Tisch Lindsay: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6522] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 I enjoy wandering through second-hand dealer stores. It is amazing what one finds. One might even find a 50-year-old Minister of Justice if one looks closely. National will be supporting this bill to select committee. We do have some concerns about it that we hope the select committee will be able to look at more closely. We hope the committee will be able to crystallise some of the arguments that have come up especially about people who may be running a fair such as parent-teacher associations and groups like that. Often they are doing it more than six times a year. 
I notice there is an exception under clause 6 that states that people who buy for the purposes of trade or who sell exchange or otherwise deal in second-hand articles or scrap metal on fewer than six occasions in any 12-month period are not engagedin business as second-hand dealers. What happens if they are in fact dealing more times than that? I have been a member of a service club that as a project over the years was continually going and getting scrap metal off farms and selling it. We were doing that more than 6 times a year. Under this provision are those people going to be caught? Stephen Franks made some good points about school parent-teacher associations and groups of people like that who have come to rely on this form of fund-raising for their activities. We really want to know in the select committee how that works. 
I will give a bit of background information for those who do not know the difference between a second-hand dealer and a pawnbroker. I found this interesting as I went through the bill because I was not quite clear myself. Some notes I have here state that second-hand dealers buy goods at which point ownership passes to them—providing the seller has legal title—and then resells them. I understand that pretty well. Pawnbrokers on the other hand hold items as security or a pledge for loans. The borrower retains ownership of the pledge except on default on the loan and then the pawnbroker has the opportunity to sell those goods. So that is the difference between the two. If we were to go back and look at the legislation we would see that the Secondhand Dealers Act came into effect in 1963 and there have been no changes to it since then. As society has moved on as communities have moved on and as attitudes have changed it is opportune that this bill comes forward. 
As Richard Worth said the Pawnbrokers Act goes back to 1908 and if we look back we see that there have been massive changes since 1908. [ 
Interruption 
] It is good to have a lawyer of Richard Worth’s calibre in the House who actually understands the nuances of these issues because he makes it very easy to crystallise and articulate what it actually means. It is good to have someone like that on our team to do that for us. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I note the people over there want to interrupt. We are actually supporting this but one would think we were not. We actually think this is good legislation and I am just trying to add value to it by mentioning some of the things we think are important. It is designed to reduce crime and that is fine. As the explanatory note says the reforms envisaged by this bill are aimed at making it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods through second-hand dealers. If it is designed to close down fencing—if closing down fencing and those who are receiving is the issue that is out there—well and good. We certainly would support that. 
If we were to look further at some of the other areas we would see that the legislation does not cover auctioneers. I guess that when items have to be sold they will go to an auctioneer and I would have thought there might be provisions that included auctioneers. If we go back to the 1963 and 1908 legislation we note that auctioneers are part of those provisions and this legislation does not allow for that. 
I want to briefly mention business costs. Stephen Franks mentioned compliance costs. I am for reducing compliance costs. In many debates in this House I have talked about the high-cost regulatory regimes and the high compliance costs we are faced with. The explanatory note does go on to say that there will be higher costs. If those costs are going to streamline the process and provide accountability and transparency for the people who are dealing in these products—and if that is in the public good—it is something we will have to accept. 
I note that there is a very clear message on page 15 of the bill. There is an analysis of the costs that will be associated with this and it is certainly a very good move to show the costs of the current regime versus the costs of the proposed regime. I will go over this very quickly. The current cost of a dealership for a new dealer is $190. 
Hon David Carter 
: How much? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is $190 and for a new dealer that will move up under this bill to $480. 
Hon David Carter 
: Another tax. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It could be. It is another $290. It does go on to say that there will be compliance costs. I will just read this. “The total industry-wide increase in compliance costs over the status quo for the first year of operation is estimated to be $1155000. This is made up of $975000 in licensing fees for secondhand dealers and pawnbrokers and $180000 for other costs associated with the new licensing process.” So there are major costs involved and at the select committee we will be looking very closely at what that all means because we do not want unnecessary costs. As I mentioned earlier if the costs bring accountability and transparency to safeguard the public’s interest that is worthwhile. 
But one major issue is not covered and that is the buying of goods over the Internet. There is no provision in this legislation that controls the buying of goods on the Internet. There are a number of organisations and firms out there—eBay is one of the biggest—and people who have been involved in buying goods and services over the Internet need to know that they are protected. There is very little protection; by giving one’s credit card numbers over the Internet one can be ripped off and part of the work of the select committee in my view must be to look at how New Zealanders can be safeguarded in their use of the Internet because there is no provision at all for that in this bill. We have moved into this age—and this legislation which is being trumpeted as being so important and certainly we agree with it makes absolutely no provision for or account of this very important mechanism of buying on the Internet that we have access to. 
It does not actually talk about the garage sale provision. I mentioned earlier the point that a lot of organisations have become dependent on running garage sales having stalls and whatever. If it is less than six times a year in a 12-month period they will be exempt. But there are organisations out there dealing in second-hand goods every day of the week. We want to make sure that people buying from there are protected and we want to make sure that the licensing regimes fit the bill. National supports this through to the select committee. We believe there are issues that need to be addressed and during the select committee process and at the Committee stage we will be pushing and articulating those to get what is best for New Zealand consumers.