Worth Richard: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6513] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 As the previous speaker correctly surmised. National supports the bill. I am always comforted when Mr Goff reads from prepared material because I know that it will be inherently accurate. I have been hugely comforted tonight as he read at rapid-fire rate this material fashioned by third parties that we can have confidence that there has been an accurate summary. 
There are however some significant issues in this legislation that we should not ignore. I would like to start if I may by noting for members of this crowded House tonight the fact that in ancient times three gold balls was the sign of the pawnbroker. For the desperate whose bank account cannot stand another cheque or an Eftpos withdrawal a trip to the pawnbroker can be the answer. I say that because it is a quick and uncomplicated system unburdened by copious form filling. As others have said: “They can be in and out of here with money in their hands as quick as using an ATM machine.” That comment came from a local pawnbroker in this city of Wellington. 
Of course if someone pawns something he or she might get a lower price than selling it second hand but there is a chance of buying the stuff back at a price. But at least if it is something that the person values it can of course be taken home again. 
It works this way. A pawnbroker puts a value on the goods and offers cash. He holds the goods but they remain the customer’s property and can be reclaimed by repaying the original loan plus interest. As I understand the law if the items are not redeemed—within 3 months for clothes or 6 months for other goods—then the law says they must be auctioned and any money received from the sale over and above the principal and the interest due at the time of the sale minus the handling cost belongs to the person who pawned the item. 
 There are of course many reasons that people pawn. Usually they need cash to tide them over for hassle-free bridging finance. No credit checks are needed. An inability to buy back their goods means they lose the item but there is no bad credit rating. Sometimes people pawn and re-pawn the same thing. About 20 percent of goods I understand go unclaimed under the Pawnbrokers Act of 1908—and that is the first point I would like to make: this is old legislation. There are not too many pieces of legislation that date back to that great year of 1908 when so much law was consolidated. 
I mentioned the three balls being the traditional symbol of the pawnbroker. Members of this House—listening attentively as I know they are—will know that the traditional three balls are said to be from the crest of the Medici family in Italy who with the Lombards in England were moneylenders in Europe in the Middle Ages. Legend has it that one of the Medicis in the employ of Emperor Charles the Great slew a giant using three sacks of rocks and these eventually appeared on the family crest. So it is from those three sacks of rocks that the symbol of the three balls arose. 
As the MP for Epsom I hesitate to offer issues of history relating to Wellington but I am very much aware that the symbol of the three balls was last displayed in Wellington in the 1970s when the Willis Street pawn and second-hand shop owned by Israel Triester closed. 
I now turn to the substance of the legislation against the background of the very helpful summary that the Minister read at such rapid-fire speed. Before I do that I should probably say that “pawn” comes from the Latin patinum meaning clothing. In earlier centuries the principal assets people had were their clothes and they borrowed money by pawning their clothing. 
But I come back to the legislation. Having made the preliminary point that the Pawnbrokers Act is very old legislation I point out that this bill provides for the replacement of the Secondhand Dealers Act and the Pawnbrokers Act. In this legislation we see two things. First of all there is the regulation of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers and individuals acting either as directors or as agents of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. We see also the specification of record-keeping requirements for promoters of markets and fairs with regard to second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers who operate at those markets and fairs and the requirement that promoters allow the police to inspect those records. 
None of us in this House would be oblivious to the fact that if we could control what goes on in the markets touching on second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers we would put a large number of burglars out of business. There is absolutely no doubt that if we closed down the fencing or receiving industry that flourishes in New Zealand many burglars and thieves would not find the business of theft worthwhile. That is why National supports this legislation. If we close down the extent of fencing and receiving maybe—although I doubt it under this Government—we will be doing something in terms of dealing with those significant issues. 
It is a tragedy as we all know that right throughout New Zealand there are people active in our communities and neighbourhoods who are determined to pursue criminal activities by nefarious means with no consideration for their neighbours at all. The need to support one’s neighbours I suggest has never ever been more critical. If one looks at the legislation helpfully contained within the contents provision that Mr Goff has seen fit to include one notes that there are a number of parts no fewer than four and also a schedule. Those parts deal I would say unromantically with some preliminary provisions. In Part 2 we look at issues relating to licences and certificates. Part 3 deals with obligations of licence holders and promoters. Part 4 deals with the Registrar of Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers and certain miscellaneous provisions are included. Then finally in the schedule are some forms of what I suggest are of no great interest to members of this House. 
In conclusion it is all very well having these highly prescriptive arrangements that assume that commerce is transacted in person or perhaps by correspondence but the reality today is very much that a lot of trading in second-hand goods occurs on the Internet. I would like to say that trading in the area of websites needs to be more significantly considered than it is in this bill. What does this bill do about that issue? Absolutely nothing! So we have websites like www.trademe.co.nz and www.ebay.com presented by backyard unlicensed dealers and such trading is rife. I hope that the bill will be extended to deal with this.