SECOND-HAND GOODS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 April 2013.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:19): In continuation, I would like to say that the government is now making a habit of introducing the second-hand goods bills just before the last sitting year of the term. A cynical view may be that this is an indication of what a low priority it is for this government. Despite its long history, the bill has changed very little, despite vocal and widespread disagreement from the industry groups that it affects. The opposition has been contacted by many small businesses with deep concerns that this impost threatens their viability and may force them to close.

The retail industry has had a tough time between a slow economy, high running costs for utilities, increased taxes, and increased regulation through laws such as these. As if the business community was not suffering enough under the highest state taxes in the nation without being faced by legislation such as this. There is no doubt that this legislation, as drafted, will push businesses closer to closure and therefore cost jobs.

This bill penalises those business that are doing, and will continue to do, the right thing. It shifts the costs and the expectation of policing onto them—this shift in the cost of policing onto retailers—without giving them support to fulfil their proposed new obligations. The bill will save police resources and money and that is welcomed, yet none of that saving is being passed onto retailers.

The government is providing the police with an extra $2.14 million to cover the cost of the transaction management system known as the TMS, but it is not giving retailers anything to help them transition into it. I also understand that the police are not being given any extra resources to use and maintain the TMS. The big businesses like Cash Converters are already using a system like the TMS to report to police, so the burden will impact particularly on small business.

The government is allocating Consumer and Business Services one additional FTE plus $84,000 for a communication strategy and education campaign. Further, the government is funding CBS an additional $8,000 per year to maintain the education material, but there is no extra support for retailers.

Rather than support for small businesses, there are significant imposts. For a body corporate, there is a $495 application fee to become licensed and a $540 annual renewal fee. So before you even get started, there is an up-front cost of $1,035. For a sole trader to become licensed, there is the $310 application fee and a $415 annual licence renewal fee—so a total of $725 up-front cost. For a registrant, for a company to become registered, or a business to become registered, there is a $150 application fee and an annual registration renewal fee of $100—so a $250 up-front cost. For an approved person, there is a $310 application fee, followed by a $150 annual renewal fee. That is a $460 up-front cost.

If you compare these fees, for example, with comparable fees against liquor licensing, for example, the fees are much higher. For a body corporate to get a liquor licence, it is an up-front cost of $558.50, compared to a second-hand goods licence up-front cost of $1,035. Again, for a responsible person to register under the Liquor Licensing Act, it is an up-front fee of $122.90, but for an approved second-hand retailer, it is $460.

As I said before, it is no secret that we are the state with the highest taxes in the nation, and this is another example of the reason why. I suspect even that these sorts of fees do not get added into the state tax burden, but I assure you that they come out of the same profits that small businesses try to eke out to maintain their existence. Whether it is a tax, whether it is a fee, whether it is a levy, it all drags business down.

As I said, in terms of interstate comparisons, the fees themselves for interstate second-hand goods retailers show an unfair burden being placed on South Australian retailers. The $1,035 that I referred to in South Australia compares with $448 in New South Wales and $576.80 in Queensland. So once again, we are leading Australia for all the wrong reasons.

The legislation before us is in response to the problems police have had with utilising the current legislation, but it could be argued that a significant part of those problems lie not so much with the legislation itself, but with the resources police are given to enforce it. The government continues to cut money from the police. It is cutting $150 million over the forward estimates and, in spite of the bleating our part-time Treasurer, Treasurer Weatherill, the government has actually increased that budget ask in recent months. It was $100 million at the time of the last budget; in the Mid-Year Budget Review in December it was increased 50 per cent.

The police commissioner has advised the Budget and Finance Committee that in this financial year we will have 71 fewer FTEs in our police force. The government has given no indication how they intend to fund the extra 300 recruits they have promised; in any case, they have pushed out that promise until 2016 at the earliest. I regard a promise delayed as a promise broken, and I do not believe that the government has honoured its commitment to the South Australian people made at the last election in relation to our police services.

I turn now to the consultation process. Of the 1,572 letters sent to businesses that are expected to be affected by the legislation, almost 20 per cent—that is, 281 letters—were marked 'return to sender'. These were 281 businesses that were meant to be regularly monitored, under the current legislation, by SAPOL, yet limited police resources clearly meant that was not occurring. The police were not aware that the businesses were no longer there.

In total, SAPOL received 17 submissions and 80 questions in response to the consultation. The member for Stuart in the other place, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan, proposed that the bill be referred to a select committee to make sure that the sector's views were truly understood. He proposed a select committee that would have had the following terms of reference:

(a) to consider and report on the benefits of the bill to the police in their efforts to reduce burglary, theft and other illegal activities;

(b) to consider and report on the cost to and other impacts upon other existing businesses, such as second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers;

(c) to consider and report on the unintended consequences of the bill;

(d) to consider and recommend possible amendments to the bill; and

(e) any other relevant matters.

The government rejected these calls for a select committee in the House of Assembly.

The Hon. Tammy Franks again, quite rightly, pointed out that the consultation has not gone far enough. She spoke at length about the impact of this legislation on the local music industry. Music stores, just like the rest of the retail sector, have been struggling in recent years, and this was particularly visible last year when Allans Billy Hyde was placed into receivership. Thankfully, the Adelaide store is expected to stay open; however, I understand that other stores are not so fortunate.

I am concerned that the Hon. Tammy Franks seemed to be suggesting that the Greens wanted to expand what businesses the regulation applied to and place even heavier regulation on the music stores that she sought to stand up for. I was even more surprised to hear that, despite their longstanding opposition to criminal intelligence laws, the Greens are now supporting its expansion to cover around 1,500 new businesses and their employees.

It appears that, while the Hon. Tammy Franks was rightly expressing concerns about the impact of liquor licensing fees on small business, and the impact that has on the live music scene, the Greens are less concerned about the cost impact on music stores selling second-hand music goods, which is nearly double that of a liquor licence. Retailers may be forced to (a) close shop due to increased operating costs, or (b) pass the costs on to musicians and customers, making the music trade that much more expensive an industry that does not provide much return for the majority of participants in the first place.

While the concerns have been well heard in relation to the cost on small bars and musicians, the impact on those who supply that industry is yet to be heard. Needless to say, this council will need to think long and hard before it supports legislation that cripples small business and puts yet another layer of regulation on top of an already overburdened and overtaxed small business sector. It is the opposition's view that the government should go back to the drawing board and come up with a workable alternative so that the answer to stopping the sale of second-hand goods is not found, as the government proposes, in giving the big second-hand goods companies a monopoly on the market by driving their small business competitors out of the market.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:29): I rise to make a few comments about the Second-hand Goods Bill. Members will probably recall that when it was last introduced, in 2009, I was the shadow minister for police at the time and had a reasonable amount of involvement and took an interest in it. Now we see this bill back before us again. My colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade did make the comment about the government making a habit of introducing these bills just prior to the end of a parliamentary term, although this can be dealt with before the end of this parliamentary year. I know that the gentlemen sitting in the gallery certainly hope that it will be dealt with before the end of the parliamentary year.

I thought I would recap some of the issues that were current back when it was introduced some four years ago, and I think they are probably still some of the concerns that are held today. One concern which I do not believe will be an issue but certainly was the first time it was introduced was that, from the industry point of view, the first contact, especially with the Motor Trade Association, from SAPOL was on 25 May, yet the bill was introduced on 17 June, about three weeks later. At that point in time, I think that raised some alarms that this was a bit of legislation that had not necessarily been consulted widely enough.

We are four years on, so I am sure that it has been well consulted on, but at that time, there were some concerns raised. I know from contributions by my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade and also the shadow minister for police, Dan van Holst Pellekaan in the House of Assembly, that there are still some issues, and they involve what people currently have to pay to be licensed to be a second-hand dealer under the Pawnbrokers Act. I think it is only a matter of about $50 to be licensed for a reasonable length of time.

My colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade spoke about the cost of registration licensing being hundreds of dollars—in fact, I think over $1,000—and he is dead right that there is an increasing burden on small business to make ends meet these days, with the increasing costs of regulation and increasing taxes and charges. I am sure that we are all supportive of the intent of the legislation to be able to track and recover stolen goods, but I do hope that we are not placing an unnecessary financial burden on existing businesses when times are tough.

I also note that there was an estimate in the previous bill, and I have a range of questions I will put on the record shortly so that the minister might be able to bring back an answer. Some four years ago, there was a concern that the average cost to implement the record-keeping mechanism could be as much as $100 a week, and that is $5,000 a year, which is no small amount of money.

There were also some issues four years ago about prescribed goods, and I note that concerns are still being raised by industry representatives about what is going to be in the regulations. Of course, we have seen in the past that the devil is in the detail or in the regulations. I am sure that will be an area of great interest for the parliament when those regulations are gazetted because, if there are some anomalies, I am sure we will be revisiting them in this place through a disallowance motion.

As my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned, this government has failed to relieve business of the burden of red tape. I am reminded that when the Hon. Karlene Maywald was the minister for small business—so we are talking about some time ago—she put out a questionnaire to small business; it was 127 multiple choice questions on how to relieve red tape. The easiest thing would have been not to fill in her questionnaire and throw it in the bin. We have seen ever-increasing red tape through often well-intentioned legislation, in this particular case trying to track and recover stolen goods. It is the innocent people, or the people who are not involved in these particular practices, who are the ones who then end up paying the price, with extra compliance and red tape. I am sure that those who want to try to shoot around the system and cheat the system will also try to continue to do that and try to dodge paying any particular fees.

I notice that back four years ago that eBay was a concern. I do note some comments that it may still be a concern and I might address them shortly. I am just wondering about eBay, Gumtree and all the internet trading. One of the questions that I pose to the minister shortly will be: how will the electronic transactions be captured if goods are being shipped around?

I think there were also some concerns with the previous bill—and again I hope that the minister does bring back an answer to this—in relation to capturing scrap metal dealers who also deal in semiprecious metals, and auto parts recyclers who also deal with semiprecious metals on a daily basis. About four years ago there was a feeling of general annoyance at the burden on small business. I notice even now with some of the discussions, I think it was from the consultation that my colleague the Hon. Dan van Holst Pellekaan—who is not honourable yet, but I am sure he will be one day. He operates very honourably, but he is not.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He is the very hardworking member for Stuart and does a great job. I very much enjoy spending time with him in Stuart. There were some issues raised by some of the consultation, and second-hand dealers especially consistently raised concerns that the widespread use of the internet markets like Gumtree and eBay would provide an easy alternative for people wanting to sell prescribed second-hand goods but avoid the second-hand dealers, if the proposed bill becomes law. The police believe this is not an issue, because most of the information that they seek to obtain under this bill is made available to them and the public via these internet services already. I would certainly like the minister to give some clarification on exactly how the electronic trading systems that eBay and Gumtree use will be captured by the bill.

As I mentioned some four years ago, the devil is in the detail and prescribed goods were a concern and all the regulations would be a concern. I am advised that one of the most concerning aspects of the current bill is the uncertainty created by the fact that so many details, like definitions of prescribed second-hand goods, licensing and registrations, would be included in the regulations rather than the bill itself. We can still see, some four years on, that there are some general concerns.

I have been advised that the MTA has been given a commitment from the government that written confirmation of the fees to be included in the regulations will be given to them. The MTA has also been given a commitment that second-hand auto parts dealers—the wreckers—will only be required to keep their newly acquired stock for three days before being allowed to sell it.

It is interesting that there are still concerns about regulations. Pardon me for being a bit cynical; we have seen this as a hallmark of this government for more than a decade, that the devil is in the regulations and it is just easier to try to not put things in the legislation but put them in the regulations. I do hope that the commitments that have been made to the MTA are honoured, because I think the MTA was one of the big groups that was opposed to the bill last time.

I recall saying to the minister via his adviser that until the MTA was happy with the bill we would not be progressing it any further. We wanted to make sure that group of very important business people in our community was not going to be adversely affected by the legislation. It appears that the MTA is still concerned and is having to get commitments and commitments in writing from the government to allay some of their fears. I do hope that there is some goodwill with the government and that the regulations will not be a problem when they are gazetted.

I note that second-hand dealers generally support the measures that prevent the selling and buying of stolen goods because for them the purchase of stolen goods is a risk, as the police can confiscate them and that can result in direct loss to their business. However, I think it is important to note that second-hand dealers are very concerned about the licence and registration fees and the requirement to have approved persons, extra administrative obligations and the possibility that other less regulated markets will just pick up their business, and in some cases additional stockholding periods included in this bill. I think everybody who comes to the table regarding this particular piece of legislation supports the honourable intent of it, but it may well have some unintended consequences.

I have a range of questions that I will put on the record for the minister. If I ask them one after the other, it will be easier for the minister to pass on the information to the relevant officers to get the answers. There is a range of questions in two or three categories—one from compliance, one from the transaction management system and reporting, regulations, and also some revenue ones. If you will indulge me, Mr President, I will read these into the record. In relation to compliance:

1. How many second-hand dealers are currently being monitored for compliance with the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996?

2. How many charges have been laid under the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996 and how many have there been for each of the last 10 years?

3. How many convictions under the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996 have there been for each of the last 10 years?

4. Does SAPOL monitor markets, such as stallholders?

5. What current processes are in place for tracking the receipt, sale and disposal of second-hand goods:

(a) In markets?

(b) For retailers?

6. Is the government aware of there being an issue of compliance with the current act:

(a) By retailers?

(b) By others?

7. Are there currently retailers that may be of unsuitable character that police have not been able to prevent trading under existing laws?

(a) Are there specific instances that have led to the need for criminal intelligence provisions to be applied to second-hand goods retailers?

8. In practice, does the government anticipate that the commissioner would delegate their responsibilities under the act to an assistant commissioner or other officer?

9. What changes were made between the 2011 draft bill and the bill that was tabled in 2012?

10. How does the legislation compare with interstate and international provisions?

My further questions in relation to TMS and reporting are:

1. Is the transaction management system (TMS) already established and ready to commence?

(a) Is it already operating on an opt-in volunteer basis?

(b) Has SAPOL already received the $2.14 million committed by the government to establish the transaction management system?

2. What information will be expected to be provided via the TMS system? Will it be written descriptions, serial numbers and photos of the items?

3. What is SAPOL's estimated cost of implementing the new legislative requirements?

4. Has a similar scheme been trialled voluntarily with larger retailers such as Cash Converters?

(a) What current reporting processes are in place?

(b) Under the CLCA it is an offence to receive stolen property. Are retailers encouraged to purchase the property and to obtain details about the seller of the property to assist police identify the offender?

5. Has there been an audit of how many second-hand retailers currently have internet access at their trading premises?

My questions in relation to regulations are:

1. What does the government anticipate will be listed in the categories of class 1 and class 2 items?

2. So much of the legislation depends on what is prescribed in the regulations. Does the government have a draft version of the regulations and will it provide the draft to members so it can inform debate before expecting this place to continue debate?

As I mentioned earlier, a big issue when this bill was before the parliament some four years ago was, in fact, the regulations. My next question is:

3. Items that do not fall within class 1 or class 2 prescribed definitions would no longer be required to be kept for 10 days before sale, as is currently required by section 10 of the act. Does the government intend for these items to be excluded?

The last two questions are in relation to revenue:

1. How much revenue is expected to be received from the licence and application fees from retailers?

2. How much revenue is the government expecting to receive in fines from retailers?

I put those questions on the record. I hope that the minister is able to bring back an answer when she concludes the debate. I would like to have those answers before we progress the debate any further.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:44): I rise to make a few remarks, and they will be brief, particularly given that Liberal members the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. David Ridgway have made very learned contributions on this particular bill. The Hon. David Ridgway outlined some of the concerns that were raised a couple of years ago when the bill first surfaced. It came to my attention as well through my father-in-law, who is an active member of the Gawler swap meet. They were very concerned that they were going to be impacted on and have to go through unnecessary red tape when what they do is, really, a community activity and they should not be forced to go through all sorts of application processes and fill in ledgers and the like, often when they are raising money for charity and those sorts of things as well.

My questions on this particular bill are, firstly, in relation to volunteer organisations: whether Volunteering SA made any submissions and what the concerns raised were, and what other volunteer organisations may have made submissions and what their concerns were.

In relation to small business, I understand the bill was referred to the Small Business Commissioner, who raised concerns on behalf of small business about the impact of the bill and that these discussions were held in good faith. So, my questions on that point are: can the government advise whether these discussions are still ongoing and, if not, what the outcome was, and does the government think it would be prudent to delay consideration of the bill until any of those discussions have concluded?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:46): In summary, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I will recapitulate a little on the original intent and purpose of the bill. The purpose of the Second-hand Goods Bill 2012 is the reduction of property-related crime through improved regulation of the second-hand dealer and pawnbroker industry. This will be achieved by the establishment of a new regulatory regime, together with enhanced record keeping requirements and a requirement to electronically transfer transaction information to police. It is as simple as that.

Second-hand dealing and pawnbroking involves acquiring pre-owned goods for re-sale. Research through Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada, I am advised, has identified property criminals frequently exchanging stolen property for money using second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. Anecdotal evidence from police further supports the proposition that the second-hand industry often knowingly, or unknowingly, provides a convenient means for offenders to convert stolen assets into cash thereby facilitating the use of the industry as a conduit for stolen property. Interstate and overseas experience suggests licensing, together with electronic transmission of transaction information, reduces the opportunity and ability of property crime offenders to convert stolen property into cash, thereby reducing the number of theft-associated offences. They are the aims of this bill.

There have been a number of questions put on the record during this debate and I will now turn to answering some of those, if I may. The Hon. Ms Franks has asked why stakeholders representing the South Australian live music industry were not directly consulted during the drafting of the bill. Public consultation notice, I am advised, was published in The Advertiser newspaper on Saturday 30 April 2011. The notice called for submissions and directed interested parties to the SAPOL website where further information, including a copy of the draft Second-hand Goods Bill 2011, overview and frequently asked question documents could be read and downloaded. The notice also listed contact details for the police project team via email, surface mail or telephone. The closing date for submissions was listed as being Saturday 28 May 2011.

A letter written under the hand of the Commissioner of Police was also sent out, I am advised, to 1,572 affected companies and businesses currently registered with SAPOL under the existing Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act. The same letter was also sent to industry peak bodies, stakeholders and interested parties, including: the Law Society, the Motor Trade Association, the recyclers association of South Australia, offices of fair trading in New South Wales and Queensland, as well as Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland police services. Recipients were advised of the commencement of the consultation period and directed to the SAPOL website where further information and documents could be accessed and downloaded.

As a result of the consultation process, the project team, I am advised, was not contacted by any peak body or stakeholders representing the music industry or, indeed, individual retail stores or wholesalers. Further, the Hon. Ms Franks asked whether SAPOL contacted any specialist instrument stores during the consultation process and how many of those stores dealt in second-hand instruments. I am advised that during the consultation process specialist musical instrument stores did not self-identify as a result of the public notice or written advice. As a result, these stores were not formally consulted during the consultation process, although members of the SAPOL project team visited at least one musical instrument store, including the Silver Keys and Strings Music Centre.

Informal consultation with this music store revealed that these stores were occasionally offered second-hand musical instruments by former customers who in many instances had purchased these instruments for their children and were now wishing to sell their goods when their child decided not to continue with the instrument, which is quite a shame. Transactions of this nature where specialist retailers such as musical instrument stores exclusively purchase specific classes of goods, such as musical instruments, were deemed to be low risk. I always kept my musical instrument even though I gave up the practice of it.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: What did you play?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Bagpipes. As a consequence, these goods were considered to be class 2 prescribed goods. Placing musical instruments into class 2 prescribed goods enabled specialist dealers to purchase second-hand musical instruments without being captured by the full licensing regime, including full probity checking of directors and a requirement for an approved person or licensee to conduct or supervise transactions. However, these stores, I am advised, would still be required to obtain 100 points of identification, tag and retain the goods for 14 days and transfer the details of the transaction to police electronically, thereby enabling cross-matching against stolen property data.

I am further advised that, in the event of legislation passing, SAPOL intends to conduct further consultation with affected industries, including the musical instruments industry, regarding the list of prescribed goods and the classification of those goods into class 1 and class 2 goods.

The Hon. Ms Franks asked what rationale was used for including compact discs as class 1 prescribed goods given the minimal and declining value for these items. Although I am advised that DVDs continue to be commonly stolen and traded, SAPOL acknowledges that technological changes, including the introduction of iPods, MP3 players and computer downloading of music files—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Describe them. You've never seen one in your life.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I have, in fact. The Hon. Mr Wade passes terrible comment on my—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Tech savviness?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —understanding of technology. I am happy to say that I have never owned an iPod or an MP3 player but I have seen them from time to time.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You're a wireless man, aren't you?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am a wireless man. Indeed, I have a wireless connector thing on my computer—a modem. There you go.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I will resist advising the council of my technological prowess in these matters; I would not want to put it to shame. Computer downloading of music files has reduced the prevalence of CDs being stolen and traded by second-hand dealers. As a result, SAPOL intends to continue to consult with affected industries regarding the final list of prescribed goods and the classification of class 1 and 2 goods.

The Hon. Ms Franks further requested the number of musical instruments reported stolen in the last reporting period and what have been the most commonly stolen instruments. A response to this request cannot be provided at this stage. A request has been made to SAPOL's Planning and Reporting Section and I hope to have an answer for the Hon. Ms Franks at clause 1 when we come to the committee stage at a later time.

The Hon. Mr Darley stated in his second reading contribution, 'We do not know which items will be classed as class 1 or class 2 goods.' I am advised that the list of prescribed goods will be set by regulation to enable the list to be more easily refined over time in the event that goods are no longer at high risk of being stolen or traded. For example, microwave ovens are listed in the current legislation as a prescribed good, however, these are no longer commonly stolen and have been removed from the proposed list.

An indicative list of prescribed goods has been provided during the public consultation, I am advised, in the frequently asked questions document. It is envisaged, if the legislation is passed, that the list will be further refined through public and industry consultation. I am advised that this proposed list of prescribed goods is available to any member upon request.

The Hon. Mr Darley raised a concern that the bill does not apply to those who sell second-hand goods online or via garage sales. My advice is that the intended focus of the bill is on the time a business acquires prescribed second-hand goods for resale or enters into a contract of pawn. It is not proposed to regulate the subsequent resale of the acquired goods other than a period of retention prior to resale. As a consequence, businesses who purchase second-hand goods to sell online or via garage sales are captured. The intention of the bill is not to capture the average family or individual who has a lawful right to dispose of his or her property in this manner; notwithstanding that the bill can be applied to those persons who regularly conduct this type of sale and may be deemed to be carrying on the business of a second-hand dealer.

It is also acknowledged that both individuals and a second-hand business alike are increasingly using online auction sites such as Gumtree and eBay as a legitimate method of selling second-hand goods; notwithstanding, I am advised, research indicates property crime offenders are unlikely to resort to online auction sites to dispose of stolen property due to the high visibility of these sites, together with a significant delay in receipt of moneys due to the auction process.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire mentioned a series of concerns raised by a second-hand dealer who runs an antique market and represents 12 antique dealers. In response I say that all antique dealers who buy and sell second-hand goods are captured by the current legislation. Under the bill, only those dealers who acquire prescribed goods, such as antique jewellery, precious metals, gemstones and watches, will be captured.

It is not the intention of the legislation to capture antique dealers or vintage shops who may acquire certain class 1 prescribed second-hand goods such as record or cassette players, Polaroid cameras and Atari-type video games which, due to their age, have minimal value to property crime offenders and are not commonly stolen and traded.

Further, the 14-day retention period was mentioned. The current act requires second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers to retain prescribed goods in the form in which they were received for 10 business days. New South Wales and Western Australia have both enacted legislation requiring dealers to retain goods for a minimum of 14 days to enable the police sufficient time to identify and seize stolen goods. The legislation in both those states makes no provision to permit the sale of goods prior to the expiry of the 14-day period, is my advice.

Regarding public consultation, at the conclusion of the consultation period, 281 consultation letters were returned to the project team most commonly marked as 'unknown' or 'not at this address'. This was largely due, I am advised, to many second-hand businesses closing or failing to notify SAPOL of a change of address.

With regard to the 100-point identification, second-hand dealers, including antique dealers, are currently required to obtain seller's proof of identification. The proposed 100-point identity check will include documents which are commonly available and carried by members of the public. With regard to the licence fee, the proposed fees are to be set at a level to obtain partial cost recovery only. They are intended to cover the cost of implementing and administering the licensing scheme and not to generate any additional revenue.

The Hon. Mr Wade stated in his part 1 contribution of his second reading speech that the bill is by design a leviathan that covers everyone from Big Star Records to caravan stores to jewellers to sporting stores. My advice is that all second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers are currently required to be registered with SAPOL. This bill only requires those businesses that are dealing in high risk of theft goods, prescribed goods to be licensed or registered.

An estimated 240 second-hand dealers dealing in non-prescribed goods would not be impacted by the regulatory requirements of this proposal. These businesses instead would experience a net reduction in regulatory costs as they would no longer be required to register as a second-hand dealer under this legislation. The Hon. Mr Wade further stated that the bill would require even more market operators than under current legislation to report details of items that have been sold. I am advised that at present market operators are required to be registered with the Commissioner of Police and record sellers of prescribed goods.

Under the proposed legislation only market operators, where prescribed goods are offered for sale, will be required to be registered and transfer seller details electronically. The only additional requirement for these operators will be the requirement to electronically transfer these details. Under the proposed legislation there will not be a need for more market operators to be registered, is my advice.

A number of questions were posed by the Hon. Mr Ridgway and the Hon. Ms Lensink. It is my intention, should the bill pass the second reading stage, to come back to the chamber with responses at clause 1 to those questions. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.