sit not so much because of issues related to second-hand dealers but particularly because of issues associated with pawnbrokers. For those who have not had much experience with that subject I can tell them it was fascinating to learn about the role that pawnbrokers have played in the history and development of the world. Indeed Christopher Columbus’s exploration of the Americas was funded by the Spanish royal family pawning their Crown jewels. That raised sufficient to enable Columbus to go to the Americas and bring back great wealth and prosperity to the Spaniards. 
It was also fascinating to hear about the sort of people who use pawnbroking services. We discovered that it is not necessarily poor people under significant financial pressure who use those services; it is often people who just need some assistance with their cash flow. We were told of people from a wide variety of social groups who for example would bring in some jewellery or watches to a pawnbroker for a very short period of time in order to assist themselves with their cash flow. It is clear that pawnbroking is a service used by many people in the community. 
Select committee members spent a lot of time in trying to assure themselves that the compliance costs that would burden second-hand dealers pawnbrokers and those running community craft markets and flea markets involving people who sold second-hand goods would not be significant. We are confident that the changes made should not be an excessive burden on people involved in those businesses. 
The National Party would like recorded that it has an amendment in respect of clause 54 and I draw members’ attention to that clause in the reported-back bill. The provision requires primarily that pawnbrokers who have pledges they wish to redeem should redeem those at auctions. Now why do people go to auctions? They go to auctions because they expect to get a good deal—a cheap deal. So what we are doing in this clause is saying that the pawnbroker in order to redeem a pledge must take it to an auction and even if the price is hopeless the pawnbroker still has to accept it—it has to be the price. If the pawnbroker gets no price then the pawnbroker can look at other options. But if someone goes along to an auction expecting to get a cheap deal gets a bid accepted and gets the price of a cheap deal then that is the residual price or value the pawnbroker gets to defray costs and the person who owns the asset—the pledger—gets the net proceeds. We do not think that that is good for the people pledging their assets. 
We think that many pawnbrokers actually want to act in the interests not only of themselves but also of the people who have pledged with them because they want those people’s repeat business. We think there should be an option that says to pawnbrokers that if they reasonably believe they can get a better deal by putting those pledged assets for sale on shelves in their second-hand shops or at their pawnbroking businesses then they should be able to do that. Auctions are great for cheap deals but they are not necessarily great for getting the best net proceeds for people who have pledged their assets. So we have an amendment to introduce in respect of that provision and we look forward to support from other parties for that amendment. 
I say in conclusion that the National Party is happy to support this bill. We participated strongly on the select committee to get amendments to a number of what we thought were unworkable and burdensome provisions in this bill. I think those have been tidied up. We still have some concerns but we think the bill goes a long way towards addressing what is an important concern. At the end of the day the best way to prevent stolen goods from being sold through second-hand dealers in pubs or off the backs of lorries is for the community not to buy them. While that may be easy to say I believe that it would be the best way to actually end those trades. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to indicate that New Zealand First will continue to support the passage of this legislation and to congratulate the Government. It is interesting that in the last two bills I have had to debate on behalf of New Zealand First I have made it very clear to the Government that I totally opposed the legislation it brought to this House. I totally opposed the reason and the rationale for it and I tried my best to articulate New Zealand First’s reasons why. I did articulate in the last debate that I thought we possibly did not need to have that last bill in the House. We could have been moving on with legislation the Government had that New Zealand First supported and was keen to see passed into law. 
This is one such piece of legislation and I will say firstly congratulations to the Government on dealing with this issue and congratulations to the entire Law and Order Committee. It was something of a revelation. I think this legislation the updating and amending of the legislation in so far as second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers are concerned is something that has been at the forefront of the minds of police officers and criminal investigative staff for a very long time. The reasons are very clear. Second-hand shops are places where in the past—and hopefully we will soon be able to say it is in the past—stolen goods were most often fenced got rid off and moved on at profit to the underworld the organised crime elements within our society. Indeed I have had some very blunt and frank discussions with members of our police force on occasions and if they had had their way they would have had certain second-hand and pawnbrokers’ shops particularly in the Christchurch area shut down and put out of business a decade ago. In their minds those people are nothing more than a front for organised crime. 
Regrettably those sorts of activities stigmatise and bring into disrepute people who are legitimate second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers who do their very best to cooperate with the police to ensure that nothing illicit passes across their tables. It is an area fraught with difficulties in terms of law enforcement and it is very timely that this issue is being brought to the Law and Order Committee and dealt with as promptly as it has been. When I say promptly I see that the bill was introduced to the House on 5 June 2003 and here we are—maybe not so promptly—on 1 July 2004 finally working our way towards the third reading. I suggest we would be much further down the road if we had not had some of other rubbish legislation brought to the House and distracting us. 
I will simply say that this legislation is good legislation. It has been worked through well. The issues have been well discussed and well canvassed. The select committee worked as a team under the chairmanship of Martin Gallagher and the deputy chairmanship of Marc Alexander and I think the results are good. I note the Hon Tony Ryall’s intention to move an amendment to clause 54. I also note that the select committee unanimously put in a new clause that strikes out the original. I am still of the mind that that new unanimously agreed clause is the right way to go but I will listen to the debate and then indicate where New Zealand First will finally come down. 
But I do think that a public auction conducted by a person who is not the pawnbroker or the pawnbroker’s spouse or de facto partner or an employee of that particular pawnbroker is the sensible way to go. It removes conflict of interest and that is the issue we discussed at some length and the officials tried to work through. But we are listening and if there are more compelling arguments who knows we might be able to support them. 
I guess at the end of the day—and the comment has been touched on—all of this is no use at all if the law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to deal with organised crime burglaries robberies and those who get rid of fence or distribute stolen property. All this legislation amounts to nothing if we do not resource the police accordingly so that they can enforce it. I have huge reservations about whether our police will be able to actively enforce the law and tighten up on organised criminal elements who take advantage of second-hand dealerships because they simply do not have the numbers. I have huge reservations because we still continue to see policemen and women who are supposedly in the police force to carry out general duties and investigative work being siphoned off and ring-fenced around traffic policing and quota ticketing. Those are my concerns. 
Whilst we continue to see that sort of administration within the police force then I am sorry but we will continue to see organised crime flourish. I would much rather that this bill was supported by a commensurate all-out attack on organised crime a move to criminalise membership of gangs and organised criminal elements andseriously put them out of business thereby reducing the need for us to pay such close scrutiny to second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers who in the main are legitimate honest folk. New Zealand First will be supporting the second reading of this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak briefly on behalf of the ACT party. We support this legislation. It is good to see a tidy-up of old legislation with a new piece that is a mechanical sensible and practical. In this sort of consumer legislation we do not have to put up with the usual old garbage that tries to go down the path of a balance of power between the consumer and the vendor as we saw in the consumer credit legislation. The intent of the bill is to make it more difficult for criminals to dispose of stolen goods. The bill does balance the issues there because as Ron Mark said the majority of second-hand dealers are honourable and honest people but there are the car-boot sales in the parking lot. 
The other issue that should be commended in this bill is that the ID requirements are not too onerous. For instance the bill actually allows the second-hand dealer to confirm identification by personal knowledge. That is if the client is already known to the dealer that is enough to comply with the legislation. The dealer does not have to get the client to produce a photo ID every single time he or she buys goods. 
There is a huge amount of “buyer beware” in this area of consumer transactions. I do not think that we should ever go down the path where we over-regulate and people do not take responsibility for their own actions. That said we will never totally eradicate the people who say “I bought it off a guy in a pub.” or “It fell off the back of a truck.” But as I said the ACT party supports this legislation and we will be voting in favour of it. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise for United Future to offer our point of view on the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill and will not take too much of the House’s time in doing so. Most of my concerns have been set out in Supplementary Order Paper 236 and there are quite a few amendments there. What I would like to do is focus on a few minor areas that I think would make this bill a much better bill. 
We consider clause 6(2A) for example to be unnecessarily restrictive in arbitrarily setting 6 or more days or $2000 in value of traded goods as the benchmarks for meeting the criterion of being a second-hand dealer. We think that is restrictive in this day and age and see no reason why the amount should be quite as low as that. Moreover clause 44A(2)(a) limits the resale value to a minimum of $40. That is the threshold for separate identification as a single article—that is in cases where one is selling a CD collection a set of bottles or whatever. I think $40 is a little bit too low for that so I have suggested in my Supplementary Order Paper that we actually look at $100 as being a much more reasonable amount. The sum of $40 really does not cover very much and anybody who has gone to a garage sale with $40 does not usually come away with very much. If one does it is not something one wants to keep for very long. It is usually a present for somebody else or one might offload it for a $5 profit—but I am speaking as a capitalist at heart. 
Clause 48B and the consequential clause 57(1)(aa) are not supported by United Future as they impose restrictions on pawnbrokers conducting their activities in premises other than their normal place of business. It seems reasonable to me that if a person has had a business arrangement with a pawnbroker over a number of years and that person becomes incapacitated or there is some other reason why that person would like the pawnbroker to come to his or her place to conduct business it seems unnecessarily restrictive in the normal course of trade to disallow that. I see that provision as going against the grain of good commerce. At the end of the day it is very good policy to allow pawnbrokers or any other dealer— 
Hon Member 
: Car dealers are allowed to move around. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well car dealers are allowed to move around but to go to the clients and conduct the business at their convenience is to provide a service and after all that is part and parcel of what good old capitalism can do for this country. 
United Future does not support clause 54 in its entirety as it places a restriction on freedom to trade on a best-practice basis. And that is exactly what I have been talking about: the customer should come first as every good capitalist knows and if securing the sale means going to the customer’s place of business to conduct business then that is the way to do it. It is service after all that hospitality in this country prides itself on. 
We will be supporting this bill all the way through the House. I would like to thank the members of the Law and Order Committee for working together very constructively. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is being pushed forward by Labour very reasonably and it addresses a lot of the problems people have had with pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. For the most part it is legislation that I think will stand up and will not need immediate amendment. So United Future will support it. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Despite the instruction given by the House I seek leave of the Committee to have one wide-ranging debate and take the bill as one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Is it also the wish of the Committee to take the votes on the provisions of the bill as one question but with separate questions on members’ amendments? Leave has been sought for that course. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 78 and schedules 1 to 3 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are two amendments that I would like to talk about but firstly I thank the Law and Order Committee for doing an excellent job. It worked very well and strengthened the bill. 
Mr Ryall’s amendment would add a new paragraph (c) to clause 54(2). I can sympathise with the intention of the amendment but I am inclined to be against it because it does not help the transparency of the process. It states that the pawnbroker may sell the goods in any other way that can be reasonably shown to achieve a realistic price for the goods. We believe that it is important that the process be transparent and that there is opportunity to test the market as to the real value of the goods. Clause 54(2) provides that the pawnbroker must at least put the goods to auction once. It is a public auction so there is an opportunity to test the market value of the goods. If Mr Ryall’samendment goes through then we will subvert the transparency of the process and there will not be the ability to test the market value of those goods. So I am disinclined to support that amendment. 
Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander makes a number of amendments. I am not particularly inclined to support his amendments because they seem to shift the balance which I think is what the member intends to do. But the select committee has come back with recommendations about how much should be paid—how much should be lost between the pawnbroker and the person who seeks to pawn the goods. His amendments seek to shift the balance backwards in favour of the pawnbroker. I am very much inclined to stick with the select committee’s recommendation and as far as I am concerned the original percentage should stand. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 44A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 54 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(c)the pawnbroker may sell the goods in any other way that it can reasonably be shown to get a realistic price for the goods. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 54(2) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 54(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment to clause 54 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander is to omit and substitute subclause (4). This amendment is out of order as it is the same in substance as that of the Hon Tony Ryall which has already been decided. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 55(2) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 55(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 55(4) be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 236 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 56 be agreed to. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 225 and 235 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clauses 1 to 78 and schedules 1 to 3 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill be now read a third time 
. It is with considerable personal pleasure that I see the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill reach its third reading. I say personal pleasure because while I was living in a Wellington suburb my flatmate Mr Peck and I were robbed continuously. People kept breaking into our flat. They seemed to use it as some sort of department store. They took beer sausages ice cream from the fridge CDs stereo—[ 
Interruption 
] It was none of my parliamentary colleagues. The point is that we made numerous complaints to the police and the police were very attentive to the issue. However we were unable to make any inroads. In frustration the police officer showed me what he was up against. We then took a tour of a number of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers in the local area—I will not name the area—so that I could see whether I could identify by this stage one of the three video players we had had stolen. 
I have to say that life has its parallels. Some years ago as a young male I went shooting in South Westland and the Inland Revenue Department was very concerned to gets its tax on the amount of venison that was being taken. They were concerned at people coming along and getting paid in cash and not identifying themselves or their rewards. They then got themselves a book. I saw this when I turned up with a friend of mine to take in a carcass for the first time. We were shown the book which we had to fill in and I was gobsmacked to see that former President of the United States John F. Kennedy was alive and well in South Westland and doing very well shooting deer. He was a good marksman as was Mickey Mouse who must have taken time out of Toon Town to go to South Westland and enjoy the fantastic scenery. Obviously the record was a fantasy. 
I saw another fantasy when I went around with a police officer to look at the books of the second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. It was pure rubbish yet the law had been complied with. There were videos which then had a price of $900 that had been turned in for $100 or $150. The constable said to me that that did not represent reality and I said no it did not. All the labels were wrong and it was the shonkiest process I had ever seen for the supposedly legitimate recycling of stolen goods. It irked me then it irks me today and this long-overdue legislation will give the police a very effective weapon to deal with burglars and thieves. I think this is a fantastic day and it is long overdue. I congratulate this Labour-led Government and all the other parties in this House that supported it for enacting this fabulous legislation. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I can assure the last speaker that having also hunted down in South Westland I made sure I carted out all my carcasses all my venison and all my velvet and duly registered my right name when I was trading them in for cash. I remember that in the Haast pub in those days venison could be bartered for other goods and the member probably knows what I am talking about. I have seen him there from time to time participating as well. 
I turn my attention to the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill and start by saying that I want to commend as other members have the outstanding work that members of the Law and Order Committee did and the way in which they came to grips with legislation that was at times rather complex. I have to recognise my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall for his outstanding contribution to the select committee. It was often through his guiding hand that we got the result that we are now basking in here today. I will not mention the Hon Tony Ryall’s name again; I will just leave him to bask in the glory of his achievement. 
The central theme of this legislation is the registering of pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers in order to close down the fencing of stolen goods. This is commendable and the National Party supports it. As the Hon Rick Barker has pointed out this is a problem that is not insignificant and we should not underestimate that. It might surprise members of this House to know that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of property theft in the world. Our police tell us that the bulk of those goods are disposed of through second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers either knowingly or unwittingly. We can learn from our friends in Australia. The Western Australian Parliament introduced legislation that is very similar to that which has been suggested here today and that has seen the incidence of burglary in that state reduced by 30 percent. 
The message is very clear. If we close down those fencing channels—the distribution networks—we severely curtail burglary. The demand cannot be satisfied so it essentially diminishes. The theory is right. The select committee has done its work. It has put in front of the House legislation that would be effective except for one critical flaw. That flaw is simply that we do not have the policing resources to breathe life into this legislation. It is not a matter of not having enough resources; it is a matter of where and how those resources are being deployed. Too many of our police personnel are being directed to hassle otherwise law-abiding motorists as they go about their business simply so that this Government can continue to stuff its greedy fists full of more dollars. I say to the House that that is an issue that we will have to address as a Parliament if legislation like this is to have any credibility. 
It gets worse. I have information stating that at times it is taking 4 days after calls are received at the Southern Communications Centre before police are dispatched to the scene of a burglary. The answer is very clear. One only has to travel the road between Christchurch and “Ash Vegas” to see not just one not two not three but five police cars on the road at any one time. It is impossible for our police officers to spend their time on the road booking motorists and at the same time check second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. This legislation will not achieve its worthy objective unless that issue is addressed. I am afraid that we are talking about a Clayton’s bill unless the police are allowed to properly police what is intended. 
The bill introduces tougher licensing and certification regimes for second-hand dealers pawnbrokers and their staff. I note—and other speakers have picked up on this as well—that the fine has now moved from $100 or $200 depending on which legislation was being dealt with to $20000 if a dealer is not licensed. I wholeheartedly agree with that. If we are to have legislation we should make it enforceable and make sure that people understand that there is a significant penalty for not being in accord with what is required. The legislation requires dealers to sight IDs and record the contact details and the signatures of all people selling goods. That is sensible and it has my support and that of my National Party colleagues as well. 
I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time today as it has been a long week. I will raise just one other issue that submitters raised through the select committee process and that was regarding those who were trying to run fund-raisers for schools etc. Those people were concerned that they would have to go to the trouble and expense of being licensed and recording goods. That was never the intention of this legislation. It was never the intention that people engaged in fund-raisers would be picked up under this legislation. So the select committee moved very quickly and sensibly to ensure that those groups were not picked up. We introduced as was suggested as a group that 6 days remain in any 12-month period but a dollar figure has been attached to it. It is debatable as Mr Alexander has mentioned as to whether $2000 is the right amount or whether it should be higher but the concept is right. We were trying to strike a level that suggested that these people were not engaged in trading and were simply fund-raising. It was the balance of our opinion that $2000 was a fair reflection of that. 
The other point that I would like to raise very quickly is that licences will be renewed every 5 years. That is good because it is a test of character and good citizenship. Things can change over a 5-year period. Having it in perpetuity we thought was a flaw so we moved to make sure that this issue was dealt with. In conclusion I say that this legislation has the very strong support of the National Party. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with such a constructive select committee and I commend this legislation to the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I am just sitting here pondering that it is amazing that whenever people out there in the public arena discuss what members of Parliament do and what they are like so often the media and talkback hosts say that we act like a bunch of kids that people do not want to listen to that sort of nonsense and that we waste their time. We try to correct some of those perceptions by saying hang on a minute bills that are contentious will be contested vigorously by both sides of the House and the cross benches as is right and proper. But we very rarely hear reports of when members actively work together to solve a problem that exists and we all agree needs resolving and then come to the House present the bill debate it through and all vote unanimously in support of it. I feel it is a tragedy that so rarely do political commentators highlight to the public the large amount of legislation that goes through this House with unanimous agreement whereby the select committees have worked determinedly and conscientiously to get the right outcome. 
This is one such bill and I have absolutely no doubt that we will not read anything of any substance about it in the papers tomorrow. We will not hear talkback hosts saying that it was great the way all the MPs got together and dealt with an issue that has been plaguing the police for decades—dealt with a piece of outdated outmoded legislation that had become so inappropriate that it needed dealing to. I doubt very much that I will hear one talkback host tomorrow complimenting the House on the way it has conducted itself in the passage of this legislation. 
I say “well done” to the Government and “well done” to the Law and Order Committee—it was a pleasure to work with them all. I say to the police who are out there waiting for this legislation to be passed that there are a number of things that New Zealand First campaigns on very vigorously in support of the police and law and order and that this bill is focused on a law and order issue. On a number of issues New Zealand First will always challenge the ability of the Government of the day to effectively police our streets. We will challenge it on the numbers of police because we fundamentally believe that the police are understaffed to do all the work—such as this—that we believe needs to be done. We believe that police numbers should be doubled—end of story—and we have said so. We know the financial implications. We believe that the police are completely under-resourced. 
Successive Governments have created this situation and the passage of more and more detailed legislation that requires the police to do more and more work cannot be ignored so we challenge that. We will challenge the priorities until they are corrected. We have made our solution very clear. Police priorities in terms of who they are focusing on and what they are doing need looking at and we specifically point to highway patrols and traffic safety. New Zealand First has said that it will resolve that issue. Policemen need to be out there checking on pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers because they know who is fencing the goods. New Zealand First does not want to see the focus on quota ticketing and to make sure that that does not happen under our governance we will split that side of the police force right out of the police. It will go back to the Ministry of Transport and the Land Transport Safety Authority. They can look after traffic policing with all the vigour they desire but the police will be left to do policing. It is a question of priorities. 
The third area is having the tools of the trade to do the job and this bill is one such tool. The police need good legislation. They need outdated legislation to be tidied up. The Minister has brought it to the House and we have dealt with it. This is good and New Zealand First is supporting this bill all the way through but there is other legislation like a “Suppression of Gangs Bill” that I want the Government to bring to the table to help the police. Let us have it! Let us put some teeth into those laws that are not enforced like criminal non-association. We have those laws on our books but they are never enforced. We sit here and watch the very people who burgle homes and organise the fencing of stolen goods through shady second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. We let them sit behind their huge fences. We let them walk the streets with patches on their backs. We know who they are and we tolerate them through some misguided belief that we are impinging on their civil right to express themselves openly as members of such “esteemed” organisations as Black Power or White Power. 
The police need good tools such as this legislation but I am saying that they need more. A “Suppression of Gangs Bill” would be welcomed by New Zealand First if it would seek—and my colleague and friend Dover Samuels is nodding his head—to wipe out gangs forever. We say that knowing that our whanaunga are an integral part of the gang structure in this country and we desperately want them dealt to as do the police. Let us look at other legislation like the confiscation of assets. That would be perfectly in line with this bill. Those gangs that are engaged in stealing converting burgling and then fencing are all putting their ill-gained profits into investments to improve their lifestyles. They have the nice homes and the nice cars and they are all very well shielded by inadequate legislation that does not allow the police or the Minister of Justice to go for the throat. We have seen examples in Ireland of how this legislation has worked well. We have seen female reporters shot dead on the streets as a result of gangs seeking to protect their ill-gotten gains which are often gained by fencing stolen goods through shonky second-hand dealerships and pawnbrokers. 
This is good legislation. New Zealand First congratulates the Government and all the members of the select committee for the work that has been done and we congratulate the officials who worked patiently to help us understand some of the intricacies that were involved. I am looking forward to seeing the bill passed. I am looking forward to hearing police say: “Thank God now we can go out there and get into the work.” I am looking forward to seeing the police being used more appropriately on the streets and to more legislation of this type coming to the floor of the House under this Government so that we can help it. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 ACT supports this legislation so I will not waste the House’s time. There is nothing I hate more than the sound of my own voice but I would like to remind people in this House— 
Government Members 
: Love your voice! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well then sit down be quiet and listen! I remind members—and Ron Mark has just talked about tools for the police to fight crime with—that we are passing legislation that sets out a registry of second-hand dealers. These are people who have done nothing wrong but they will be registered and it will be a national database. When legislation comes back before the House at the end of the year that will seek to set up a registry of convicted sex offenders I hope that members will not go queasy but will support it with the same strength and passion with which they have supported this bill and with which yesterday they supported a registry of dogs that might bite people. ACT supports this legislation. 
Bill read a third time.