HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject 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 (resumed on motion).

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:40): In resuming my contribution to the Second-hand Goods Bill, I say that the burden that is put on small business in South Australia is great. Again, this cost recovery model, as I see it, will seriously affect those small businesses, particularly the small second-hand businesses that usually are marginal businesses. In today's world, they deal with an economic base that is not looking to be able to afford new parts or new items. They are looking to purchase second-hand because that is within their realm of affordability.

This bill, by my way of description, is half pregnant: it is dealing only with the businesses that are onselling second-hand goods. It is not dealing with the emerging businesses, such as online sales, or those huge businesses such as eBay, Gumtree and the like. Once upon a time, driving around the streets, you would see one or two garage sales, but nowadays they are a regular occurrence every day of the week. They are exempt, so why is it that this bill is addressing only half the issue? It is not dealing with the entire second-hand industry.

It is a burden on small business—it is a burden with cost, it is a burden with red tape—and it is really putting those small marginal businesses into a realm of whether they continue with the extra cost, the extra burden or regulation, and the extra burden of the paper trail that continues to rear its ugly head, particularly over the last 10 years with this later government. They continue to put pressure on free enterprise, and they continue to put regulations and it really does pose the question: will these small businesses continue? Will the bigger businesses continue here in South Australia? Will they move across the border to where we see less regulation and less red tape?

I have read into the record today the concerns of one of the small businesses here in the electorate of Chaffey. It is all about cost recovery, it is all about putting more burden on small business and, again, as everyone has heard in this place over and over again, small business is the backbone of South Australia's economy. It is not about putting more and more cost on those businesses. It is about supporting the police as well. It is about supporting the police to undertake their responsibility for law and order.

With what I am seeing with this bill, it is not about addressing the whole problem; it is about addressing half the problem and letting the big end of town, particularly the online sales, go on unencumbered. I would like to think that it is a step in the right direction but, as this bill sits, we as the Liberal Party oppose it.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (15:44): It is my pleasure to rise to make a few comments on this bill. As has been indicated, the Liberal Party is opposing the bill and I must say that that was my view when we discussed it in the joint party room. I do so recognising in full the legitimate desire of the police force to develop an appropriate method to enable them to better track or prevent the use of second-hand dealers to dispose of stolen goods in return for cash. The member for Chaffey just said that it is only addressing half the problem. I think in fact we would find that it is addressing an even smaller percentage as we move to a more and more internet-based society.

I have a feeling that we are actually in a situation where, to use the vernacular, we are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, because I do not think we have the evidence that the vast majority of second-hand dealers throughout this state—if you think of all the little towns around the state where you will find a second-hand dealer—have ever handled stolen goods in their lives.

They are merely providing a service to the community and making a very small profit for themselves by dealing in second-hand goods. As the member for Chaffey pointed out, that actually provides a valuable service for many people in the community who are simply never going to be in a position to go out and buy things new rather than second-hand, and it is a valuable service that I think we will put at risk if we proceed down the path of this particular piece of legislation.

I think there are a number of problems with the legislation and the first one is that I do not think there is evidence as to how many second-hand dealers currently operating in this state have ever been involved in this resale of second-hand goods that turn out to be stolen. Indeed, under the current law, I think that the provisions are probably adequate to address that, provided there are sufficient resources provided to our police to undertake the necessary measures to keep an eye on any of those organisations that are participating in that sort of activity.

Unfortunately, we have already heard from the police minister this week and indeed from the Premier that they are going to slash the police budget and at the same time they expect to increase police numbers. Methinks there is something of a dilemma there, given that the commissioner says that it cannot be done and that it will affect the number of police actually able to be employed, but I do not think there is evidence to show that our second-hand dealers are part of some great conglomerate of criminal activity; rather, these people are being imposed upon rather unnecessarily.

As was mentioned by various speakers before me including the member for Stuart in his comments, the internet actually is becoming more and more the place that people go, and I understand that the police already believe that they get sufficient information where sales take place over the internet to enable them to do the tracking that might be necessary. I just do not see that picking on the small second-hand dealers and making life even harder for them is going to actually do it. One of the other things that comes about, though, as was mentioned, is: what about the markets and the garage sales? In relation to markets in particular, as I understand the system that they are proposing, it will be not the individual stallholders in the markets but rather whoever is responsible for the market.

In my area of Stirling, for instance, my office is inaccessible to me one Sunday every month because the Stirling market occurs in Druid Avenue and there is a specific organisation which is set up to run the Stirling market. It is a not-for-profit incorporated association and it is there to run the Stirling market. To impose on that group of volunteers the obligation to be responsible for what is passing through all of the various stalls that may take place, and that vary from month to month, I think is an unreasonable imposition. It is a matter of great concern to me that this government seems intent upon making the lot of volunteers more difficult.

I have had concerns about this government's attitudes to volunteers in the whole time I have been in this parliament and, of course, the government has been the government except for the first 2½ hours of my stay in this parliament. They signed a pact with volunteers some years ago and I was concerned then because Janet Giles from Unions SA signed the pact. I thought, 'What on earth are the unions doing signing a pact?' but ultimately this government is very averse to the idea of volunteers and, like all good union people that they are, they actually want to get rid of volunteers and have a paid workforce instead. So their concern is scant for the impact that these things will have upon the community.

Volunteers are actually what make our communities tick, and as to imposing these sorts of obligations on the people who run markets such as the Stirling market, the Willunga market, or any other markets—I am sure that every member of this house has more than one market in their electorate on a regular basis—I would love to know what the people running those would like to say to them about this proposal to impose upon the organisers of such markets the obligations that are contemplated by this piece of legislation.

The biggest problem for me—in fact, there are two big problems, one is the registered charities. My notes tell me that they are exempt from fees but not from the actual obligation. So, if a registered charity is receiving goods on consignment, then they are to be exempt from the obligation. All registered charities, which are normally exempt from the act, if they are selling goods on consignment, they still have to obey the obligations of the act by they will not be charged the fees. That, to me, does not make any sense, because it still imposes an obligation.

The bigger problem about it is that most of the service organisations that are doing most of these second-hand trading things are not registered charities at all; they are service clubs and other such community organisations, but they are not registered charities. As a result, they can be caught by this legislation. I think that is a major, major impediment for this legislation going forward.

The other thing is simply the burden that this legislation places on small business. There are 142,000 small businesses in this state, and this government is doing everything it can to put them out of business. The Premier, in question time today, did not want to talk about how many manufacturing jobs have gone from this state since he came into office, but I believe it to be in the order of 12,000 manufacturing jobs.

Jobs are leaving this state at a rate of knots, not just because of the high taxes, of which we have the highest of any state in Australia, but because this government keeps imposing more and more burdens on businesses in this state. To impose this further burden on small businesses—there are a couple of exceptions, but second-hand goods dealers are inevitably small businesses for the most part, and what's more, they run on very small margins; they are already quite marginal, and what we are going to create is more empty shopping centres because people will simply not be able to continue to run their businesses because of the burden imposed by this.

I think the member for Stuart was actually very generous in his attitude to this bill; he was far less hardline than I am about it. Indeed, he was willing to say, 'Well, okay, we recognise that the police have a job to do and that they are in some ways constrained, and would like a better tool to do it; let's form a select committee, let's consider all of these problems, and let's see if we can come to a workable solution.'

My understanding is that this is the third time the government has attempted to get legislation through. This is the third time we have objected, so why not actually form a select committee to see if we can sort our way through the problems and come to some rational conclusions that allow the police these extra mechanical bits of help to do their job, but at the same time not crush the small businesses that are involved in second-hand goods that are already under a lot of pressure because of other things?

The government instead seems to be prepared to take the chance that they can force it through this house—and they certainly can, because they obviously have the numbers; that is why they are in government. But, it will go up to the Upper House, and unless they can persuade at least four of the seven minor parties and Independents up there, then the bill will again face loss.

It makes sense to me to at least seriously think about the proposal put by the member for Stuart that we actually form a select committee; it does not have to go for a long time, but it could hear from people such as those mentioned by the member for Chaffey and the member for Goyder, who have people in their electorate who have been contemplating these problems and writing to them about the problems they will create for their businesses. Let us see if we can work our way through it and come to some sensible decisions.

If the government is not prepared to do that, then obviously there is only one choice for the opposition, and that is to simply oppose the bill. That is the position at which we are at the moment, given the minister's indication that he is not prepared to accept the idea of having a select committee.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (15:55): I certainly support the intention of this bill, but I have major reservations about the consultation process that was gone through in formulating it. Within my own electorate, I wrote an article in the local paper explaining what this bill would do; I have since had second-hand dealers speak to me about it, and they have major concerns with the implications of the bill.

At this stage, we do not have enough information on what the resource implications will be not only for those who administer the bill but also for those business who are acting in a legitimate way. Unfortunately, it is still not going to cover the people who are doing the wrong thing, but it is going to put major costs on those who are doing the right thing. So, at this stage, I will be voting against the bill because I believe that it needs a lot more work done on it and that it needs a lot more consultation.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (15:56): I rise today to talk about the Second-hand Goods Bill 2012. This bill is set to replace the existing Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996. Many of us know what it is like to have our homes burgled, coming home to find a window smashed or doors forced open and having the reality hit that somebody has broken into your home and that precious, sentimental and often valuable items have been stolen.

It is shocking and downright distressing; it makes you feel violated, and it makes you angry. Often, it has been all too easy for thieves to sell the items they have callously stolen through second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. That is what this legislation is designed to tackle. Its aim is to make it more difficult for thieves to profit from their criminal activity, whether they have taken your grandmother's irreplaceable jewellery or your vehicle.

This is a further example of the state government's effort to reduce the incidence of crime. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their homes and in their communities. While there has been plenty of objection and obstruction by those opposite, the Labor government will continue to work hard towards that goal. We have more than doubled the South Australian police operating budget since coming to government and victim-reported crime has fallen by 39 per cent since 2002.

We have increased penalties by introducing tough new anti-bikie legislation. New laws mean courts can strip law-breakers of criminal profits and assets, and we are cracking down on serious firearms offences. We have also restored the right of householders to use a level of force they genuinely believe necessary against intruders and home invaders. We have increased the penalties for hoon driving and those who tarnish our neighbourhoods with graffiti, though it took almost a year to get those opposite to agree on that last measure.

This is an area in which the state Labor government has a proud record and the results are very clear. Premier Jay Weatherill recently announced that crime rates in South Australia had fallen for the fifth consecutive year, with 83,000 fewer victim-reported crimes being committed each year compared with a decade ago. The incidence of murders, attempted murders, serious assaults and robberies have all fallen, while serious criminal trespass and motor vehicle theft offence numbers have been halved. More police and tougher penalties lead to less crime. These results certainly speak for themselves. SAPOL's annual report 2011-12, which was tabled in parliament in October of last year, listed robbery, aggravated and non-aggravated, as being down by 11 per cent, but we still need to do more to reduce the heartbreak of burglaries and home invasions.

The Second-hand Goods Bill is designed to better meet the current challenges of fighting property-related crime via the regulation of the second-hand dealer and pawnbroker industry. The bill's aims include: making it more difficult for thieves to steal stolen goods, delivering greater protections for those who sell second-hand goods and the consumers who buy them, providing SAPOL with a more efficient means of locating stolen goods and identifying offenders, and not placing an unnecessary burden of red tape on businesses which legitimately trade in second-hand goods. Extensive consultation has taken place with affected industry bodies, as well as interstate and overseas law enforcement agencies.

This bill has been amended from one put forward on this subject in 2009, with submissions and comments regarding this earlier proposed legislation being taken into consideration. It will not affect householders who do a clear-out and hold an occasional garage sale, nor will it capture charity shops or school fetes which receive donated items for sale. If these groups' activities ever fall within the provisions of the legislation, it is proposed there will be an opportunity to apply for an exemption.

The bill does not seek to have every second-hand item on sale across the state registered, instead focusing on the types of items regularly stolen. These prescribed goods are separated into class 1 and class 2 items. Class 1 includes portable items commonly stolen in house break-ins and retail theft, such as jewellery, electronic goods, tool sets, CDs and DVDs. Class 2 items include those which are regularly stolen, but not in great numbers and are not as portable as class 1 items. Class 2 items cover such items as motor vehicles and componentry, caravans, trailers, watercraft, bicycles and musical instruments.

The legislation will require the licensing of all pawnbrokers and those second-hand dealers who deal in class 1 goods. Second-hand dealers who deal only in class 2 goods, and market operators where prescribed goods are offered for sale, will need to register under the regime as under the existing act and regulations there will be a requirement to: record the details of anyone from whom prescribed goods are purchased or received, along with all pawned goods; record an accurate description of the goods; retain the prescribed goods attained by a second-hand dealer for a minimum period; label the goods with a unique identifying code; advise police of any goods which the second-hand dealer or pawnbroker suspects are stolen; and not acquire goods from any person under the age of 16.

As under the current laws, police will be able to enter premises to inspect goods and examine records, as well as being able to place a hold on goods which are suspected of being stolen. As well as retaining the best of the existing framework, this bill ups the ante against property criminals.

New elements of the legislation before us today include that: sellers need to provide 100 points of identification to sell prescribed items; individuals and businesses trading in prescribed second-hand goods will need to electronically transfer the details of the seller and items to police; before sale, goods must be held by the licence holder for 14 days from the date details are sent to police—a rise of four days; businesses acquiring prescribed goods through trade-ins or ex-rentals will be excluded from the provisions of the act; and the Commissioner of Police will be able to apply to have repeat property crime offenders banned from selling to a second-hand dealer, offering second-hand goods for sale at an auction house or market or entering into a contract of a pawn. It is another outstanding example of Labor being tough on crime and makes the point to those involved with robbery and burglary that their crime will not pay. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (16:05): I rise today to support the Second-hand Goods Bill 2012. Building safer communities is one of the seven priorities of the South Australian government and this bill is an outstanding example of Labor being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. As the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, articulated, we are very proud that crime rates in South Australia have fallen for the fifth consecutive year and that South Australia leads the nation in the highest number of police per capita. Our record is solid on fighting crime and supporting law and order.

This bill is set to replace the existing Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act of 1996. The intention of the bill is to prevent and reduce the incidence of property crime. The proposed new regulatory regime, together with requirements of enhanced record keeping and electronic transfer of transaction information to police, will achieve this outcome.

The key driver of property crime is the ease of converting stolen goods into cash. This regime provides a dual enforcement model through Consumer and Business Services and South Australia Police and is supported by the introduction of a web-based electronic transaction management scheme. The scheme will enable South Australia Police to compare and match dealer and pawnbroker transacted property items with their database of stolen goods.

Interstate and overseas experience suggests licensing, together with electronic transmission of transaction information, reduces the opportunity and the ability of property crime offenders to convert stolen property into cash. This is a positive effect of legislation. Regulating and updating the second-hand goods and pawnbroking industry will make it more difficult for thieves to sell stolen goods. It will also give greater protections for those who sell second-hand goods and the consumer who buy them.

Key aspects outlined in the bill are the fact that licences will be issued by Consumer and Business Services, taking into account whether the applicant is a fit and proper person. Licensees will need to be present to supervise transactions. Sellers will need to provide 100 points of identification to sell prescribed items. Before sale, goods received must be held by the licence holder for a period of 14 days from the date of details transfer to police.

The police and authorised officers will have the power to inspect records, goods and business premises. The Commissioner of Police can prohibit the employment of a person in a licensed business if the person is found guilty of an offence prescribed by the regulations and is also able to apply to the Magistrates Court for a barring order for a person identified as a prolific property crime offender. To strengthen this regime, it is important to tighten the interactions and regulations. As we heard, a person must not buy second-hand goods or enter into a pawn agreement with a person under the age of 16 or an intoxicated person.

As with all new legislation, the government seeks to balance the needs of protecting South Australians without undue compliance and costs on industry, government and the community. This is a balance that this government has reached time and time again in order to protect South Australians, support business, provide regulation, but to protect consumers as well.

During the consultation process of this bill, the government has listened to the needs of the community and ensured that it does not prevent individuals from holding legitimate garage sales or selling their goods at second-hand markets, including school fetes and charity fares.

May I make a comment. We have actually seen quite a revival in the market industry around the place, although the Willunga market and the Farmers Market concentrate on food. Not far from my electorate, we obviously have the Gepps Cross market that is very popular on a Sunday, and I think the member for Morialta talked about the Moonlight Markets that happen in his electorate. So it is really important that we note that this government has listened during this consultation process to the needs of the community and amended its legislation.

This bill proposes a tiered approach towards a licensing and regulatory regime, and this is a change made through consultation with the industry. We have identified two tiers—class 1, portable items which are commonly stolen such as jewellery, electronic goods and tools; and class 2, goods regularly stolen but not at the high volume prescribed in class 1, such as vehicles, caravans and motor vehicle components. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:11): I rise to make a very brief contribution. Obviously, I support this bill. I think most of the technical aspects have been gone through by now and I am sure the minister will reiterate those. While I disagree with the conclusions he draws, I commend the shadow minister on his contribution: it was very thoughtful and thought-provoking. But I do disagree: I think this is a good set of proposals. I think, when all is said and done, anything that makes it more difficult for crooks to onsell their goods has to be a good thing, particularly for those of us who represent working class areas where, indeed, most of the victims of this sort of crime live.

Ask any copper and they will tell you that it is this sort of crime—often petty and often of minimal real value—that not only upsets people but feeds the impression that crime is out of control and we have a massive problem that we need to deal with. It leads to a general feeling of unease in our communities and, as I said, particularly in working class communities. Sometimes, frustrated residents in these communities take things out on the hardworking coppers and it feeds this impression that the coppers aren't doing enough. I think anything that reduces this sort of crime has to be a good thing and has to be weighed up against some of the negatives that have been pointed out.

As has been pointed out in various ways by members of the opposition, this bill does put more of an onus on traders to provide information to SAPOL rather than the other way around and SAPOL using their resources to seek information. I speak to police all the time and they tell me that they always want less paperwork and more time to be proactively investigating crime, and I think that is one of the intentions of this bill, and what the public wants, too. I urge people to support it.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (16:13): Before us, we have a bill that seeks to further erode criminal activity and, over the last 10 years (the period for which we have been in government), we have managed to bring about a nearly 40 per cent reduction in crime and that, by anybody's measure, is very significant. As the member for Little Para has just commented (and he is a former police officer) and other speakers on our side of the house, we have more to do, and that is the intent of this piece of legislation.

There is nothing more distressing than having your home broken into. I think most people who have had a housebreak and come home to see the house ransacked and, in many instances, vandalised, find it a highly unsettling experience. They feel they have been personally violated. As the member for Little Para indicated, it also tends to convey an impression within the broader community that we, the government of South Australia and SAPOL, do not quite have a firm grip on what is happening in our community.

Additionally, we know that this petty theft can be accompanied by severe violence if the housebreaker is confronted. Further, these housebreakers, by and large, are drug addicts. What this bill seeks to do is not only protect the average citizen and their homes and person but also close down the drug trade by preventing these petty criminals from taking possessions from other people's homes, having them fenced, gaining money and then going and purchasing drugs; that, in turn, feeds into organised crime. We know that by and large the drug trade is organised by bikie gangs and other organised crime syndicates.

What this legislation seeks to do is, firstly, afford a higher degree of protection to individuals in their own home, to protect the contents of the home and to protect the individuals if perchance they are confronted with a burglar. It intends to then clamp down on the trading of drugs and, finally, to deny organised crime the financial tool, if you like, to run their operation, which we also know is accompanied by the distribution of guns.

On the face of it, it is a bill that deals with second-hand goods and tries to put in place additional control over the activities surrounding the sale and the onselling of second-hand goods. Most importantly, however, if the legislation is ultimately enacted, it is our belief that it will be an invaluable tool in cracking down on the drug trade and organised crime. As I said, there has been a 38 per cent reduction over 10 years, and this is another tool in our armament to drive that 38 per cent even higher.

The obstacle, if you like, that has been proffered by numerous speakers on the opposition side is a number of objections from various individuals. The history of this legislation is that it was introduced in June 2007. In 2007, cabinet approved $2.148 million for the development of a second-hand dealer and pawnbroker transaction management system, so that was the starting point. In October 2008, the minister for police announced that we would review the existing second-hand dealer and pawnbroker legislation with the intent of introducing new laws.

In June 2009, the government introduced to parliament the Second-hand Goods Bill 2009, which was never debated and never voted upon. The parliament was prorogued. But, as part of the process, there was a six-week consultation period in which a large number of submissions were received, so this inaccuracy that this legislation has been presented to the house on three separate occasions and voted down is erroneous. It has never been voted upon, but it has on two occasions been put out there for public consultation.

The first period I have just referred to was the six-week period and, as a result of that, the legislation was significantly changed. The bill was then reintroduced in December 2009 and there was a second consultation period which, I believe, ran for four weeks. So, we have 10 weeks of consultation on this particular proposition. After the first six weeks, substantial changes were made and, after the second four-week period, even further changes were made—10 weeks and significant changes to the legislation, which was reworked on two separate occasions.

The opposition wants this legislation to now be referred to a select committee. I believe that is a stalling tactic. They are obviously playing to a very, very small subset of the industry. The industry as a whole is highly supportive. The Motor Trade Association, which early in the piece had a whole range of concerns, is now firmly behind the legislation and has written to me today confirming its support. All of its concerns have been addressed and, similarly, the concerns of major players.

Dealing fairly rapidly with the various objections that have been raised in the second reading debate, in terms of the cost of licensing registration approval, as a result of the submissions and feedback received in 2009, the decision was made to delineate the goods into class 1 and class 2. In doing so, it significantly removed the reporting onus on traders. Analyses of comparable licensing and approving regimes interstate and overseas indicate that what we are proposing, by way of licence business registration, approved person application and annual renewal fees, is commensurate with similar regulatory regimes nationally and internationally.

In terms of the proposition that police have existing powers to check the records of second-hand dealers, as I said, we put in place an electronic recording system, and that has been in operation since the mid-1990s. The problem is that this system (called the Gamble system) has only resulted in around 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the transactions that are occurring in the marketplace with respect to these high-value, low-volume (in terms of their physical dimensions) goods being reported; so, it is not working.

Despite existing regulation and efforts of police, anecdotal evidence and operational intelligence suggests a significant proportion of stolen goods are disposed of through the second-hand industry, which is the major problem; so the current system is not working. We have to move on and we have to employ all of the opportunities that technology provides us, and that is the intent of the legislation.

The requirement to retain goods for 14 days is excessive, and that has been put to me on several occasions. What we have done in settling on the 14 days is to align ourselves with New South Wales and Western Australia. I think the broad consensus is that 14 days is sufficient time in which to allow somebody who has experienced a house break-in—they may have been away for a weekend or are having difficulty obtaining details of stolen goods, serial numbers, and all the rest of that—to secure the information that is required to get across to SAPOL. We do not believe that the 14 days is in any way unreasonable.

In terms of eBay and Gumtree, the objection that has been raised by the opposition is that this is an increasingly popular way of people trading second-hand goods. The advice that has been tendered to me—and I think it is common-sense advice—is that a criminal who wants to basically be done with the goods as quickly as possible, so that they cannot be apprehended with the compromising stolen goods in their possession, and wants to realise the value of the goods to purchase drugs, is not going to be putting these on eBay.

They are not going to be photographing or offering a physical description of the goods and supplying contact details by way of bank accounts. It just does not make a great deal of sense. SAPOL regularly monitors these sites as part of their criminal intelligence activities. I think it would have to be a fairly stupid criminal—that is not to say that there are not stupid criminals out there in the community—and it would not be a preferred manner of disposing stolen goods.

With occasional sellers, the bill allows the minister to grant an extension, and the member for Stuart raised this in relation to charitable organisations. We think that we have that covered off. With clearance sales for deceased estates, we will, by way of regulation, deal with that particular issue as well and we are aware of it.

In relation to garage sales, they are recognised as a vast source of second-hand goods and it has been brought to my attention by the member for Stuart that some individuals have four, six, eight garage sales a year. SAPOL are actually aware of those sales and monitor them. If we ascertain that an individual is repeatedly using a garage for these sales, they will be picked up by the legislation and they will be compelled to comply with all of the stipulations of the legislation that apply to pawnbrokers and the like.

For market operators, currently under the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act, market operators are required to be registered and obtain details of persons who are selling prescribed goods. The continued requirement to record seller's details and the addition of electronically transferring these details to SAPOL will remain in place, and will assist in identifying unlicensed dealers and property offenders. Again, SAPOL visit these markets, keep an eye out for those individuals who are regularly selling—or selling even on one occasion—goods that are contained within the act and are of concern.

I see absolutely no reason whatsoever for referring this to a select committee. I believe that the member for Stuart would like that to be done. We have had 10 weeks of consultation. The legislation has been around for a number of years. Virtually everybody who has a concern has put that in front of the government and the SAPOL team, and I have provided a copy of the South Australian Police Consultation Report on the Second-hand Goods Bill 2011 to the member for Stuart. It goes into immense detail of the process that was undertaken, and the people who were spoken to, their concerns, and the way in which those concerns were dealt with.

I know it is the view of the South Australian government, and I believe it would be the view of the South Australian community, that we want to get this legislation implemented as rapidly as possible so that we can deal with the drug trade, and we can deal with the consequences of the drug trade which are breaking and entering, and we can start to financially starve organised crime and bikie gangs, because we will not have individuals breaking into the homes of our citizens and stealing items which, in many instances, have great emotional value so that they can fuel their drug habit.

It has been three years or thereabouts, 10 weeks of consultation, very thoroughly done, and I think we have to move on. As I said, there has been a 38 per cent reduction in crime over 10 years and I would like to see another considerable number of percentage points added to that; I think that the legislation will assist us in doing that.

Bill read a second time.

Standing Orders Suspension

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:30): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable me to move a motion without notice to refer the bill to a select committee.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells:

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (19)
Brock, G.G. Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F.
Gardner, J.A.W. Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P.
Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D.
Pederick, A.S. Pegler, D.W. Pengilly, M.
Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. (teller) Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J.
Williams, M.R.
NOES (25)
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Breuer, L.R. Close, S.E. Conlon, P.F.
Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D.
Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A.
O'Brien, M.F. (teller) Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R.
Sibbons, A.J. Snelling, J.J. Such, R.B.
Thompson, M.G. Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W.
Wright, M.J.
PAIRS (2)
Pisoni, D.G. Caica, P.

Majority of 6 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I will just take a minute or two at the beginning of this committee stage to make a few points briefly about the reason that I wanted to go into committee and the reason I thought that was a sensible suggestion. I was certainly not stalling, as the minister said—nothing to do with that whatsoever.

The minister said in his closing remarks that there is only a small subset of the industry that has concerns about this, and I have a very different view. I think it is interesting that the minister used as a very good example the fact that the MTA has given him some assurances that he supports the bill based on some agreements that they have made together. I respect those agreements and I respect the important of the MTA's opinion.

But I think if the roles were reversed, and I think if the opposition had said 'The MTA and we are in agreement so this is the way we are going,' the government would have very quickly accused us of just pandering to business interests and pandering to a major lobbying group. So, it is interesting that the government feels differently when the MTA agrees with them.

The last comments I would like to make on that topic are just to indicate, so that it is on the record, exactly what the terms of reference I would have provided for the select committee would have been. I would have asked that the select committee:

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

(b) consider and report on the costs to and other impacts upon existing businesses such as second-hand dealers and pawn-brokers;

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

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

(e) any other relevant matters.

So, there was nothing sneaky, nothing difficult, nothing below the belt there. I thought and still feel that that would have been a very responsible way to proceed, so thank you for letting me make those few comments.

I will get into my questions about the bill itself. With regard to clause 6, it says that the commissioner is responsible for the bill, and that is the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs. I am just seeking a bit of guidance or a bit of understanding, really, as to why this is a police bill put forward by the police minister essentially to support police activities. I understand that the business services area, if you like, is the one that is overseeing a lot of it, but why wasn't this put forward by the Minister for Consumer and Business Services rather than police if it is going to be that department that oversees the operation of the bill?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: This was basically a decision that was made in the context of administrative responsibility. The commissioner is responsible for the licensing of dealers and ultimately setting the fees and collecting the fees, and that is one of the major interfaces between dealers and government. The interface between SAPOL and the dealers is to a large extent just the relaying, in some instances on a daily basis, of electronic records, in other instances probably very infrequently these electronic records, but I suppose the significant administrative interface does not reside with SAPOL.

Clause passed.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: My question about clause 8 refers to subclause (2), that is, subclause (1) does not apply to a second-hand dealer where the goods are essentially received as a trade-in; I just want to delve into that for a minute. I think I understand the logic, but I want to know in a bit more detail the concept of a trade-in and exactly how that might work. I am imagining the obvious one, where somebody brings in a second-hand good that is clearly a second-hand good to a dealer who regularly deals in new goods, and it has really nothing to do with what anybody is trying to achieve here, and I accept that.

What about things that are perhaps not new from the showroom but are still in the box? We have all come across and heard of situations where things are being sold out of the back of a truck somewhere. It is not being sold by an authentic retailer, but for all intents and purposes the good is still brand-new. How is that dealt with in this clause?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Stuart, I think we have talked about red tape associated with the legislation and onus requirements; this was a very practical realisation. A lot of people, for argument's sake, are camera enthusiasts. They have a camera for 18 months, they may well be known to the camera store, and they want to do an upgrade. It is very low risk in that there is no receipt of cash.

We are actually trying to deal with people who are wanting cash to purchase drugs. It is very rare that somebody would break in and steal something and then want to trade it in on a better model. There may be exceptions, but by and large, the majority of people who trade in are low risk so they should not be picked up in the regulatory regime. That is the intention.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: What about the circumstance where somebody comes to trade in something that is actually still in the box, which does happen? It might be a class 1 good, in effect, but it is not technically second-hand because it is brand-new and in the box. It may have been acquired unlawfully. How can we stop that sort of thing under this bill?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: That would be treated as a second-hand good, even though it is still in the box and probably has never been used. The intent of the legislation is to treat that as a second-hand good that is being traded, if you like, after hopefully first purchase or theft.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In that context, how would officers overseeing compliance really tell the difference? If they walk into a shop, which can happen, there might be three kettles in boxes, three Matchbox racing cars in boxes and three Makita power drills in boxes. The dealer might say, 'Well, I bought those myself to put those ones in the shop, because in my business I have mixed trade. I am not only second-hand, I am actually entitled to acquire things and purchase brand new things retail myself and sell them again through the shop,' versus the ones that may well be dodgy goods that were stolen that the person acquired as well. How will this legislation help differentiate between the range of things that are on the shelf in a second-hand dealer's business?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think this will probably clarify it: the interpretation of second-hand goods in the bill:

second-hand goods means goods...that have come into a person's possession other than as a manufacturer, or wholesale seller, of the goods or a retailer who has purchased the goods by wholesale,

So, they have to have come into their possession through the normal distribution channels of a retailer taking it from a wholesaler, a wholesaler taking it from a manufacturer, or a manufacturer taking the item in a semiprocessed state and completing the manufacture of the item. Basically, it is a realisation, if you like, of the normal manner in which legitimate trade is conducted.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I agree with that and I accept that, but this bill is not here to impact the legitimate traders. If all of the second-hand dealers out there were legitimate we would not even be talking about this. You are quite right: I am sure that would cover the legitimate ones very well, but they are not really what we are talking about. This is about trying to clamp down on the illegitimate ones. So, how will this legislation clamp down on the illegitimate ones doing exactly as I described in the example that I just used, who of course will not comply in the way that you have just said?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The exemption only applies in the case of a trade-in. If somebody was to come in with a camera that had been boxed and it was obvious that the box had never been opened, they would have to comply. It is only when they bring the box in and say they want to trade it in and they proffer the probably legitimate argument that it was bought for them as a gift, it has been sitting around at home for a couple of months, it is not really what they wanted and they want to upgrade to a different kind of camera. However, if they want cash for it then they would be captured.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I understand, but how about the example of somebody who works in a hardware store and, unbeknown to their employer, or perhaps known to their employer but they did not catch them, they stole three kettles or three drills, or something like that, took it down to the second-hand dealer and said, 'I would like to trade this in on that television you have got,' or that iPad, or whatever it might happen to be. 'It was a gift. I was given it, so I would like to trade that in.' That would be technically outside this legislation, as I understand it. Given that we are all here to try to catch the dodgy dealers and the crooks and not impose any more than we need to on those who are doing things properly, how would this capture the people doing the wrong thing in that way?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The requirement would still apply. There would be no exemption. The second-hand dealer would be required to enter those particular details if it was a good that was in the particular category where notification was—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Even it if was a trade-in?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Except for a trade-in.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: That is what I am saying. Somebody pinches one from their employer, it is in the box, and they go to the second-hand dealer and say, 'I got it for Christmas but I'll never use the Makita hammer drill. It's just not my thing. It's really mine. I've had it for six months. I want to trade it in on something you have in your shop that I really do want.' I do not think that would be captured.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: A second-hand dealer would have to record the transaction. It may occur but it would be extremely rare for somebody to go to a second-hand dealer and trade in an item wanting an upgrade. It is only second-hand goods that are being dealt with. But the fact remains that if they are a second-hand dealer then they have to comply.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 9 is obviously pretty short and straightforward— requirement to be approved. Can I ask: is the approved person meant to be on site the whole time the business is operating, or coming and going, or on call? How does that actually work?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If class 1 goods are involved, then the licensed or approved individual has to be present to conduct the transaction or supervise it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: When you say 'the transaction', what is 'the transaction'? Does that mean the transaction where the second-hand good is acquired for resale or does it mean the subsequent sale of the second-hand good? Does the person have to be there all the time waiting for that or, if somebody wants to come in and sell a good and they are not there, does whoever else is working say, 'Sorry, the approved person is not here; you have to come back'? How does that work?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It occurs on the initial acquisition of the good—the purchase by the business—and the individual who is licensed has to be on the premises. They do not have to conduct the transaction, but they have to be in the vicinity to proffer a degree of supervision of the transaction.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, much in the same vein as somebody who is a licensed responsible person for a pokie outlet, they do not have to oversee the transaction, but they have to be there on site, essentially, or very close. Thank you, minister.

Mr GRIFFITHS: In the days of modern technology—and I am a bit of a dinosaur—and everyone being available on a mobile phone very quickly, I am trying to take into account small businesses that have one approved person only and there is a need sometimes to be away. I am fearful that the business might have to be closed or will not be able to conduct a transaction if that approved person cannot be available. Is it good enough for a call to be made to the approved person to explain the potential of the transaction, what the details of the goods are and to see if you can get over the phone an authorisation to conduct it?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Fair point. Having been a small business operator myself in retail, and knowing that it is well-nigh impossible to be there through the full trading period over the course of the year, it is something that we will consider and deal with by way of regulation. I think it is a fair point and something that ought to be considered.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, I have a few other questions on this too but, just on that, are you saying that you would consider it acceptable for an approved person, who is off site and not physically able to get to the site, to relay their advice and information over the phone or via emails or Skype or from the cruise ship on the other side of the world? You must have some guidelines in mind as to how far you might allow this to stretch.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think it is only an issue for the smaller operator. The larger ones would want to have the backup. That would be at a cost of $400, so they would have at least one other individual, probably an assistant manager, with the requisite authorisation under the act. As for the very small operator, I think we are going to have to deal with that, and it is going to have to be fairly rigorous.

It could well be that the suggestion of using Skype or a mobile phone to take a photograph of the item and emailing it to the owner may be one way of dealing with it. People do go on holidays. If you are a small business operator operating out of a country town and you want to get away for three or four weeks, I do not think it would be practicable, and I think it would be unfair for that business not to deal in that band of goods.

So, we will deal with it and we will deal with it sensibly. Having said that, I would say it is highly unlikely that on Yorke Peninsula, for argument's sake, an individual is going to be put under that kind of stress, but we will deal with it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Just for clarification then, you are saying that your intention—and you have declared that you need to work through this—in coming to a resolution here is that the approved person could be away from the site for up to two or three weeks, and maybe more, and that would still qualify them to be the acceptable approved person for that business.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: We will have to work through that but, yes, that is the intention. People do go on holidays. People go away for a couple of weeks at a time, and businesses have to operate. Businesses operate generally because somebody is born in or works in a company that has the requisite level of experience and self-confidence to run the business.

I would be of the view that if you are giving over the running of your business to a subordinate, an employee, to do the banking and everything else that is associated with running a business on a day-to-day basis, I do not think it would be a stretch to allow that individual to contact the owner with the details of the transaction, to have approval for the transaction to occur, and then to ensure that those details are relayed to SAPOL.

I think the act of gaining that formal approval—and we would have to work that through—would probably garner the relevant details that are required by SAPOL. I think the process of acquiring the authority with a photograph or a physical description of the goods, any serial numbers, and the identity of the person selling the goods, would be the information that SAPOL would ultimately be provided with, so I would see it as the beginning of that process.

I think the only time where we would have to draw the line is where the owner is uncontactable. If they were going on an around-the-world cruise and they were on a vessel that did not have satellite linkage, then you would have to say no. I think that would have to be the assurance, but we will work that through and I will come back to you when we work out the regulations.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I am sure it would be a very successful second-hand business if the owners were off on too many around the world cruises. Good luck to them!

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Yes, exactly right. Following on from that, would it be possible for one business operator, whether it is a proprietary limited company, a sole trader, or whatever, to have different business establishments in different locations and one approved person who would oversee all of them? Given that they can be away from their business to be on holidays, surely they would be allowed to be away from their business to be working in another similar business.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I think we would have to draw the line there, but this would be the commencement of the slippery slope. The same regime that would apply to the licensee of a hotel would apply to this arrangement. If you own three or four hotels, the licensee has to basically devote all their time to the running of that particular hotel, so you would have to have a number of individuals. It is a similar principle. I would like to get as much flexibility in there to address the issues that you have identified and, as a small business operator, I am fully cognisant of those pressures, but I think once you get to the stage of having a chain of stores you have the financial wherewithal to ensure that you have an individual at each of the stores who can do the work.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I guess that clarifies that it is actually very different from responsible service of alcohol and overseeing a gambling operation in a pub, where you actually have to be on site. You are allowed to be in your flat at the back of the pub, or you are allowed to be out the front having a cigarette or something—you do not have to be technically in the licensed area—but you have to be very close to within earshot. So this is clearly different and I appreciate that flexibility.

Given that sort of flexibility, would it be possible for an approved person to work for more than one business? You have said that it will not be possible for one person with several businesses to run all of them simultaneously in different locations without having approved people there. They can be on the other side of the world on holidays so long as they can be contacted, but they cannot be in another suburb in a different shop. I have to say that I find that incongruous but I accept your comments and intentions there. Would it be possible for one approved person to work for more than one business?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: An approved person is not linked to any particular licensee or premises, and an approved person may work for any licensee or stall with no additional application or fee required, so they can move around.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, somebody could make themselves quite a valuable employee in that sense to a few different businesses, and they could work simultaneously for different places and do quite well for themselves, and that then, presumably, would mean that they would only be linked technically to one licensed premises or one registered premises? How would it be clear as to where they actually worked?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: There is no linkage, so, as you say, I suppose if you were fairly entrepreneurial, you could make sure that you are the right individual and then let it be known to a couple of pawnbrokers in a particular area that your services are available. And, if they like, they could say, for argument's sake, that they are only going to deal with transactions relating to jewellery between the hours of nine and 10 on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays—that is not to say that they would operate in that way—and the individual could then service a number of businesses. There is nothing to preclude them from doing that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It sounds a bit like WorkCover patients doctor shopping: you can hunt around until you find the person who will do the business the way you want it to be done. So, I think there is room for concern in that regard given that we are only trying to capture the dodgy businesses. Unfortunately, we are imposing on the good businesses but that is not actually the impact of this. What training requirement is there for a person to become an approved person?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: There is no training but there is a character check done to determine whether they have a criminal record, whether they associate with members of known criminal gangs—bikie gangs, if you like—and generally whether they are individuals of good repute, and that, I believe, will be done fairly methodically. So, that is the basis.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Again, just harking back to the example of service of alcohol and the requirement there, there are expectations with regard to training. I accept that it is the other end of the spectrum. With the situation of second-hand goods, you would try to have an approved person who can vouch for and oversee the acquisition of the good whereas in the hospitality industry you are actually dealing with the serving of the good and not serving to intoxicated people, not serving to minors and those sorts of things.

However, it does seem to me that it must require some skill and it must require some ability over and above just good character to try to assess an item, a prescribed good, and to try to assess potentially the character of the person who is trying to sell it to you to get some cash so they can get out of there as quickly as they possibly can to do whatever they want to do with the cash.

I am certainly not trying to impose extra costs or extra obligations or extra red tape, or even extra training, on these small businesses because as you know from my previous comments I think we are too far down that path anyway, but it seems to me quite out of whack that a person only requires good character which is essentially no criminal record or anything like that and all of a sudden they are allowed to make assessments about whether this is potentially an illegally-gained second-hand good that is trying to be sold into this business.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Stuart, there is an educational component but it is not training per se. They will get run through what is required of them in terms of basically logging in a description of the goods and the like and transmitting that information to SAPOL. They will not be left to their own devices with absolutely no points of reference, so that will be addressed.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, if I understand you correctly, what that means is that, while this business operator or an employee of the business does not need to be approved to do the banking—the example you used—does not need to be approved to turn the security on and off, does not need to be approved to go through the myriad of important skills required in retail business, does not need to be approved for any of these other things, they do need to be approved to essentially type the information into the computer system. Is that really what it comes down to? And they have to pay a fee for that privilege.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Member for Stuart, I suppose the way I could describe this is that they will receive training in terms of screening the individual trying to sell the good. They will receive training in terms of how they log that information in and transmit it to SAPOL. They will be given training in respect of their obligations under the act, but it is not going to be training that is in any way equivalent to obtaining a cert. II or III. It is training, but we would prefer to describe it as education, because today, I think, if you say somebody is undertaking a training course, it really is in the context of a cert. I, cert. II or cert. III within the training framework as such, and that is not what we will be doing.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Who will provide this training/education?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: CBS will provide that education.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Can you tell the committee what additional resources have been given to CBS so that they can get around to these 1,500-odd businesses throughout the state to provide this training?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: There will be one FTE, and $84,000 has been allocated in the first year to develop what we are describing as the communication strategy and the education campaign. Then, to maintain the production of education material, there is around $7,000 and then $8,000 per year thereafter.

So, there is one individual, a considerable amount of money to work up the education package, and then $8,000 ongoing to ensure that the material is updated and that individuals, as they enter the industry, are informed of their responsibility under the act and the other duties I outlined in a previous response.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: If it were to take that person approximately an hour to train each approved person, and if each business just had one approved person—so, 40 were trained per week, if I have my maths right—and if there were absolutely no travel time between any of these businesses and they trained one for an hour, another for an hour and another for an hour, and they trained them non-stop, with 40 of these businesses under this new regime, every week, how long do you think it would take for the entire state to be trained?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: The intention is either to mail out or dispatch electronically the education package. Large pawnbrokers that would like to avail themselves of a one-on-one opportunity, I think they would come in as a group. So, it would be receiving the education package either in the mail or electronically by way of an email attachment, and it might even be that we have a dedicated website (in fact, that is probably highly likely).

For some organisations' employees—the individuals who are selected from the organisation to do this work—it may well be that there will be an opportunity for face-to-face. As for each and every individual in South Australia having to spend an hour with this one FTE, I think that is highly unlikely and unnecessary.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Essentially, they will get a pack mailed out to them and, if the business operator chooses, they can pursue more support (which I am sure would be very good support). But, basically, they will just get some stuff sent in the mail, which to me means that they are just going to do whatever their employer wants them to do because it will either be the employer, business operator or business owner, doing whatever they choose to do, or it will be an employee and they will be told, 'Look, here's the pack; have a quick look, but basically this is what I want you to do when you work in your business.'

That may or may not be a good thing—it depends on the employer, and it depends on the instructions that they get—but I am struggling to see the value of the approval, since this person is allowed to do absolutely everything else in the business but they are not allowed to buy these goods on behalf of the business without this training, which I think really is just without this approval, which I think really is just without this cost.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If I could rely on my own experience running a particular business. We had a number of bakeries and it was determined that we wanted to use a program. The name temporarily escapes me, but it had been developed by NASA. It was designed to ensure that people going up in a space shuttle did not all come down with diarrhoea, which would be a terrible outcome, particularly in a weightless environment.

I thought, 'Well, this is probably a bit of overkill.' People generally going into a bakery are not going to hop in a space shuttle in the next few hours, but it was very rigorous. It had a whole range of hygiene steps, if you like, in the production of a loaf of bread: measuring temperature and recording it, filling out forms to indicate that benches had been cleaned down on at least three or four occasions during the course of the evening—these guys started at 12 or one o'clock in the morning and they were working through the morning—and the number of times they cleaned the floor.

It was a very rigorous set of obligations that they had to comply with to give surety that the food product met the highest possible hygiene standards. We did not run them through a detailed training course. This was done in-house by the bakery manager, and it was done on the basis of material wall charts that were supplied. It was a more rigorous regime than what we are talking about. I do not think it is required that people have to spend a morning in a classroom with this particular proposition. I think it is a lot more straightforward than that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Certainly, minister, and I am not suggesting they do, by the way. I am just trying to figure out exactly what these businesses are going to get. There is a requirement they have an approved person, there is a requirement they pay for that approval, and I would like to know what they are going to get for it. I suspect there are small businesses all around the state that will look at this Hansard and consider very seriously your example of waste matter splattering everywhere when they look at what is going on here, because there really are people who are very uncomfortable with what is here.

I am trying to figure out what value is in it for them. I accept and understand and have experienced myself in my own businesses the sorts of operational policies that you are talking about putting into place. I will leave it here, Chair. I do not see that there is really a great deal of value. If all they are going to get is an operational manual that tells them, 'This is how you go about acquiring goods and this is how you go about entering the details into the computer system,' except that gathering the details is vitally important, I am not really sure what the business is paying for.

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If I could briefly deal with that, I think we are unduly focusing on whether the fee structure reflects the inherent value of the training course. Well, no, it does not. I was trying to make reference to the fact that there seemed to be some assertion that this was not sufficiently rigorous, or it ought to be more rigorous, that people ought to be spending a morning or a day or several days with this one FTE being trained.

The fees attached to this particular exercise cover the probity checks and they go some way to also funding, if you like, the cost of reconciling the reports that SAPOL receive in terms of breaking and entering and the goods stolen with what comes through by the electronic lodgement. So to get bogged down in terms of, 'Well, they are spending X hundred dollars and all they are doing is having a pack sent out to them,' I think misses the point, and you made the reference to people reading Hansard and my references to the rigorous application of hygiene standards and the fact that this was done, not through people having to go and spend a week being run through this, that it was sufficiently self-evident on reading for them to get to grips with it. That was just an example.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I accept that, minister, in a world of user-pays, where we are transitioning from the police already having the existing responsibility to go and check records. If this legislation is successful we will move to a world of user-pays, and I think interrogation of what the user gets for what they pay is very fair.

Clause passed.

Clauses 10 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 13—Entitlement to be licensed or approved, and I am just looking at (b) here, 'a natural person is entitled to be licensed or approved if the person—has not been convicted of an offence of a class prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.' Now, as you know, one of the difficulties for us in opposition is we have not seen the regulations. Can you give some insight please into what those offences might be?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: We are currently looking at theft indictable only; robbery, receiving; fraud; and possession or producing a controlled drug for sale. The parameter is that only convictions within the five years preceding the application, so convictions within the five years preceding the application—theft (indictable only); robbery; receiving; fraud; and possession or producing a controlled drug for sale.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, what if the person had been in prison for five years for one of those offences and came straight out, would they then fit the bill?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: In addition, there is the overall probity check which would take into consideration whether they had served a prison sentence.

Clause passed.

Clauses 14 to 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Clause 17—Power of commissioner to require photograph and information. Just checking here, I think I know what the answer will be, but I would just like to have it on the record. 'The commissioner may, by notice in writing, require a licensee or an approved person' etc. Is that really a 'may'? Is that really an option or is that in the real world practice, a 'will'?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: There is an expectation that people would have a photograph captured at a Service SA centre, but, if they are in a remote location, that they would supply the photograph; that is the intention. But a photograph must be supplied by every applicant.

Clause passed.

Clause 18.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: My question about clause 18 also has links to other clauses. I am sorry that I cannot tell you all of them, but when I ask the question it will make sense and I do not want to waste all our time doing it over and over again. I am thinking particularly of the penalties (the $1,250 and the $160), and there are quite a few clauses that have different dollar amounts for penalties. In this situation and others similar—and I have noticed plenty of examples where it is really clear that it is the business—who would get this fine, the business or the approved person?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It would be the individual licensee or the approved person, but I assume that the company in certain instances would pay on their behalf.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: This is obviously important because it is important to know who is guilty, who is responsible and who should pay the fine. It is also important because it might sometimes be hard to tell the difference and because there are other clauses in the bill where, if a person is in contravention, then it flows on to other penalties over and above just the fine. How will you go about determining all of that?

You can imagine where the licensee and the approved person are not the same person and they are both saying, 'Well, it wasn't me, it was the other one,' or a situation where the licensee and the approved person are the same person and the licensee may well be in a strong position to make a case and say, 'No, it was not me as a licensee who made this breach: it was me as an approved person, so I will keep my business, I will keep my licence and I will just get another approved person.' How would the legislation deal with that sort of situation?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It has been explained to me that you would not have that situation, that you would not have a licensee and an approved person in conflict as the same person.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I think it would be good if that was not the case. I am not trying to create problems, but I can imagine situations where they could be in conflict. Any time that there is a contravention of the legislation that an approved person (if they were two different people) could make, then if they were the same person the licensee could say, 'It wasn't me as the licensee: it was me as the approved person.' If it is possible for two different people to do it, then it is possible for the one person to do it. What I am thinking about here is trying to help get the dodgy dealer and not have a loophole whereby the dodgy dealer can say, 'Yes, you're right. You got me. I just won't be the approved person now. I'll call in another one.'

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: A licensee can perform the functions of an approved person but they cannot be both, so we are not going to have this conflict where the licensee is the approved person because the licensee can perform those particular functions. The bill says in relation to class 1 and 2 transactions, 'supervised by a natural person, being a licensee or an approved person', not and/or.

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In relation to annual fee and return, will Consumer and Business Services send out reminders, renewals or invoices, or will it be the responsibility of the business or the approved person, licensee or registrant?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: CBS will send out the renewals, and the renewal can be done online.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: So, there is no chance, like vehicle registrations, that it will transfer to a system whereby it is the licensee's or approved person's responsibility to keep in mind when their 12-month anniversary comes up? There is a guarantee that the reminders will be sent to the businesses?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is something that can be considered, because we are actually doing that. In relation to reminders for motor vehicle registration, we announced, I think, two weeks ago, you have the option of having an SMS reminder, which can go to two mobile phones, and you can have up to three reminders on both phones, and also two email addresses, in addition to receiving the reminder by post. We believe that will cover individuals who are reasonably mobile and change address.

It could well be that a business relocates and fails to notify CBS of their change and it could well be that we will actually look at an email address so that we can do a double-up. We do the mail but we also send out a reminder saying, 'Have you received your renewal notice in the mail? If not, contact us.'

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: In the instance where the licensee and the approved person are different people, will the approved person's reminder go to the business or to the approved person, or to whoever the approved person nominates? How does that work?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Whoever the approved person nominates.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Given that we are talking about annual renewals, would it be possible for a business—and now I am thinking of larger ones—to have a common expiry for their approved people, again, a bit like motor vehicles, just to make it easy for the business to comply? I understand it is the approved person's actual responsibility but, in the real world, businesses try to streamline things and try to help and you may well find that the renewal fee is paid by the business. You might have a very generous business operator who just makes that decision. Would common expiry be an option?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It is something that is offered for other licence types; it can be offered for this. I am advised that the take-up rate has been quite low, but it will be a service that is provided in relation to this as well as for other licences, so it is a fair point.

Clause passed.

Clauses 21 to 25 passed.

Clause 26.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Minister, again, we have obviously not seen the regulations, and I did not pick it up in the bill, so forgive me if it is there, but how long after a second-hand good is acquired for resale must the information be entered into the TMS?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: After consultation, we came to the conclusion that it was unreasonable to expect the transmission of this information on the close of business. We have generally fallen into line with other jurisdictions that give three days' latitude and I think that is becoming the national norm.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Does the same three days apply to the police entering the details of stolen goods? Do they do it immediately or do they have a week? Obviously, this timing is a really critical part of the whole thing for it to work. For the system to work, you want it in as quickly as possible because it is not until both sides of the ledger are entered that the TMS can do its work. There is a maximum of three days after the good is acquired for the dealer, pawnbroker or whoever to enter it. What are the guidelines and operational policies for the police to enter the details of the stolen good after a police report is made?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: It has to be entered by the close of business on the day on which the report is received.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you, that is terrific. What is the situation when robberies, or thefts, are not reported immediately, as we all understand does happen? It takes a while to get the details, it takes a while to even notice that something is missing and, as you mentioned, a person might even be away for a weekend or a week. What is the situation when the 14 days runs out, really, through no-one's fault? The dealer may have unknowingly acquired an item that was stolen and put it in within the three days, then, two weeks later, the police get the information and put it in on the same day. Let us say it happens on the 13th day. How does that all work to make the system robust and give the ability to actually identify it quickly?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If on day 13 they are notified by SAPOL that there is a match, then they are required to hold the goods. If they do not receive a notification but a match occurs after 14 days they are free to basically sell the good.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: And if the match occurs after the 14 days and it is clear that it was stolen, and through no fault of the dealer, it just happened, it has been sold on—what happens then?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: If the match occurs after 14 days and the good has been sold, I think that is the end of the issue. The business is not required to record the name of the purchaser; so if somebody walks in off the street and purchases a piece of jewellery, that is the end of the story. It is just unfortunate that the matching did not occur within the requisite 14 days.

Mr PEGLER: While we are on this, can I give an example: somebody has gone and bought from a shop, say, three items at $100 each, or whatever, and has paid for them with a cheque. The shop has then, a few days later, gone to bank the cheque. In the meantime, the person has taken that gear around to three different second-hand dealers, and he has shown the receipts that he has received, and then the cheque bounces—this has actually happened. How is the system going to work and how quickly is it going to be picked up? If the second-hand dealer still has those things in his possession do they then go back to the original person who accepted the dodgy cheque, or—where are we? Do you understand what I am saying?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: Not really, member for Mount Gambier. If you could just give me another explanation. I am not really sure. Who proffered the bad cheque? Who was responsible for the issuing of the bad cheque? Was it the store owner?

Mr PEGLER: Joe Bloggs has gone to the store, bought the three items, paid for them with a cheque. The store owner has given him receipts, the cheque bounces a few days later. In the meantime, that person has made an excuse that his wife has run off and left him and taken all the money. He has no money, so he has brought in these brand-new goods, which he has not even taken out of the box, to resell so that he has got some money. There are two possibilities: the second-hand dealer may still have those things in his possession or he may have on sold them. Are we going to pick it up quickly enough?

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN: I thank the member for Mount Gambier for raising that issue because I think we ought to include that particular scenario in our education pack because it could be picked up within the system, as it is actually a theft. It differs in that a window was not broken or a door forced, but the individual has possession of those goods illegally through an act of fraud and the system could be used. If I understand it, the second-hand dealer could notify that those goods have entered his possession, and SAPOL would be alerted to the fact that an illegal transaction has occurred and the match is done. If I have correctly understood the scenario that you have outlined, I think we can cover it.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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