Alexander Marc: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6515] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I am not so enamoured with the sound of my own voice so I will come to the point. This bill introduced by the Government has the support of United Future. New Zealand presently has one of the highest rates of property theft in the world the bulk of which is disposed of through second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. As such United Future is proud to support a bill whose purpose is to make it harder for criminals to dispose of stolen goods by creating a tighter goods tracking regime for the second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers industry. This as the Minister has pointed out will therefore make it easier for the police to track stolen goods apprehend offenders and recover such goods accordingly. 
The present legislation is now well outdated ranging between 40 and 95 years in operation with the police complaining that both pieces of legislation are antiquated and toothless. This new legislation has been developed in consultation with the industry and as a result it has the support of the Licensed Traders Association which I am informed has been pushing for it for years. I also note that although the association has an excellent record in honest practice it itself acknowledges that there are some rogue dealers out there who need a tighter regime enforced upon them. As such I thank them for their contribution to the bill. The police are also satisfied that this bill ought to make a difference. I note the recent comments made by Sergeant Rhys Johnston of the Wellington Burglary Squad that police were battling an increase in break-ins. The first 3 months of this year saw a 48 percent increase in reported burglaries compared with the same period last year. That is why this bill is needed. 
I want to make one or two comments on some aspects that the Minister raised. We are pleased to see the penalties for dealing without a licence being increased from $200 to $20000. The old amount barely warranted consideration and it certainly did not deter any of the less reputable from bothering to become licensed. There are some matters that to my knowledge the bill presently is unclear or remains silent on and I am sure that United Future will be keen to make a contribution on these matters at the select committee stage. They are not huge issues but they merit a mention anyway. 
 It is pleasing to see that dealer licences are now no longer issued in perpetuity and that they are to be renewed and certified every 5 years However if the emphasis of relicensing as the Minister points out is to weed out applicants with convictions for dishonesty and the like upon application then maybe there ought to be opportunity for members of the public to object to a dealer being relicensed if they are aware of any significant malpractice or more commonly shonky business by the dealer in question. 
Also—as in Western Australia a jurisdiction that has a relatively new second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers statute—perhaps dealers ought not to be allowed to deal with anyone under the age of 18 and further not with anyone who appears to be affected by drugs or alcohol. Such measures might appear draconian. However when one pauses to consider that the effect of the Western Australia statute on second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers has been a 30 percent drop in house burglaries in that State it starts to sound like perhaps a good idea. With such a reduction not only does property become safer but the cost of it becomes cheaper as insurance premiums decrease. If we are serious about cracking down on property theft and its aftermarket then I put it to the House that perhaps those are some of the matters that ought to be considered and no doubt we will be raising those points during the select committee process. 
I would also like to pick up on another change the Minister touched on and it is an eminently sensible one. Under the previous statute a list was made of goods that were recognised as being more likely to be stolen and those goods were therefore required to be held by dealers for a month. Drafted in 1963 it presently remains in law that gramophones travelling rugs and typewriters are our most at-risk goods. It is surely time for revision. United Future is therefore pleased to see that the new schedule involves an excellent compromise whereby the hold-over period is reduced to 2 weeks. However the police may categorise any goods as being at risk and therefore provide for a flexible schedule that may move with the times as technology evolves and as new consumer products are invented. I commend this bill to the House.