Collins Judith: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Collins Judith: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6520] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 After that mammoth effort from the member preceding me I say that the National Party is pleased to support this bill. There are just a few issues that I would like to speak on tonight. The first is the point raised by a previous speaker about the level of crime and burglary that is so prevalent in New Zealand particularly in the fair city of Auckland from whence I hail these days. In particular I want to speak about a human aspect—and the person involved I am sure would be very pleased to know that we are starting the debate on this bill. My taxi driver today—from the electorate of Clevedon that I represent—to the Auckland airport told me that he and his wife had been burgled on Friday afternoon. Not only did they lose a significant amount of their property—and the Minister Ruth Dyson might find that funny—but they reported the burglary to the police and the forensic people who came to take fingerprints did not arrive until Monday afternoon. So we are talking about a 3-day wait in this instance and I ask that we get real. 
We can put all the requirements in this bill for the police to register all of those pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers and for the police to trot around second-hand shops checking on things and procedures but the reality is that the police will not do any of that. They are already not following up on burglaries in which they know there is stolen property and they can presume there is DNA evidence or fingerprints left. They are just not following those cases up and that is one of the problems. One of the real tragedies of this sort of legislation is that it has a great purpose—I am sure that everyone in the House will support it—but the fact is that if the police are not given the resources told it is a priority able to make it a priority and be held accountable for it and the Minister is not made accountable for it then it will not do even a scrap of good. 
When I read through this bill—as I am wont to do for my sins—I notice that in schedule 2 there are comments about the forms of authorised identification. Although this is not a Committee stage something that the Minister the officials or the select committee might like to look at are the forms of authorised identification of people for the purposes of the Act. For instance I think of my dear old departed mother who at the age of 80 when selling up her property and moving to a smaller one took some things in to get sold at a second-hand place to get rid of them. 
She was of the generation when a lot of women did not drive cars so she had no driver’s licence and she had no passport because she had never travelled overseas. She had no documentation with a photograph on it or credit card because she never had credit. She always had cash in the bank; if she could not afford it she did not buy it. She had no 18-plus card issued by the Hospitality Association of New Zealand because she was a teetotaller and no document issued by a New Zealand secondary or composite school to a student—issued for the purpose of identifying the student and containing a photograph of the student—because she was not a student. 
My guess is that there will be quite a few ladies out there particularly ladies in the 80-plus age group who do not have any of the identification required under this bill to be actually able to sell to a second-hand dealer. That matter needs to be looked at; it is seriously a problem. Those of us in the House are all of a time when we have passports and identification through drivers’ licences but there will be lots of people in the community who will be made to feel like criminals because they happen to be 80-plus and do not have any of those forms of identification. As I say I speak of my dear old departed mother who would have been in exactly that situation. 
So what would have had to happen for people like that? They would not have been able to sell their goods and someone else would have had to do that for them. Really is that not negating the whole purpose of the bill? That issue needs to be looked at. As well when I looked through the bill I remembered all the kerfuffle that there was a few years ago when the National Government brought in the driver’s licence with a photo. What a kerfuffle! Every civil libertarian up and down the country was saying that it was a de facto ID. Effectively by this bill a de facto ID is now required in this country to sell something of one’s own to someone else. 
I wonder why that is—it is because we now live in a society in which people are presumed to be dishonest and crooked if they are selling their own property. This legislation will not help people whose property is burgled and then sold in pubs and clubs around the place. It will not help them. It will not help those who are the victims of crime. It might in fact stop some dealers operating but the reality is that the police will not go and investigate because they have better things to do—which are not necessarily a matter of getting around to all the burglaries. Bless their cotton socks but there are just not enough police. They asked for 160 new police in Auckland and were given 50. We could do with another 100 just in the Counties-Manukau area but we are not being given them so I do not know how they are ever supposed to go through all that paperwork and regulation. 
I note that the honourable member Mr Gosche is in the Chamber and there are a lot of second-hand shops in his electorate. There are instant-finance places pawnshops and everything else. I am sure he knows it when he is there visiting and I am sure he feels that it is the sort of thing that needs to be looked at. But there are so many people now living on credit in this country—absolutely living on credit. 
There is the Cash Converters chain. I do not want to be a free advertiser for them but there are all of those sorts of things because of all those people living on credit or buying things they do not need and then getting rid of them because we live in a disposable society. When we look at the record-keeping requirements we see that the bill regulates second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers—the people who have actually opened up a shop paid the rent and often employed people. But they are not allowed to employ people under the age of 18 I note. I ask what the point of that really is and I have to concur with the previous speaker who spoke about the need for younger people to understand the benefits of trade and that it is OK to trade and make a profit and that we should be encouraging that. 
I also note the contribution from Mr Richard Worth of the National Party who spoke about the fact that this legislation will not touch by one iota the amount of illegal trading of stolen goods and other things that goes on over the Internet. I notice as well that in schedule 1 of the bill there is the very strange exclusion about refrigerators washing machines clothes dryers dishwashers and stoves. I find that fascinating. I also wonder whether those sorts of articles should be subject to a form of regulation rather than that there necessarily be law because clearly what is in the exclusion list and what is out of it is something that can change very quickly. In 1908 nobody would have thought of “boats boat engines and boat accessories” “cameras and photography equipment” or “compact discs (laser read)”. We are probably right now not thinking about what will be the “in” thing for children in particular or teenagers to buy in another 2 or 3 years. I wonder whether the Minister and the select committee might look at whether that matter is better dealt with in terms of regulation rather than in the main form of the legislation. 
So I say in summary that I am pleased we are able to support this bill but I have grave concerns about exactly what effect it will have given the fact that it will not help the little old lady aged 80-plus who cannot fulfil any of the requirements for identification if she sells the goods she has owned for the last 60 years and who will therefore need some form of exemption somehow. Nor will it help the police at all to be able to get around and administer this legislation which will become a burden to them.