Connell Brian: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Connell Brian: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14280] 
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.