Franks Stephen: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6518] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I welcome a bill that carries out a mechanical sensible and practical tidy-up of earlier legislation without beginning with a whole lot of ideological clap-trap and claiming to be rebalancing the scales between consumers and suppliers—the kind of nonsense that we see in legislation that governs similar transactions like consumer credit. I welcome the fact that at least the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill seems to be practically oriented. It has a compliance cost analysis that is understandable and has the headings that one would expect from a reasonable attempt to make a tradesmanlike job of updating the existing legislation. 
I am of course a little concerned that the bill states that compliance costs will rise for almost all second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers who comply with the requirements of the proposed regime because there are no free lunches. If the regulated industry has an increase in cost we can assume that the competing alternatives such as frequent garage sales the  
Trade and Exchange 
 and all the other ways of disposing of second-hand goods quietly may increase in attractiveness. One of the things I hope the Law and Order Committee will look at very closely is just what commitment there is to enforcement. If this bill has a rigorous enforcement regime it will increase the need and the pressure on the police to look at the alternatives in order to make sure that this bill does not simply squeeze fencing and criminal activity out of the authorised industry and into those other avenues which also include pub sales and fake raffles. There is nothing that can give us much confidence that the police will be able to give it the sort of priority it requires. 
This bill is expected to be enforced by the police. There is a curious statement in the paragraph headed “Key compliance cost issues identified during consultation” in the explanatory note. It states: “During consultation it became apparent that many persons who should currently be licensed and complying with the requirements of being a licensed secondhand dealer or pawnbroker were not licensed.” I would like the Minister or his officials to explain to the select committee just why that should be when the police have apparently equipped United Future and the Labour Party with information about the extent of trading in stolen goods through second-hand dealers yet appear to be saying that that obvious avenue for tackling receiving has not even received enough attention from the police to make sure that all those who should currently be licensed under the existing law defective though it may be are licensed. What can we hope for from a new law however bold and brave it is and however glossy its provisions if there is no commitment to enforcement? 
What a waste of time it is for Parliament to give its attention to technical detail and matters that are desirable but that in comparison with the will and commitment to enforcement are next to nothing! A far better priority for Parliament would be to debate the many areas in which the current will to enforcement is lacking and in which the old Labour tradition of regarding criminals as victims of the class struggle seems to ensure that Government members feel happy leaving them in a continued happy criminal career. 
I found the bill interesting to look through just for the quality of the thinking that has gone into it. Quite apart from the compliance cost statement and the bland mention of the level of non-compliance with the existing law there are some rather curious mentions of compliance costs associated with the various duties of licensed second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. There is an indication that it is expected that compliance costs other than the cost of licensing certification and presumably record-keeping will increase as mentioned in the illustrative compliance costs comparison table. A true assessment of the real value of this legislation should have required a very clear statement in the compliance cost summary of just what those compliance costs are that concern was expressed about. 
I looked through the provisions of the bill and found for example that a certificate holder or licence holder is required to advise the registrar of every change of address. That will probably be a little difficult and will probably be overlooked. It might have been better to have looked at that in terms of the object of that provision. Do we really need the current address very often when the real purpose is simply to make sure the person being dealt with is the person who is named and has his or her photograph on the licence? Another one is the requirement where the sale is on the owner’s behalf for a 14-day holding period that is waived if the vendor’s details are taken down. I cannot understand why that difference exists and it does seem likely to increase the frequency of sales on the owner’s behalf or notionally on the owner’s behalf which might act against the interests of vendors—people who want to come in get their money and be gone and who are perfectly honest are willing to provide all their details can be readily verified through their authentication but cannot get their money because the dealer does not want to have to pay when the goods have to be held for 2 weeks. That seems perhaps an unnecessary compliance cost and it certainly has not been calculated in the compliance cost statement. 
Another provision is the requirement for the minimum age of a licence holder to be 18 years. If we really want to be a mercantile and entrepreneurial country we should be encouraging younger people to be involved—under supervision as is required for a certificate holder—in that industry. I cannot think of any better apprenticeship for learning the skills of trading that this country so desperately needs than being able to work with a second-hand dealer for a while. We send people out to overseas countries where they have to deal with the products of bazaar cultures with absolutely no training because we do not allow people to grow up until they are 18. The committee should look at that as an absolutely ridiculous piece of—dare I use the word—ageism. It is curious also that only 5 years need elapse after an offence before a person is allowed to be a second-hand dealer again. Five years seems a very small length of time. I would have thought that once someone has reached the seriousness of the offences that are mentioned in the bill the disqualification should be for 10 years at least. Soon the Government will permanently suppress the records of most offences for most offenders after 10 years in legislation that is currently being cranked through my select committee. 
I am also interested in the definition of “secondhand dealer”. As I read it if a school holds five garage sales plus a fair it has become a second-hand dealer. I am not sure that that is intended. It may be that the Minister drafting the legislation has not had a lot of association with— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Minister probably hasn’t read it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No the Minister probably has not read it but he certainly does not have any familiarity with the normal role of ordinary New Zealanders who work on school committees. They are the people who go along to the bring-and-buys who raise the funds for voluntary organisations and who know that when one holds a fair one sells second-hand articles but also probably coca-cola and things that people have bought—not everything is donated at a fair—and the same schools have probably held garage sales and a number of other arrangements whereby they have sold things in the previous 12 months. I suggest that if the Government wants to avoid confronting 500 or 700 or 900 school committees it had better make sure that this bill does not catch them as second-hand dealers. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The Labour Party will probably need one. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Labour Party probably will need one as a promoter of fairs. Is there not a big fair somewhere in Auckland? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The south Auckland flea market. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The south Auckland flea market will need one. I do not know whether it will have the character to get past the police check so I think this legislation will need to be looked at very closely. The compliance costs should be something that the Government takes a very serious look at it. We will be pleased to see this bill go to the select committee and we hope that the members on that committee will give it very careful scrutiny.