HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SECOND-HAND GOODS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2012.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:16): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition and indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. Firstly, I would like to thank the minister and former police minister for the briefings and information that were provided by them, their staff and the police. I would also particularly like to mention Sergeant Jeff Hack and Acting Sergeant Rob Malone and their colleagues for the huge amount of work that they have put into this over many years—no doubt it is not just them, but they certainly led the discussions and briefings that I had, and it is a pleasure to have them here.

I know that Consumer and Business Services has also put a lot of work into this bill, so I thank everybody who has contributed to this work over quite a long time. I also thank the large number of second-hand goods dealers and other businesspeople who have provided feedback on this bill to the opposition and to the government. I also thank the commissioner and deputy commissioner for small business, and also the Motor Trade Association for their valuable feedback on behalf of the people they represent. The opposition has taken all of this information into very serious consideration.

This bill is about giving police the information they require to help them intervene in the pattern of home and business burglaries, which are done in an effort to steal small, portable, high-value and easy-to-sell items. These items are then sold or pawned for cash, which is very often used to buy drugs. I am sure the cash is also used for other purposes, but the clearly illegal steal-sell-spend pattern here is the key.

It is very important to point out that while this illegal activity does occur, it is certainly the vast minority of transactions that take place in the second-hand goods industry. The majority of businesses operating in this industry have nothing to do with it, and those that are usually do so unwittingly. In fact, dealers want to stamp out the flow of illegal goods because they are a risk to them; any one of them can have those goods confiscated after they have paid for them.

This is not so much an 'us and them' issue. The majority of dealers do operate properly, and the majority of dealers are very much in favour of trying to slow the flow of illegal goods coming to them because, if they buy them, they are at risk of having them confiscated and losing the money they spent on them. Having said that, I am not so naive as to think that there are no businesses which take risks in this way.

I fully support the police in their search for a way to reduce break-ins and thefts and also the spending on drugs and other often illegal goods or activities. The police have very clear objectives and I support them in their effort to achieve them. However, like all of us, when we pursue our goals, we must be mindful that we are part of a broader society and that our goals and actions have impacts on others, and one of the roles of this parliament is to try to find an appropriate balance on behalf of South Australians when making or changing laws.

This is the third time that a very similar bill has come to parliament, and the first two times it was unsuccessful. I acknowledge that further work has been put into it and improvements have been made, however it is the view of the opposition that the bill, in its current form, cannot be accepted because the negative impacts upon businesses trading legally in this area outweigh the public benefit that would be achieved.

The opposition does not support the bill as it has been proposed. I, as the shadow minister for police, and the opposition as a whole, am extremely supportive of the police and their efforts to reduce crimes of all types, and certainly including this area, but we cannot do so if it would place an unfair burden upon existing legal business operations.

So, in this light, rather than consign the bill to failure once again I will move later that the bill be referred to a select committee of this house for further consideration. That way the parliament will have the opportunity to fully consider and report on the impacts of the bill and recommend amendments to the bill so that it may pass. I believe that this is a constructive way forward that supports the police in their work to reduce crime and also supports the business community which trades legally in this space.

I will seek support from the government to establish this select committee and, if that support is not forthcoming, then I expect the bill will be lost again for the third time. So, I urge the minister and the government to support the bill by supporting the select committee.

I will now take some time to go through some of the concerns that the opposition, based on responsible submissions and our own research, has with the bill. Firstly, I refer to the cost of licensing and registration and of having an approved person. I will just go through some figures here, and I will have them for Hansard if I do not speak quite clearly enough.

For a body corporate there is a $495 application fee to become licensed and a $540 annual renewal fee—so an up-front cost of $1,035. For a sole trader to become licensed there is a $310 application fee and a $415 annual licence renewal fee—so a total of $725 upfront 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 upfront fee. For an approved person there is a $310 application fee, followed by a $150 annual renewal fee—so $460 up-front for a person to become approved.

The approved person may very well be the business operator themselves, and in some cases it might just be that person and nobody else who runs their own business. But in a larger concern, or somewhere where a business owner has a manager in place, it may be somebody else or it may be more than one person who needs to be approved to oversee the acquisition of second-hand goods for resale from that business.

When comparing those fees to a very similar model, like liquor licensing, they seem exceptionally high, and certainly the up-front cost to businesses in this area of the second-hand goods legislation for a body corporate is $1,035, compared to, in liquor licensing, $558.50. For a responsible person or an approved person under the second-hand goods legislation it would be a $460 upfront fee versus $122.90 for the responsible service of alcohol person. They are significant differences.

I would suggest that generally these second-hand goods dealers and pawnbrokers are smaller businesses than hotels and restaurants and yet they have to have a higher fee. I also note that when it comes to a liquor licensing approved person, there is no annual renewal fee and yet under the second-hand goods legislation proposed there is a $150 annual renewal fee. Certainly, the trading of second-hand goods is extremely serious and extremely important—there is no doubt about that—but I do not think that there is any justification for having those sorts of fees so high when compared with the liquor licensing.

I would suggest that being a responsible person when it comes to the service of alcohol is a more demanding, more challenging and more difficult job, with far more transactions every day, than being a person responsible for the acquisition of second-hand goods for retail in a business, keeping in mind that, with this approved person in the second-hand goods legislation, the key to that really is all about the purchase of the second-hand goods by the business so that they can be sold later; whereas in the liquor licensing world, it is about every single transaction—every single beer, every cocktail, every other drink that might be sold.

So, I think that, on a daily basis, for that approved person, whether it be the business owner or whether it be the manager or just another staff member, the responsible service of alcohol is a greater burden, and I think that it is inappropriate for the government to flag fees that are so much higher in this area.

I would also like to compare the South Australian fees with fees interstate for a very similar business, that is, second-hand goods. As I said, there is an up-front fee of $1,035 in South Australia compared with New South Wales, with a fee of $448, and Queensland, with a fee of $576.80. So, again, we are out of whack with other industries, and we are also out of whack with other states when it comes to the cost burden that would be placed on businesses that operate in this space if this bill were to get through.

I would also like to make a few comments on the government's broader cost recovery model. I accept that it is important that businesses pay their way, I accept that it is not the government's job to have to fund the operation of businesses. I have no problem there whatsoever, but I do have very serious concerns about the government's general shift towards a cost recovery model when they are trying to get businesses and the private sector to pay for things that historically the government has done and has done quite fairly.

I think there is a very important example here, totally separate from the debate as to whether or not the costs are too high, and certainly I think they are. But just putting that aside for one minute, the police, with existing legislation, already have the authority to check all the records, and there already is an expectation in the existing legislation that police would check the records of second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers operating in this business space.

The reality is, though, that that does not happen. The reality is that the feedback we have is that the police do not do it ever, or they do it very rarely, and that is a great shame. I also say that that is no reflection upon the police, because the police are not funded by the government to do this work. There is a legal expectation from the government that the police do this work, but the police do not have the funding and they do not have the resources to do this work. Given that the government does not give the resources to the police to do the job they are expected to do, the government would now like to charge the private industry so that it can do that work instead—the work that the government does not give the police the resources to be able to do.

This cost recovery model, as I said before, is certainly fair in that the government should not be expected to cover the cost of doing business, but when it does come to these sorts of regulatory sort of things, when it does come to situations where the legislation already has an expectation upon a government agency to do a certain job, to then tell the private sector, 'Well, now you're going to do the job, you're going to do the work, and we're going to charge you for the privilege,' is certainly not appropriate.

Another issue I would like to turn to is the fact that, under this legislation—and I am sure that members would be aware of this—dealers need to be licensed if they deal in any class 1 goods, they need to be registered if they deal in no class 1 goods at all. There is a very real issue for businesses which might deal occasionally in a very few class 1 goods. They would then have to be licensed, they would then have to have the higher cost burden and the higher operational regime placed upon them.

It has been brought to my attention that this can happen unwittingly, that dealers can actually buy class 1 goods as part of a lot. I am sure it is easy to say they should have considered this a little bit more carefully but, in the real world, they might buy a batch of goods all at once and they might find that there is a class 1 good in there that they were not aware of or were not expecting. Then, suddenly, they would be in breach of this legislation.

Should they then throw it off the bridge? Should they then go and give it to another colleague who is already licensed, perhaps for a bit of cash on the side? Should they then automatically go and get licensed just to cover themselves technically for that one item that they have acquired? No: I do not think they should be doing any of those things. That is certainly a problem with the bill as it is presented at the moment.

If dealers buy from and sell to each other, which is a very usual practice in this industry, then, although the good being bought or sold has already been entered into the Transaction Management System (TMS), has already been held for the required 14 days, the police have already had the opportunity to intervene if appropriate and it has been acquired from a licensed or registered dealer, the whole process must start all over again. So, if a licensed dealer buys a class 1 good from another licensed dealer, then the acquiring licensed dealer would have to hold it, technically, for another 14 days, as I understand it, under this legislation.

I think that is a silly impost. I think it is not something that the police would genuinely be looking for in their work. Although they have not said to this me, I am confident they would say, 'If we are happy with the system with the first 14 days, we would not expect the second dealer (the acquiring dealer) to hold onto the stuff for another 14 days. That just does not make sense.'

I would go so far as to say that, possibly, the need to hold goods for 14 days—the need to hold every single good acquired for 14 days—is actually unnecessary. After entry of a newly acquired second-hand good, the TMS should be able to detect a possible match with stolen goods within seconds. If the TMS is built and set up properly, it should be able to, within seconds of the information being entered into the TMS, do a match and then come back to the dealer and say, 'You have acquired this good some time today in the course of your business. We need to let you know that there is a potential match with one that has been reported stolen,' or even maybe quite a few descriptions of items reported to be stolen.

The TMS should then be able to, almost instantly, report back to the dealer and say, 'This one that you have acquired is potentially a problem.' There should not be the need for the dealer then to hold onto every other good that was acquired for which, at that point in time, there is no match with the list of stolen goods that the police has on their side of the TMS, and they should be able to sell those and maybe just hold onto them for two, three or four days instead of 14 days.

I raised this with the minister and he was good enough to look into it. The response I got back from his office was that we need the 14 days for all of the goods because there is often a lag in the reporting: there is often a lag in the time between when a good is stolen and it is reported missing to the police and the police can enter that into the TMS. I agree with that and that is true, but the problem is that sometimes the lag could be a month or six months or 12 months.

My house has been broken into and I suspect many other members of parliament have had their houses broken into, unfortunately, at some stage or another, and it is not at all unusual to realise that something was stolen that you did not know about until you went six months later to get it—whether it be a special keepsake or the pen you were given as a prize in high school, or something more important. That, certainly, does happen, but what that tells me is that the 14 days is actually relatively arbitrary, because I do not believe that the 14 days would coincide with all of the possible times in which people whose homes or businesses had been broken into would be reporting.

Certainly, the 14 days would cover the vast majority of them—I accept that entirely—but, again, I think it is an unfair imposition on businesses to have to hold it for that long. I know there is a holding period in place already. I would suggest that the existing holding period could be reduced as well and really give the legal dealers—the people who are doing their job properly, entering it properly, trading well and giving the police the information that they deserve to have in a responsible fashion. I think the 14 days is an unfair imposition on them. With minimal inconvenience to the police, the traders could benefit, if it was only the items that had a match within a few days that they had to hold on to. The only ones that would slip through the cracks would be the ones that were not reported stolen within a few days, and that could be six months, 12 months or even longer.

I certainly understand that charities and other community fundraising groups are excluded from the bill if goods are donated for resale, and that is sensible and I commend the government and the police for including that. That makes good sense. If goods are donated—so clearly they are not being acquired or purchased—there is no cash return to the person who puts them into the system, if you like.

I have been approached by people from the industry who say that there are occasions—it is the minority, but there are occasions—when a charity or community group (church, school, fetes, markets, op shops, whoever they are) will pay to acquire goods and sell them, and occasionally will have goods that they sell on consignment. It is all above board, charitable and not-for-profit stuff. They do it for all the right reasons that—and the minister I am sure would agree—they are excluded for donations.

However, if you acquire a good on consignment, even as a charitable organisation, then you are captured by this legislation and the fees, the holding period and the TMS. I think that would be a great shame for these charities that I am sure the minister would agree are doing the right thing and not trying to participate in any of this underhanded transfer of illegal second-hand goods. That is another issue that really needs more work in this legislation.

There is no provision for an approved person to transfer from one employer to another under this bill. As I said before, typically the approved person would even be the business owner or the operator, so it would not happen very often. Just like the responsible service of alcohol, people do have the right to change employers and they will often stay within the same industry. So, you might be an approved person under the Second-hand Goods Bill working for one second-hand goods dealer or pawnbroker and you might like to swap and start working for another one. You might manage one shop for somebody and you might like to go and manage another shop for somebody. There is nothing in this bill that says that they do not have to reapply. There is nothing in this bill that says that they do not have to pay another application fee.

I think it would be fair, just like with the responsible service of alcohol, that you can change employers. I stand to be corrected, but I think there is a $13 fee or something like that if a person who works in a hotel, a restaurant or an establishment with a liquor licence wants to change employers. I think that would be a very important thing to address here.

There is no provision for how to deal with existing stock in the system if this legislation comes into effect. All of the second-hand dealers, pawnbrokers and others will be captured by this if this bill were to pass. If the legislation were to come into effect and become law then there would be a lot of this stock out there already. There is nothing I am aware of that deals with exactly how that stock would be dealt with.

I certainly would not want to contribute to creating a bit of a loophole where you know it is about to come in on 1 July or 1 January, or whenever the date might happen to be, so all of a sudden there is a mad rush to flush all these things out of the system, or get them in so that they are previously acquired. It might be that all existing stock and everything in place would then have to be entered into the TMS. How long would businesses be given to do that sort of thing? That is another issue that needs to be dealt with here.

In dealing with markets and stalls, I have to say that this is a very difficult area; I accept that. In my briefings with the police and others, they agreed that it was a very difficult area to deal with, but I have to say that the bill really does not deal with this area properly. I am sure that is because it is a hard area to deal with. The reality is that, as the legislation is proposed, the operator of the market—the Pooraka market, the Brickworks Markets or the Coles' car park undercover trash and treasure market in Port Augusta that happens once a month, for example—if it is a for-profit organisation dealing in goods that were not donated to it (so I am not talking about the school fete or the church bazaar or that sort of thing), the operator of the market has to be captured under this legislation.

The operator of the market has to declare whether all of the stallholders are dealing in class 1 or class 2 goods, any prescribed goods whatsoever. If we all picture the Pooraka market, whether or not we have actually been there but I am sure we have all driven past it on a busy market day, I cannot see how that is going to effectively stem the flow of illegal second-hand goods if those goods are pushed there towards those markets because other avenues are clamped down on. I am all in favour of clamping down on other avenues but not at the expense of making things difficult in other ways. I think that is a real flaw in the information that we have.

There are issues with regard to garage sales. It has been put to me by second-hand goods dealers who probably know this industry as well as anybody that they scan the papers and look at garage sales because that is the place they often go to acquire stock that they can sell. They say that you will see very regularly the same addresses, the same phone numbers and the same places having garage sales. In the real world a garage sale is something that any of us might have at home once every few years at most.

You might do it when you move house, you might do it when the kids move out and you have things that you do not need anymore that they did not want to take with them or you might realise that you are over 40 and you probably will never surf again, or whatever the occasion might be, and you sell your surfboard. We all understand that, but it should not be happening regularly. In the regular world of homes in South Australia, it should not be happening regularly, but dealers tell me that it does. Second-hand goods dealers tell me that it does happen regularly. There is no provision in this bill to deal with that.

I will also touch very briefly on the issue of second-hand CDs and DVDs. I think it would be very sensible to exclude them from prescribed goods. Certainly, 10 to 20 years ago there were lots of people breaking into houses because they were high value, portable and resellable items but technology has moved on. They are not necessarily any cheaper or less valuable but technology has moved on towards iPads, iPhones, iPods and all that sort of thing. There are second-hand goods dealers out there who specialise in books, CDs, records, DVDs and all that sort of thing, so I think that would be a sensible thing to exclude.

I will also touch on what I refer to as antiques. By antiques I do not necessarily mean antique furniture that people would typically think of but specifically old items that would be captured by this legislation. So, as to small highly portable valuable things like rings and jewellery and that sort of stuff, no problem there whatsoever. But there are other things like cameras, for example. People are not breaking into houses these days to steal 10 year old Pentax zoom cameras, as far as I am aware. They are really after the iPhones, iPods and all of that sort of stuff. I think that instead of the indication that has been given by the government that 50 years would be an appropriate age to exclude items from prescribed goods, maybe it should be more like 10 or 15 years and that something like that would be far more appropriate.

There are other issues with the bill. I will not take more of the house's time in this part of my contribution dealing with these things because, as I have already said, I think it would be very appropriate for a select committee to look into this. I value the work that the police have already done. I value the work that Consumer and Business Services has already done. I value the work that lots of people have done, but there is still more work to do before this bill could actually be said both to help the police in their work to crack down on crime and also not be an unfair burden on the vast majority of dealers in this space who are doing the right thing and are operating legally and not acquiring illegal goods for resale.

So, again, I strongly support the police in their effort to intervene in the cycle of the theft of small, portable, high-value items and then the quick selling of them for cash, but the imposition of an unfair cost burden, an unfair administration burden and more red tape in general upon businesses and small traders, the vast majority of which are already doing the right thing by trading legally and are not part of the problem, is what would result from this bill as it has been presented to us by the government.

Therefore, I urge the government to agree to the establishment of a House of Assembly select committee so that a bipartisan group of MPs from this house can work on it together and improve it together to try to find a way for the police to have the information they need and deserve, without an unfair burden being placed on the businesses and small traders who operate responsibly and legally, and to help the business operators reduce the risk of unknowingly acquiring illegal second-hand goods, which they are also very keen to do.

I fear that if the government does not agree to the select committee, then this bill will be lost for the third time in a row and the government will have again lost the opportunity for this parliament to responsibly give the police the support they deserve.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:46): I rise to make a contribution toward the Second-hand Goods Bill and commend the member for Stuart for his presentation, which I did not time but presume went for 35 minutes or so. It certainly demonstrates the good knowledge he has with regard to this bill, which was emphasised to me in the Liberal Party room debates, which occurred earlier this week, within portfolio and joint party, where there was considerable discussion about the individual components of the bill. It is fair to say that there was a variety of opinions that existed, but the member for Stuart showed that he put the work into it. It is not just a matter of presenting four or five pages and think you know about it and a staff member doing it. The member for Stuart has actually demonstrated that he understands it.

As a contribution, though, I wish to raise some points that have been brought to my attention by an operator within my electorate who has contacted me on a very regular basis in the last three years or so about the various iterations of this bill, which as I understand it certainly goes back to 2009. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, as then minister for police, introduced a bill which was not debated because of the proroguing of parliament. From that time onwards, my constituent, who operates in the Copper Coast community, has taken the opportunity to ring me several times and indeed put quite a few letters through to me where he raises, I think, some quite informed concerns.

He is not ranting and raving; he is just putting his points in a very rational way and wanting to ensure that there is some level of recognition about it. So, when I received the letters, I immediately forwarded them on to the responsible ministers at the time, trying to get some responses because he wanted to be on top of the game. I know the member for Stuart in his contribution reflects upon the discussions that he has had with people involved in the industry too, to try to get a better handle on it. If I can take some time just to read some of the contributions, one was a letter that I got in July 2009:

I am writing to you in reference to our phone conversation about proposed second-hand goods legislation overview.

He confirms that he also rang the SAPOL project team in late June 2009. He continues:

I can only relate to my business and friends of mine who are dealers. We do not deal in stolen goods.

I sell some items which are currently 'prescribed goods' but I am very particular who I buy from, and take all personal details.

I strongly believe the proposed changes are targeting the wrong people and are going to enforce a large time consuming and financial burden on mostly law abiding people.

I do not offer a pawn broker service and never will. This to me is a real grey area and most of the time the customers apparently are in serious financial trouble. It appears that eBay is too hard to regulate. What does that show you?

Garage sales are becoming big business—according to friends in the city a lot of new items are being sold through them—does this not concern you?

Markets—I would suggest that this is another huge grey area which doesn't appear to have been seriously addressed.

I am only a small business operating part-time as I am a carer for my sick wife. I offer fairly priced goods to middle to low financial clientele who appear to appreciate my business. As the changes are proposed I'll be forced to close down my business.

I would predict a lot of small dealers will do the same and would suggest that garage sales will continue to grow.

I would understand and believe that SAPOL is—

I am not sure what that means—

struggling for members—therefore no doubt it will be hard for them to visit garage sales.

We have talked in the chamber about police numbers and efforts to control crime. He continues:

I also fail to believe that dishonest people would log on to your website and give you details of something stolen.

SAPOL suggested I could continue in business by not selling prescribed goods (which you are also looking at changing).

My concern about that is:

I get called on to buy deceased estates quite often.

I would have to refuse a whole list of common items because they may come under 'prescribed goods'. Therefore I would lose the sale.

I hope that the SAPOL second-hand project team are serious about listening to concerns, because I believe they are unfairly targeting the honest.

I note, indeed, the words of the member for Stuart, where he acknowledges the fine effort made by the South Australian police force on this to try to get in place some legislation. So, that was from my constituent. He has further written to me, probably about 18 months down the track, where he raises some real concerns, too, which again I would like to put on the record. He states:

With reference to the proposed changes to Second-Hand Dealers—Pawnbrokers Act.

I have spoken to SAPOL about this issue and I am all for trying to stop the sale of stolen goods.

I run a small second-hand business from home from which I help a lot of medium to low income people with furniture and whitegoods (mainly). I do buy some prescribed goods at times mainly from deceased estates—i.e. power tools, shed tools, microwaves etc.

I strongly believe I have never been confronted with stolen goods.

To have to link to a central computer system on a daily basis to report goods purchased will be a challenge.

He points out that he is not good with computers; he does not have a modern computer and he may not be able to afford (and this is in May of 2011) an undisclosed licence fee, and we now know what that is. He poses a question about garage sales, and website markets like eBay and Gumtree, etc. He then states:

To think that sitting at a computer screen thinking that most stolen goods are going to show up I think is wishful thinking.

How many victims have had to try to report what was stolen from their house, i.e. what brand was the TV, what model number, what was the serial number etc.

Therefore, if you can't give a full description to the police, how are they going to trace it on our computer when we lodge a full description i.e. colour—brand—model—serial number etc.

I have said for a long time if everyone had to give a full description of prescribed goods to their insurance company, there would then be a good record to give to police.

Only then would they have enough details to make a match.

E.g. imagine if someone reports a Sanyo TV stolen. No other details available.

If 50 Sanyo TVs show up over the next month throughout SA, what manpower will it take to go to 50 sites and do a check?

I strongly believe there are a lot of garage sales people who buy in goods and onsell them—don't pay tax, don't have a licence, don't have any public liability insurance.

It seems that people who do the right thing, have a licence etc., get hit with fees and charges and are burdened with other work to try and catch the dishonest.

If these changes are to be involved I think garage sales will become more common.

Again he poses the question:

What manpower will it take to control the number of garage sales held by a person or persons?

In his closing sentence, he is actually quite fearful that it will be necessary for him to close down.

I know in my community there are very few of these operators. They do provide an important service to the lower income people that live in this community. This chap is an honest man and, indeed, he has emphasised that and I have taken that up with him when we have had telephone conversations about it.

I respect the fact that the bill is being introduced to try to correct a system. Regrettably, it occurs within our communities because there are the unscrupulous people out there who will sell for profit after stealing and breaking into people's homes, but we have to try to find a balance.

The member for Stuart has indeed suggested a select committee. I think it is a very sound suggestion, so I am disappointed that the minister has indicated, at this stage, that he is probably not going to support that move. If we can talk about this in a bipartisan way and come up with an agreed position and then put a bill before both chambers that has a level of support, then there will be the opportunity for improvement within the system. It is obvious to me that nothing is perfect, but this chap—to whom I have spoken regularly—is greatly concerned about the impact it is going to have on him and about the fee structure that will be in place. Indeed, from the notes provided by the member for Stuart, I note that the approved person is only required to be in the premises at the time of purchase of goods—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: To oversee the purchase of a second-hand good, but there is still a licensing requirement for other people who work within that. There is a cost structure involved here that the member for Stuart has outlined in the questions he posed. It is important that we have a debate about this bill because there are some people in the chamber who will have a very strong philosophical point that it should not proceed at all, and there are some people who probably want to see some discussion take place; that is where the member for Stuart has tried to be very fair about this and allow that debate to occur through a select committee. I support the endorsements of the shadow minister and hope that there is a change of opinion and that a select committee can be established.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:55): I too rise to oppose this bill in its current state. It has been brought to my attention—obviously through constituents who have contacted me many times with their concerns—that this will add an extra burden to those trying to remain in business; however, it is also the unfair targeting, I guess, of particular businesses and not other businesses, particularly the online big end of town, whether you are talking about eBay or Gumtree. They are emerging markets for goods, whether they be legitimate goods for sale or whether they have some criminal background in terms of how they were obtained or why they are being sold.

To my mind, the bill will not address the whole issue and is unfairly targeting some of the small businesses. In particular, I think the member for Goyder has a constituent who has pursued him over a considerable amount of time with concerns about how it will impact on his business. I too was approached, as a candidate before coming to this place, and then regularly as the newly elected member for Chaffey. This local business is an auto wrecker, and he has said to me that the auto dismantling industry has been tainted by a few operators who have brought the industry into question. I know the small business—it is a small family business in the Riverland—and they oppose the bill in its current form.

As I have said, auto dismantlers are already very heavily legislated and controlled in South Australia while other areas, such as eBay and Gumtree, have no controls at all. Both sites are an emerging industry and becoming huge businesses where people can sell goods. They are targeting a massive potential buying base out there, whereas a small business has a limited buying base; they are businesses that are controlled by their own destiny. They have continual burdens put on them, they have the costs of running those businesses becoming higher and higher; it is almost about putting someone else in a role who will chase up the paper trail, the administration and monitoring of goods that come into the business and goods that leave the business as a sold item.

Again, the auto wrecking industry says—and I think, in some instances, quite rightly so—that they are legislated against harshly, and no-one actually polices the laws. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT