HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-04-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SECOND-HAND GOODS BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 April 2013.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:57): I rise to speak briefly on the Second-hand Goods Bill 2013. This bill seeks to address issues relating to property-related crime by improving the regulation of the second-hand dealer and pawnbroker industry. In short, the bill provides for the establishment of a new regulatory regime, enhanced record-keeping requirements, and a requirement to electronically transfer transaction information to police.

The regulatory regime will be based on a tiered approach, the cost of which will be measured against the level of risk associated with the goods and activities of industry groups. At risk goods will be prescribed by way of regulation, similar to the current regulations, and will include commonly stolen items often traded by second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers. Prescribed goods will be nominated as class 1 and 2 goods. Second-hand dealers dealing in class 1 goods will need to be licensed, whilst second-hand dealers dealing in class 2 goods will be required to register with Consumer and Business Services, which will administer the regulatory regime.

An approved person test will apply to persons wishing to be licensed to deal in class 1 goods and all pawned goods. That person will be required to be present to conduct or supervise all transactions dealing with class 1 goods. The details of the purchase or receipt of all prescribed goods will need to be electronically transferred to police. Sellers will also be required to undergo a 100-point identification check.

The bill also seeks to redress the imbalance that exists between pawnbroker service providers and consumers by requiring that pawnbrokers provide more comprehensive information relating to the applicable interest rates, fees and charges, and the rights and obligations of both parties to the transaction. The bill also makes changes to the redemption periods that apply to pawned goods and the subsequent sale of unredeemed goods. The bill will extend to markets, but only to the extent that they will be required to have supervisors present during trading hours and that market operators will be required to be registered and report to police on prescribed goods transactions.

There is no question that many of the proposed measures the bill seeks to introduce have given rise to concerns amongst second-hand dealers. The opposition has already indicated that it is opposed to these measures. I agree that there are some aspects of the bill that will require closer scrutiny to ensure that they are not overly burdensome for second-hand dealers and others that are completely untenable. Included in these are the provisions that require the details of all purchases and receipts of prescribed goods to be electronically transferred to police. I am concerned about how these measures will operate in practice and how they will impact small second-hand dealers.

Given that the government has already indicated that prescribed goods will be similar to those contained in the regulations at present, it is important that we also look closely at that list. Under the current regulations, prescribed goods are defined as including: gemstones or precious metals; watches; sporting or recreational goods; watercrafts or parts of watercrafts; musical instruments other than pianos; portable engine-powered, motorised or air-powered tools or equipment; toolkits; photographic equipment or video cameras; computer hardware or interactive game consoles; computer programs or computer programs and data, including those comprising games for use with interactive game consoles; electric or electronic goods, including televisions, radios, compact disc players, videotape players, digital video disc players or other audio or audiovisual systems; mobile or portable telephones; microwave ovens; compact discs or digital video discs; bicycles, trailers and caravans; motor vehicles and various motor vehicle components.

As we can see, and as alluded to yesterday by the Hon. Tammy Franks, this is a very exhaustive list. It covers more valuable items, such as jewellery and motor vehicles, right through to everyday basic items, such as microwave ovens, radios and portable telephones. I accept that some of these everyday items may be very valuable, but the current regulatory regime does not differentiate between goods based on their value. It does not differentiate between a $5 watch and a $5,000 watch. It does not differentiate between a vintage camera that may be worth very little in dollar terms and a modern camera that may be worth thousands of dollars. It does not differentiate between a $10 second-hand microwave and a $1,000 microwave.

Furthermore, we do not know which items will be classed as class 1 or class 2 goods, other than that class 1 goods will be restricted to portable goods. There are many second-hand dealers who deal in many of these items that are of very little value; they are their bread-and-butter items. There is no question that requiring second-hand dealers to be licensed and to report every transaction that relates to these items is going to have devastating consequences.

The new regulatory requirements will place an unwarranted burden on these businesses which, in today's economic climate, will make them unviable. I have met with a second-hand dealer who has warned that these new requirements will result in the closure of second-hand and antique stores that are already struggling to keep afloat as it is.

It is also important in this context to consider who this bill does not apply to. It does not apply to those who sell second-hand goods online, something which in today's day and age is becoming more and more popular. It does not apply to those who sell their goods at garage sales, in other words, hobbyists, and it does not apply to auctions. There is no doubt that these groups have been placed in the too hard basket at the expense of those second-hand dealers who run shopfront businesses. We all know that many people nowadays make their living from selling goods online; whether or not some of those goods are stolen, I do not know, but I suspect they may be. So, why choose the easy target? Why not include auctions? Why not include hobbyists?

Coincidentally, under the proposed regulatory regime, if you do currently sell prescribed goods, but you do not own or cannot use a computer, you will not be able to comply with the requirement to electronically transfer transaction details to police. To that end, I foreshadow that I will be moving a series of amendments to exclude second-hand and antique dealers from some of the more stringent requirements proposed by this bill. I must say, however, that I have a lot less sympathy for the pawnbroker industry, particularly for those within that industry who make a living out of dealing in stolen goods.

For those of us who question whether or not there are pawnbrokers out there right now who knowingly deal in stolen goods, I say that we are kidding ourselves. It may be just a handful, but there is no question that it occurs. Let us make no mistake: this sort of behaviour is not limited to the smaller, more dubious types of pawnbroker shops that are popping up more and more in metropolitan Adelaide; it applies equally to some of the bigger and more well-known chains of pawnbroker businesses we are probably more accustomed to.

Since coming to this place, I have heard firsthand of the sorts of situations this bill seeks to address specifically in relation to pawnbrokers. I am not suggesting that all pawnbrokers are the same, and I do sympathise with those businesses that do the right thing and run legitimate businesses dealing in legitimately obtained goods. However, there are those who either use their business as a means of dealing in stolen goods or, at the very least, turn a blind eye as to whether goods may be stolen. It is naive for us to think for one minute that some people struggling to make ends meet, or suffering from gambling or drug addiction or other sorts of hardship, are not selling stolen goods through pawnbrokers either to make ends meet or to feed their addictions.

In many instances, the goods are not reported as stolen because they are being taken from family and friends, as opposed to complete strangers. It is not something people are generally proud of, but it does happen. Nor am I suggesting that these people are bad; many have legitimate problems and need help. But as long as the pawn industry is allowed to operate as unsupervised and unregulated as it currently does, it will continue to encourage this behaviour.

Pawnbroker shops are marketed as a means of obtaining quick cash conveniently. In an urgent situation, they seem like an ideal way of raising money. However, many people who utilise these services for the first time are quite shocked at what it actually ends up costing them. If you are not able to raise enough money to recoup the pawned goods, you pay interest. Keeping up these interest payments over a prolonged period can far exceed the amount loaned to an individual in the first place. Stop making the interest payments and your goods are lost. That is how these businesses operate. They are a trap both for the first time, unaccustomed users as well as those caught up in debt.

I first raised the issue of interest on pawned goods with the office of the then minister for consumer and business affairs in 2010, during the debate on the Statutes Amendment and Repeal (Australian Consumer Law) Bill. That was some time ago now, but at that time I recall being advised that the federal government may have been considering the issue of pawned goods as part of a more extensive review into consumer laws. I do not know what, if anything, came of this, but I certainly would be interested in hearing any feedback the minister may have on this issue. I maintain my position that we should be looking at appropriate ways of capping the interest payable on pawned goods, and I will be seeking further advice about whether there is any scope to address this issue under the current bill.

Further, I think that something more needs to be done in terms of barring orders. I understand that currently the only way to be barred from selling goods at a pawnbroker is by voluntarily signing a statutory declaration requesting as much. This does not apply across the board, so an individual would have to provide each and every pawnbroker in Adelaide with a letter requesting that the individual not be allowed to make any transactions at their store. This is completely ineffective.

I have had complaints from the families of individuals about their inability to get any sort of effective barring order in place in order to prevent their goods from being sold to pawnbrokers. Short of reporting their son, daughter or spouse to the police for theft, they are helpless. I would be keen for this issue also to be addressed under this bill. Generally speaking, though, I am also supportive of the other measures proposed for the pawnbroker industry; if anything, I think they could go a lot further. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:09): I would just like to speak very briefly in support of the second reading of this bill. I would like to thank Kaes Cilessen from minister O'Brien's office for arranging a comprehensive briefing from Jeff Hack and his team of two other members of SAPOL, and from a staff member from Consumer and Business Services. As has already been mentioned in this place, this bill is designed to further regulate the second-hand goods industry. I know the intention is particularly to assist in preventing the movement of goods often shifted in high volume, and I do not think anyone in this place disagrees with that intent.

I think several good questions have already been raised in regard to the bill, particularly around the classification of certain items. I look forward to receiving the answers to those questions so that I can consider the bill in more detail, but at this stage I have no further questions beyond those that have already been asked, and I commend the second reading to the chamber.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:10): I rise to put the Family First position regarding the Second-hand Goods Bill and, at the beginning, I want to put on the public record the fact that, had the bill been put up again now as it was in 2009 prior to the proroguing of the parliament, Family First would have opposed it outright because, as it was back then, it was absolutely draconian. It placed an enormous impost on non-government organisations—charities, churches, schools, fetes, fairs, markets, auctions for footy clubs, and the list went on.

The government, in an attempt to make it more difficult for thieves, was actually making it incredibly difficult for law-abiding citizens who are already struggling to make sufficient dollars to keep their not-for-profit organisations in existence, frankly. I mention that just to reinforce to the government that they have to be very careful when they look at trying to address an issue that is of concern to the government, SAPOL and the community not to put any further burdens on law-abiding citizens and organisations who are subject now to enormous cuts through the mismanagement of the budget of this government over a 10-year period.

Having said that, it is fair to say that they have changed a lot of the direction and focus of this bill, and we would be prepared at this point in time to go only as far as clause 1 and then we would want to report progress because I am very keen to hear from the crossbenches and my colleagues there. The Hon. John Darley has already foreshadowed some amendments. I advise my colleagues that there may be one or two amendments that we actually still put in place, but that will depend on some of the answers that are given to us with respect to clause 1. That will set the direction for the committee, as I understand these matters; that is, if we get sufficient, adequate answers during debate on clause 1, then we may not be personally tabling any amendments.

I do congratulate the government on the fact that they are prepared to look at an area that is of enormous concern to anybody who is unfortunately on the receiving end of criminal activity in which possessions are stolen from their homes and families. Whilst most people have gone to great lengths and personal expense to improve the general security of their homes, I am advised that, over the last few years, there has been an increase in break-ins into sheds because they are easier, quicker targets for thieves to get material they can quickly sell and then get away from that property.

I was talking to a tradie only the other day who had parked his truck at the back of his home. He had scanning lights and everything he could possibly have put in, but someone knew that he had a lot of valuable tools on that truck. When he went to get in that truck to head off to do his work as a tradesman the next morning, even the secure padlocks were all jemmied off and he lost thousands of dollars worth of tools, particularly power tools. That obviously cost him money.

He had workers whose wages he still had to accommodate and then he had to go through the trauma of trying to recover all that he possessed through his insurance, and he advised me that that in itself is not an easy situation. Most tradesmen do not take photographs of every tool and have the serial number of everything they own, as indeed you would not with a lot of other personal equipment, including musical instruments, which was the point raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks yesterday.

I acknowledge that there needs to be a serious attempt to stop the theft we are seeing in this area of criminal activity. As I say, I give the government a positive for that. I foreshadowed to the minister's adviser and some senior officers from SAPOL and other agencies that I would be asking the minister about exemptions, that I would be specifically asking questions on clauses 4(2) and 4(3), and that I would also be drilling into some of the issues concerning second-hand dealers.

I want to put on the public record some extracts from a letter that I received from a couple of second-hand dealers. I have also met with a second-hand dealer and I have had a couple of detailed conversations with a second-hand dealer. I certainly have not had anywhere near the representation that I had with respect to the original bill. In fact, with the first bill, just about everyone you could imagine was emailing, ringing or wanting to meet with us, including the Motor Trade Association and those bigger organisations within the state. My understanding is that most of them have been appeased of their concerns and have told the government that they would accept this bill pretty much in the format it has been drafted in and as it is being debated in the chamber today.

The letter from these second-hand dealers says that they run antique second-hand dealer businesses with an absolute focus on antiques and they run an antique market as well. They claim that they represent 12 antique dealers and they say that the proposed legislation will blatantly discriminate against and disadvantage them. They then go on to say that we already have legislation that covers second-hand dealers in South Australia that they currently comply with. I will ask the minister in clause 1 to highlight the differences in requirements between the existing legislation and this new legislation so that it is clearly on the public record and there for us as legislators to consider.

They talk about eBay and Gumtree—Australia's largest second-hand auction place where hundreds of thousands of sellers are exempt. They say that auction houses across the state of South Australia are exempt, markets are exempt, garage sales are exempt, but they then go on to say that the MTA were to comply with prescribed 1 goods. As is the case with quite a number of the second-hand dealers, it will have to comply with prescribed 1 goods, but they say that the government have listened to the Motor Trade Association and have revised that group to the lesser prescribed 2 goods with an amendment to this current legislation.

They claim that they are already in the system and that police have access to them. They say that they already compete against many thousands of hobbyist dealers who pay no tax or GST, no rent or principal in interest repayments if they are purchasing their buildings, and certainly do not employ anybody else, as some of these people do in their shops. They then go on to say that, with respect to the 14-day holding period of prescribed 1 goods, they want to know what other industry has this regulation. The general public sells second-hand goods but do not have to comply with this, and they say that this is unsustainable for a small business.

They personally claim that this legislation will make honest dealers accountable for items not stolen. So the minister has time to get the responses ready, I foreshadow that I will ask for the reasons behind the government putting in the legislation that provision that these second-hand dealers are not happy with. They also talk about the fact that they say there was no real consultation with them and that dealers are only just becoming aware of this legislation. I asked one dealer I met with why I have not had much representation from other second-hand dealers this time, and he said that he did not believe a lot of the second-hand dealers were aware of the impost now with respect to this legislation.

He then claimed that the police administrators admitted by phone that approximately 260 notices of this legislation that were sent out were returned unclaimed. I would like the minister to tell us whether that is true and, if so, why that occurred. They then go on to say:

Where are the statistics showing that the majority of stolen goods are being sold and distributed by antique dealers and how many antique and second-hand dealers have been charged and sentenced previously to warrant this legislation being justified?

I know that those details are available through SAPOL and, given that we probably will not go into committee until next sitting week, the way things are heading (because the Hon. John Darley has foreshadowed amendments, etc.), I think they have time to get that information for our chamber. In the letter, they also say:

I know of no dealer that wittingly or unwittingly would buy stolen goods, yet the general public in their hundreds and thousands can buy and sell from auctions, advertise in the paper and internet without any checks and balances that antique second-hand dealers already have to go through. The introduction of a 100-point identification check is excessive and an invasion of our customers' privacy, keeping in mind a fair majority of these clients are retired elderly. The 14 days holding period for prescribed goods is discrimination against second-hand dealers. What about eBay, Gumtree, auctions and the general public?

I know that there is an answer to that because I got an answer this morning during my briefing. I appreciated the briefing and the honesty and openness of the officers giving me that briefing. Notwithstanding that, it is something the minister can talk about during committee.

They make a comment here which I understand is probably true to an extent because I, for one, am continually arguing that the last thing we need is $150 million worth of budget cuts to SAPOL. SAPOL are not magicians. The government, through the Premier, has actually said that SAPOL are going to have to accept the $150 million worth of cuts and, on top of that and within those cuts, SAPOL apparently will still be able to employ additional police officers. Having had the portfolio for some years, I know that budget pretty well, and it is very difficult even to replace a bit of carpet in some of the police stations these days, let alone have $150 million worth of cuts and then employ additional police officers.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Ministerial offices?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No, it's an occupational health and safety issue in a minister's office, for goodness sake. You would have to have the thick carpet there, for sure. But the point is that, irrespective of the debate in the media, in my opinion we are already short on the ground when it comes to police officers who are out there at the coalface delivering to protect the community and keep South Australia a safe place in which to live, work and play. To get back to their point, they say:

Not once has a police officer had time to visit my showroom to check my books or check through my stock itinerary. Understandably, they are too busy.

They go on to talk about another area, and this is one I do want to have a look at. They say:

A licence with high fees is unfair and pure revenue raising. My colleagues and I have already applied to the Police Commissioner to hold a second-hand dealers licence. This legislation means we will be paying the police to harass and hassle us just to raise revenue, as this legislation is not a holistic approach to stolen goods, as eBay, auction houses, etc., would be included if it was. My objective is to get support against this new legislation.

Then they go on to list reasons why they do not believe the legislation should be supported. I have put that on the public record because that is our job as legislators—to listen to all of the debate, to what constituents have to say, and to represent them and cross-check as best we can whether or not what they are saying is accurate and whether there is any tweaking we can do to accommodate their concerns while still supporting the principles of the bill. I say again that we support the principles of the bill. It is fair to say that all of us as legislators want to use our legislative opportunities as members of parliament to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to exist and carry on in this state and to make it as easy as possible within reason for police and other authorities to be able to apprehend, convict and sentence those offenders.

This government has a history in the last several years of taxing and charging South Australians, particularly in small business, to the point where a lot of people are just shutting down their businesses. That is shown in statistics, as I recall. Wherever it is at state and federal level, there is continual objection from the business sector about red tape, green tape and costs and charges, and you are not in a position in business to add on all of your input costs to the product that you are producing, selling, manufacturing or growing. It is just not possible because we are in a situation where we are competing in a global market in so many areas.

What we have now is a government that has a massive financial problem, $14 billion worth of core debt in the forward estimates, which they say is due to the global financial crisis. Well, they have never actually disclosed the facts and figures on that and, if you have a look at the fact that in a 10-year period the budget income to the government has actually doubled to about $15 billion a year of revenue. The truth of the matter is that the debt is mainly through bad management of government and pet projects that they did not cost or budget for that they are now paying for after winning the last election and holding those seven marginal seats.

I say that within the context of this debate because we have a new tax. As far as I am concerned whether it is a levy, a GST-type tax or a registration fee or a licensing fee, it is a tax—and this is a brand new tax. This is all about cost recovery. What the government is trying to do now is full cost recovery wherever it can. They do it at their peril because if they had actually got out and spoke to South Australians, one of the things that would probably send a lot of South Australians who voted for the Labor Party in the last election voting for the opposition and/or crossbench MPs is that they are sick and tired of being taxed out of existence and they are having trouble making ends meet. They say to me, 'How come we have to balance our books every week. We have no choice. But the government simply brings in taxation imposts.' We have seen it with PIC fees, we have seen it with biosecurity. It is here, there and everywhere, and now we have another one.

In committee I want to question the minister on the wisdom of having these licence fees. I will foreshadow that to colleagues, so that they can think about it a bit as we go into committee in the next sitting week, and whether or not it is appropriate in the first instance that all these second-hand dealers should have to pay an up-front fee. What happens is there is an up-front fee for them to get their new licences, I understand it, and then after that there is an annual fee. I believe there are precedents that where these transitional situations occur, there is a sunset-type provision so that you are not actually paying that first fee at least. They did not ask for this. It is the government putting it on them and then slugging them from day one with basically what is a set-up fee for the licensing, as I understand it.

As I say, there is intent here to try to give police in particular the opportunity to have a wider net to capture criminals and, other than the criminals, everybody would commend the government for that. However, as is usual in any piece of legislation, there are unintended consequences. We need to work through those unintended consequences, and that clearly will be done at the committee stage. Family First will look closely at the Hon. John Darley's amendments and any others that are put up. Again, just so that it is understood by the government, subject to some of the answers we get in the early stages—probably best in clause 1—we reserve our right to look at one or two amendments as we work through the committee stage.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:30): I was keen today to take the opportunity to speak about the federal amendments to the Social Security Act, which will further impoverish already struggling single-parent families when their youngest child turns eight by moving from the parenting payment onto Newstart—over 100,000 single parents were previously protected by the Howard government's welfare-to-work reforms—but I missed the opportunity.

I rise to speak today on behalf of the Liberal opposition in relation to the Second-Hand Goods Bill 2012. First, I would like to thank South Australia Police for the information and the time they have taken to brief the opposition. Our lead spokesman on this issue is the shadow minister for police, the member for Stuart, the Hon. Dan van Holst Pellekaan.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: He's not an honourable yet. You've got to get him into government and make him police minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Just hoping. This bill has been a recurring feature of the last two terms of parliament since first being introduced in 2009. On 17 June 2009, the government introduced the first iteration of the bill, the Second-Hand Goods Bill 2009, to parliament. The bill sat during the winter parliamentary break whilst formal industry and public consultation took place. The bill was not debated and lapsed when parliament was prorogued in December 2009.

There is no doubt that the member for Stuart is honourable but he may not yet have the title of 'honourable'. Some changes to the bill followed the consultation in 2009 and there was a second round of consultation leading to the second bill. This bill was introduced on 15 November last year but was left off the agenda by the government until last month.

The government claims that the measures in this bill are necessary to combat theft and the transfer of stolen goods through retailers in the second-hand goods market, and it aims to achieve this by a range of new measures. The first includes greater regulation of who can work in the second-hand goods industry. This is proposed to be done by a user-pays licensing system, which is proposed to be introduced at a substantial cost to small business.

I was interested in the comments by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in relation to when does a levy become a tax. When we consider the government introducing compliance obligations on a business and then charging them for that involvement, it is hardly a user-pays system. They did not choose to be involved in the system; it is a compliance requirement being placed on them. I think the honourable member has a very good point. It looks a lot more like tax to me.

Barring orders are most commonly associated with licensed premises but they have also found their way into this bill. The bill provides for criminal intelligence background checks, which will put second-hand retailers on the same standing as people who sell hydroponic equipment that could be used for drug manufacturing, people who want to possess and shoot firearms, and those who might be subject to a control order under the anti-bikie laws.

As this council is fully aware, the opposition has previously raised concerns about the increasing prevalence of the secret evidence laws which were initially introduced to fight organised crime and are now being used routinely in licensing and small business regulation. We do not believe that small businesses deserve to be treated like criminals.

The enforcement of these licensing provisions is proposed to be a dual role between South Australia Police and the Office of Consumer and Business Services. The latter will be expected to manage licensing matters and SAPOL will take on an enforcement role and the monitoring of the transaction management system, which I will discuss in a moment.

The bill includes a number of steps to delay the sale of second-hand items and to introduce a transaction management system (TMS) to provide information to police about goods being sold by second-hand retailers selling certain prescribed items. These are not just a few rare items of high value to an Oceans 11-style crew; the items targeted by the government include an enormous range of everyday items that are being sold by retailers. Indeed, the government's policy is deliberately to target these items. The bill is, by design, a leviathan that covers everyone from Big Star records to caravan stores, from jewellers to sporting stores.

The government has given only an indicative list of items that it intends to prescribe which, it says, are similar to the current items listed in the regulations. These include items such as gemstones or precious metals; items of jewellery that include gemstones or precious metals; watches; sporting and recreational goods; water craft; musical instruments; portable engine-powered, motorised or air-powered tools or equipment; toolkits; photographic equipment or video cameras; computer hardware or interactive game consoles; computer programs or computer programs and data; electric or electronic goods, including televisions, radios, compact disc players, video tape players; vehicles without their own automotive power; and motor vehicles. There is also a whole series of motor vehicle components that are touched on by the regulations.

When people see a bill labelled the Second-hand Goods Bill and are told it is designed to deal with crime, people expect it to be targeting the second-hand goods businesses that are notorious for dealing in stolen property. I am sure that the Hon. John Darley spoke for this council when he said that this council does not tolerate that sort of behaviour. That is what people expect this bill to be targeting. I think the lack of detail that the government has provided so far raises concerns that it is actually going to be dealing with a much wider range of activities.

One of the changes in the bill is that goods will be divided up into class 1 and class 2 goods. Class 1 is said to be ordered by more commonly stolen and mobile items and those other items which are less commonly stolen. Since 2009, a number of industries have been removed altogether. These include scrap metal recyclers and auctioneers.

Research provided by the government indicates that many criminals involved in theft are subsequently selling these items through second-hand retailers to turn stolen goods into cash. There is also some body of research that suggests a link between the theft of goods for cash and the drug market; in other words, some criminals are feeding a drug addiction through the theft of other goods. The government has quoted estimates from police that around 10 to 15 per cent of stolen goods are being sold directly to retailers by either the offender or an accomplice. A person must show 100 points of ID and be over 16 years of age to sell an item to a second-hand retailer.

There has been limited experience in New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland, and internationally in the US, New Zealand and Canada, of using electronic systems to report stolen goods. The government hopes that similar technology can be used here to reduce the incidence of theft. There are already significant record-keeping and disclosure requirements imposed on second-hand retailers under the Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 1996 and related regulations. These requirements are proposed to be significantly expanded and will require even more market operators to report details of items that have been sold.

The bill proposes to introduce a new regulation on pawn dealers and govern the exchange of goods with pawn dealers. This is primarily intended to provide consumer protection. This bill will radically change the nature of business for second-hand retailers, and these provisions deserve to be considered to their fullest extent. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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