Pawnbrokers And Second-Hand Dealers Amendment Bill

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [9.10 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek the leave of the House to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Page 5246

The Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Amendment Bill 1998 amends the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 to clarify a number of the provisions in the Act and to ensure the objectives of the Act are achieved. As honourable members will be aware, the main objective of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act is to curtail the trade in stolen goods through pawnbroking and second-hand dealing outlets. The bill strengthens this objective by amending the Act to require that licensees must furnish all records which they are required to keep under the Act to the Commissioner of Police, in accordance with the regulations.

At present, section 28(6) of the Act requires only pawnbrokers’ records of pledges to be sent to the police. The Act does not currently require second-hand dealers to send any of their records to the police. As the Act currently stands, if police officers need to examine records maintained by second-hand dealers, they must physically attend the licensed premises and carry out inspections of those documents. The result is that the effectiveness of the Police Service in limiting the trade in stolen goods is severely reduced. For the police to effectively locate stolen goods it is absolutely essential that they receive comprehensive licensee records on a timely basis which can then be quickly cross-referenced with police stolen goods data.

The capacity of the Police Service to carry out criminal law investigations in relation to stolen or unlawfully obtained goods has been markedly increased under the bill. Currently, under section 21(2) of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act an authorised officer, that is a police officer or certain Department of Fair Trading officers, who suspects, on reasonable grounds, that goods in the possession of a licensee have been stolen or unlawfully obtained can direct that the goods be held by the licensee for 21 days. If necessary, a further 21-day notice can be served under section 21(3) of the Act. Representations have been received from the Police Service advising that, in circumstances where goods have been identified by the police as stolen but the rightful owner cannot be located, the maximum 42-day holding period does not provide for the adequate protection of the goods.

In an effort to ensure that the police have sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive criminal investigation and to ascertain the owner of suspect goods, the bill amends section 21 of the Act to provide that authorised officers may serve notices on licensees, directing them to hold goods reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained for a period of 56 days. A further 56-day notice may be served on licensees if required. At the expiry of such notices, and if no further action has been taken by the police, licensees would be free to deal with the goods.

A primary purpose of the principal Act is to establish a more streamlined and equitable procedure for the restoration of stolen property to rightful owners. Currently, under section 22 of the Act, persons who identify their stolen property in the possession of a licensee can lodge a claim over those goods on the spot. The licensee is required to complete a statement which details the name and address of the claimant and a description of the goods. The statement must be given to the claimant immediately upon completion and a copy of the statement must be provided to the police within 24 hours. The licensee must then not alter, sell, redeem, or dispose of the goods except with the consent of the claimant or in accordance with a court order. At present under the Act a licensee is obliged to hold the goods for 28 days unless, within that time, civil court proceedings are commenced for recovery of the goods. If such proceedings are commenced the licensee’s obligation to retain the goods applies until the proceedings are concluded.

The bill extends this procedure, by requiring licensees to continue to also hold goods if any criminal proceedings in elation to the theft of the goods are commenced within the 28-day period. This additional obligation to retain goods remains in force until the criminal proceedings are finalised. The effect of this amendment will be to remove the need to instigate civil recovery proceedings for the purpose of ensuring that goods continue to be held at the expiry of the 28-day period, in cases where criminal proceedings in relation to the theft of the goods have been commenced within the 28-day period.

The bill defines criminal proceedings to have been commenced by the laying or filing of an information, complaint or charge in relation to the offence. The bill also addresses concerns regarding the capacity of pawnbrokers to operate their licensed business as itinerants under the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act. Obviously such a practice is highly undesirable due to the adverse impact it could have on consumers. People who pawn goods could face real difficulties in attempting to redeem their goods if pawnbrokers do not operate from fixed locations. The bill amends the Act by making it a condition of a pawnbroker’s licence that the licensed business be conducted only from the business premises nominated in the licence application, or from any other premises later notified to the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading.

The provisions of the Act relating to the sale at auction of forfeited pledges by pawnbrokers have been revised for the purpose of ensuring that the original intention of the Act is fulfilled. At present section 30(1) of the Act, in conjunction with clause 25 of the regulation, provides that pawned goods which are unredeemed must be sold by public auction if the goods secured a debt greater than $50. The effect of these provisions is that, if at the time of forfeiture of a pawned item the amount loaned plus accrued interest is greater than $50, that item must be sold by public auction. However, these provisions are inconsistent with the original intention of the Act, which was that there be a mandatory sale by auction of unredeemed pawned goods, if the amount lent on the pawned goods exceeded $50. This is supported by the comments of the then Minister for Fair Trading, the Hon. Faye Lo Po’, in her second reading speech of 24 April 1996, when she stated that the auction system for disposal of unredeemed pawns will be continued for goods on which a prescribed amount has been loaned.

An additional consequence of section 30 of the Act and clause 25 of the regulation is that pawnbrokers are required to sell very low valued items by auction. This results in pawnbrokers incurring increased administrative costs associated with selling items by auction. With increased administrative costs, the likelihood is reduced of there being a surplus of proceeds available to the customer who pawned the item. To address this problem the bill amends section 30 of the principal Act to require that pawned goods that are forfeited must be sold at public auction if the principal lent on the goods is greater than the amount prescribed by the regulations, which is currently $50. This amendment will allow pawnbrokers to sell more goods in their premises, after the redemption period has expired, rather than send them to public auction, hence reducing administrative costs. It will also provide for easier administration by pawnbrokers as no interest calculations will be required to determine if items must be sold by auction.

The bill also amends the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act for the purpose of circumventing a practice being engaged in by a small number of pawnbrokers which defeats the intention of the legislation. As mentioned previously, unredeemed pawned items which exceed the prescribed value

Page 5247

must be sold by public auction. Currently, the fall of the hammer and acceptance of the bid represents the completion of a sale at auction, whether or not moneys have been paid or the goods have ever left the pawnbroker’s possession.

The Police Service has brought to my attention a practice which is being adopted by a small number of pawnbrokers whereby a pawnbroker sells at auction the forfeited goods to a person. That person then defaults on the sale and the pawnbroker records the goods as second-hand goods in his records, describing them as "refund from auction". The goods are subsequently sold by the pawnbroker, who has the ability to fix the price. Additionally, any profit made on that later sale is not required to be made available to the person who pawned the goods. Thus, pawnbrokers comply with the legislation and yet defeat its intention. The bill resolves this problem by providing that if goods are sold at public auction but the purchase price is not recovered in accordance with the sale contract, the sale is invalidated and the licensee is required to submit the goods to a further auction.

The bill also amends a show cause provision in the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act. The amendment extends one of the grounds upon which the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading may serve a notice on a licensee, requiring the licensee to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. Section 34(1)(b) of the Act currently states that the director-general may serve a notice to show cause on a licensee who, in the opinion of the director-general, obtained a licence by means of statements that were false or misleading.

The bill extends this ground to provide that the director-general may also serve a notice to show cause on a licensee if, in the opinion of the director-general, the licensee made false or misleading statements in, or in connection with, the licensee’s application for a licence or for the renewal of a licence. This additional ground is important in light of proposed amendments to the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Regulation 1997, which will exempt existing small scale second-hand dealers from a condition which will attach to all licences issued or renewed on or after 1 January 1999 requiring licensees to keep computer records. The exemption will be granted, on a yearly basis, to second-hand dealers who held a second-hand dealers licence immediately prior to the introduction of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act, if the gross receipts of their business relating to all second-hand goods totalled $150,000 or less in the previous financial year. An application for an exemption must be made at the time a licence application or renewal is made, and must be supported by prescribed documentary evidence which substantiates the licensee’s level of gross receipts for the previous financial year.

If the required documentation relating to the previous financial year is not available at the time the licensee makes the licence application, the licensee is able to produce documentation for the financial year before the previous financial year in support of the request for an exemption. Accordingly, as a result of the amendment to the show cause provisions of the principal Act, if a licensee provides to the director-general any statement that is false or misleading for the purpose of gaining an exemption from the licence condition imposing computerisation, the licensee may be served with a notice to show cause as to why his licence should not be revoked.

With the advent of the requirement to create and maintain records in a computer format, when certain licences are issued or renewed on or after 1 January 1999, it will not be possible for section 28(3) of the principal Act to be complied with. This section currently provides that no pawn pledge is validly made unless the person pawning the goods signs the original record. As the original record will be on computer, it will not be possible for this record to be signed. Accordingly, the bill addresses this problem by amending the section to allow a person who pawns goods to sign a hard copy of any electronic record of the pledge. The bill also strengthens the provisions of the Act which relate to the documentary evidence which licensees must obtain from customers before accepting goods for pawn or sale from those customers. The bill empowers the Governor to make regulations requiring any person who offers goods to a licensee for pawn or sale to provide further evidence of his or her identity than that which is presently required.

A secondary purpose of the bill is to provide clarification in regard to a number of provisions of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act. The bill amends section 10 of the Act to make it clear that, when a person makes an application to the Director-General of the Department of Fair Trading for the renewal of a licence, the director-general must either grant the application for renewal or refuse to grant the renewal. Currently, section 10(5) of the Act provides that an application for the renewal of a licence must be made before expiry of the current licence or within such further time as the director-general may allow. The bill amends this subsection to make it explicit that a licence that is proposed to be renewed, and for which an extension of the period in which to renew the licence has been granted, continues in force until that renewal is granted or refused.

The bill also provides that if an application for the renewal of a licence is made before the licence is due to expire, the licence is taken to continue in force from the day that the licence would have otherwise expired, until the day that the applicant is notified that the renewal application has either been granted or refused. This will ensure that licensees who have made a licence renewal application before the expiry of their current licence are not considered to be trading illegally if the Department of Fair Trading does not process their application and notify them that their application has either been granted or refused before their current licence expires. The amendment will not apply to a licence which is the subject of an application for renewal, if the licensee is precluded under section 36 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 from holding a licence.

I am confident that the amendments contained in this bill will strengthen the provisions of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act for the purposes of assisting in the reduction of property crime. I take this opportunity to advise the House that it is proposed that amendments be made to the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Regulation 1997. In particular, it is proposed to amend the clause 6 definition of "second-hand goods" to exclude certain categories of goods, including furniture and copper, non-ferrous metal and metal alloys. These amendments are being made because it is considered that such goods are either not at high risk of theft or that their coverage by the legislation is creating unwarranted administrative burdens for industry.

In response to concerns which have been expressed by the Privacy Committee, the amended regulation will also require licensees to display a warning that any information provided to them by customers may be given to the police. In addition, the amendments to the regulation will prescribe a standard form of statement about the ownership of goods to be provided by customers, require licensees to obtain date of birth details from their customer and prescribe the time and manner by which licensees must furnish records to the police.

Page 5248

The proposed changes to the regulation have been the subject of detailed consultation with the pawnbroking and second-hand dealing industries and other interested parties. During this consultation process a number of somewhat minor issues have been raised by industry representatives regarding the proposed amendments. These issues are currently being given careful consideration and will be resolved in the near future. It is anticipated that both the bill and the regulations will commence on the same date. I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon. HELEN SHAM-HO [9.11 p.m.]: The Opposition does not oppose the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Amendment Bill. The bill will amend the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996. The object of the 1996 Act was to prevent stolen goods being syphoned through pawnbrokers, and to enable victims of theft to reclaim their property. I took part in the debate on the 1996 bill. The process to enact the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act was started by the former coalition Government in about 1993-94. For a couple of years extensive consultation took place with industry representatives. I am pleased that the Labor Government saw fit to enact the legislation following the discussion process. However, it should be noted that the Government has been virtually forced by the Opposition into making these amendments because of lack of consultation in the first place.

Had the Government consulted with the industry, as the Opposition has done, it would have put appropriate legislation in place the first time. Instead, the Government’s backdown has wasted Parliament’s time and taxpayers’ money. It is a shame that the industry was not given an opportunity by the Government to examine the fine print of this bill before it was presented to this House and to the other place. The Government must consult with members of the industry so they can raise objections or suggest any necessary finetuning. This will produce effective and workable legislation that will not need amendment every year.

I put on record some of the amendments contained in schedule 1 to the bill. Proposed section 9 deals with how licence applications are to be made. Section 10 describes the process by which the director-general is to determine the applications. New section 10A deals with the renewal of licences and makes it clear that the director-general must renew licences if they are not refused. If the director-general grants an extension of time in which to make an application for renewal, the licence will continue in force until the application is determined. The addition to section 11 will impose conditions on the grant or renewal of a licence.

Under proposed sections 12 and 12A licensees must nominate the location of their places of business and, if the locations change, they must inform the director-general within 14 days of relocating. Failure to do so will attract a penalty of 50 penalty units. Business must be carried out only at the premises nominated under the licence. however, a licensee may operate at an alternative premises for up to 14 days if he informs the director-general within that period. This will enable the department to keep track of dealers of second-hand goods and pawnbrokers so that the industry can be regulated effectively.

Under the new provisions in proposed section 15 the licensee may be required to obtain additional information to prove the identity of the person offering goods for pawn. At present identification containing one’s name and address is required. This may be extended to include documentary or oral evidence of identity, such as date of birth. This will ensure that the initial vendors are bona fide and the legal owners of the goods. Proposed section 16(5A) will require licensees to pass on all records to the police if the regulations so stipulate.

The amendments to subsections (2) and (3) of section 21 will extend the time that goods must be held by the pawnbroker or second-hand dealer pending criminal investigation and investigations as to ownership from a maximum 42 days to 112 days. Section 22 of the Act will be amended to extend the right for an automatic holding of goods when a civil claim of ownership is lodged to include criminal actions. If any criminal proceedings commence, the licensee will be obliged to retain goods until the proceedings are concluded. This will give victims of theft a better chance of recovering their goods. Schedule 1[11] amends section 28(3) to allow a person who pawns goods to sign a hard copy of any electronic record of the pledge. Previously the original had to be signed.

Schedule 1[14] amends section 30(1) by stipulating that goods that are forfeited must be sold by public auction if the amount of the principal lent on the goods was greater than $50. The amendment makes it clear that this amount is the principal lent on the goods and not any interest. The proposed subsections (1A) and (1B) of section 30 will also prevent the practice of selling unredeemed items at fraudulent auction sales designed to change the item from an unredeemed pawn pledge to second-hand goods, which do not have to be sold at auction. This will be done by requiring the licensee to hold a further auction if the purchase price is not recovered in accordance with the sale contract at the initial public auction.

Page 5249

Finally, an amendment to section 34 of the Act will allow the director-general to require a licensee to show cause as to why his licence should not be revoked if he makes a false or misleading statement. This will prevent licensees from avoiding the use of computers by claiming they have a turnover of less than $150,000. Licensees are required to computerise their businesses to help stop criminal activities if their turnover is more than $150,000. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN [9.19 p.m.]: I wish to report on activity undertaken by the Regulation Review Committee, which has been examining one of the provisions of the bill relating to regulation-making powers. The bill empowers the Governor to make regulations requiring any person who offers goods to a licensee for pawn or sale to provide further evidence of his or her identity than that presently required. It also contains other enabling powers for regulation, including details relating to the forwarding of electronic records to the police. The Regulation Review Committee has been examining the regulations that are to attach to this legislation. Only last week it conducted consultations involving the Department of Fair Trading, pawnbrokers and the police. The committee hearings were incredibly instructive. Pawnbrokers made significant comments that the Government should take into consideration when it constructs the regulations to be made under this legislation.

The forthcoming regulations will require pawnbrokers and second-hand traders to update their records to the police every day. That may not be possible for several reasons. It may not be possible because on a Saturday a trader wants to close up his or her practice reasonably quickly and enjoy the weekend. It is not unreasonable that details may not be updated on that day. It may be that the network on which records are to be updated is off line, meaning that the immediate update of details may not be possible. It is true that the forthcoming regulations will allow some flexibility on the part of the Commissioner of Police but it is disappointing that daily updating is set as a benchmark with which people may be expected to comply. The pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers made an excellent point and put forward the reasonable proposal that a period of three days or even a week be allowed.

At present traders are required to forward details to the police within 14 days and they are required to keep the goods for 14 days. Surely there is no necessity for a stringent regulatory requirement for daily updating. Additionally, the Privacy Committee has expressed reservations in relation to some of the other records to be passed on to police. It appears that there is the potential for practical problems. Among the details to be passed on to police is a description of goods. It was demonstrated to the committee that sometimes a description of goods may not be all that useful. A witness showed committee members what I would call a chalice but what other people might call a goblet, a cup or a piece of silverware.

The Hon. R. S. L. Jones: It could be standardised.

The Hon. J. F. RYAN: Standardised is difficult. Once the police have made checks to determine that an item has been sold, they would obviously need to make further inquiries. It seems to me that if a computer database is to be established, it should contain the details that police would need to investigate quickly. Other details that they would necessarily and reasonably obtain from a second-hand dealer or pawnbroker by way of a telephone conversation or a visit could be reasonably kept at the shop. A second-hand dealer may, for example, purchase 24 CDs and sell them to 24 different owners. One can imagine the complications of trying to convey on the database the details of 24 owners, when all the police would be interested in would be the identity of the person who sold the CDs and where the CDs are. That information could be obtained easily through details relating to where the CDs were originally traded and the dealer who dealt with them. The dealer could hold records detailing where the CDs went.

One can well imagine the embarrassment of police if, as a result of taking details from the computer database - details that could have been transferred inaccurately - they go to the wrong place and accuse the wrong person of possessing stolen goods. That would not be good use of police time and it would not present a good image of the police. Some of the records required under the new regulatory regime should be limited to the details that will be helpful to the police. Other details, which would rightly be the subject of further inquiries, ought to be kept at the shop. I do not expect the Minister to reply in this debate to the issues I have raised. I simply record that these issues were raised fairly and reasonably before the Regulation Review Committee. There is a need for further consultation.

Many compliments were paid to the Department of Fair Trading and the way in which it had advanced the consultation process. The Police Service is the most important group that needs to answer more questions. It is not unreasonable that
Page 5250
the Police Service be asked to reconsider some of the requirements being placed on business. Everybody wants to achieve the same objective, but there is absolutely no reason to make this regulation more onerous than it has to be. I compliment my colleagues on the Regulation Review Committee, who, by way of a few hours of committee hearings, exposed the issues and brought the parties together. If reason prevails, the regulations will be improved. I thank the House for the opportunity to bring these issues to the attention of the Minister.

The Hon. ELISABETH KIRKBY [9.25 p.m.]: Much of what I wanted to say about this bill has already been said very fluently by the Hon. J. F. Ryan. After the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 was passed, I, along with many other honourable members, received a great deal of correspondence from people who were concerned that they may be in breach of its provisions. Those people were second-hand dealers, not specifically pawnbrokers, who were running small businesses. They were concerned because, as their businesses were very small, they did not keep computer records. They were very happy for the police to have access to their records, but they were unable to set up a computer program because the cost was too great. Those people feared that they would be in breach of the law. The Government has taken most of those concerns on board and has introduced this amending bill. It has been made perfectly clear - as a result of the work described by the Hon. J. F. Ryan - that it will not be necessary for second-hand dealers to complete such extremely detailed computer records as previously envisaged.

The problem has been recognised and addressed by the Government. The amendments before the House bring the legislation into line with what is possible. I am certain that it will be possible for the police to ensure that stolen goods are not put through pawnbrokers or second-hand dealers without their knowledge and that they have sufficient information to trace stolen goods, so that people who have goods stolen from them have the opportunity to reclaim those goods before they are sold on to another person. With those remarks, I am happy to support this bill, which has addressed some of the problems that exist in the 1996 legislation. I hope that it will be possible for all parties to be satisfied - not only the person who pawns goods but also the person who buys goods and, in particular, the person who is in possession of goods and has the ability to sell goods because they have been left with him or her and have not been redeemed.

Reverend the Hon. F. J. NILE [9.29 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the bill. The Government is to be commended for its effort to update the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act by this amending bill. The purpose of the bill is to curtail the trade in stolen goods through pawnbroker and second-hand dealer outlets. During a lot of house break-ins television sets and video recorders are stolen. In recent days we have seen on television young teenagers who carry a stone in their pocket or pick up a stone and efficiently smash a car window, usually with one throw. They then reach into the car and remove the mobile phone or whatever is lying on the seat. Recently, Alan Jones had his car broken into. Car break-ins are occurring increasingly in the city and other areas. If people can easily sell stolen goods through pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers they will be encouraged to steal goods. At the moment the pawnbrokers’ records of pledges are sent to the police, which is the only form of co-ordinated information.

Stolen items are sometimes pawned in exchange for quick cash; and because they are stolen, they are not redeemed. Under the present system the police take a great deal of time and trouble to link up reports of stolen items with the items purchased by pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers. Under the bill dealers will be required to set up a computer system link-up with the police computer operated police system - COPS - to transfer information about pawned items on a 24-hour basis. I note that previous speakers have been critical of that provision and have said that it is not practical. I also note that in the other place the Minister for Community Services, Mrs Lo Po’, gave an assurance that the Police Service is specifically designing a computer system that will be able to process and cope with high-volume data.

The cross-checking of computerised records of pawn and second-hand dealing with police records of stolen property will achieve maximum results. That process will occur only if all electronically recorded licensee transactions are transmitted to the Police Service. Yesterday the Minister admitted that the software specifications are still being developed. However, I assume that they will be in place when the legislation takes effect on 1 January 1999. The Minister also gave an assurance that further consultation with the pawnbroking and second-hand dealing industry will occur. The concerns of the industry should be satisfied as it will be consulted on the computerisation specifications at meetings to take place within a few weeks. I hope that between the second-hand dealers, the pawnbrokers and the police, and with the Government’s co-ordination, an efficient system will be in place.

If the requirement to send computerised records every 24 hours is too onerous, I am sure it can be reviewed. That requirement is not applicable
Page 5251
to all second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers but only to those whose gross receipts for the previous financial year totalled $150,000 or less. However, people are debating whether $150,000 is a realistic figure and it may need to be reviewed. Some pawnbrokers say it should be as low as $10,000 or $20,000 and others are not so certain. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill. The Government is on the right track and something needs to be done. Another related problem is drug addicts, particularly those addicted to heroin, who steal goods to get a quick supply of cash to buy drugs. Our policy has always been not to water down current laws, as has been suggested recently by Dr Wodak in his articles and by others in authority. I believe Dr Wodak is going in the wrong direction, which will lead to increased social problems. The bill deals in a practical way with the large amount of stealing that occurs and I trust it will help to reduce it.

The Hon. R. S. L. JONES [9.36 p.m.]: I support the bill and I congratulate the Hon. Brian Langton for introducing it when he was Minister. I have a personal interest in pawnbrokers: I have had to buy back goods that were stolen from my house from several pawnbrokers. Recently the person next door to my Manly house had to buy back his compact disks that were stolen. My stepdaughter had to buy back her CDs that were stolen. For many years pawnbrokers have been clearing houses for stolen goods - and there is no doubt that they still are.

I support the tightening up of the system, something about which I urged the Hon. Ted Pickering some years ago. A gradual tightening up has occurred. A number of sting operations have shown that pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers are indeed clearing houses. If no market existed for stolen goods people would have no reason to steal goods. Clearly when the market is being provided by pawnbrokers and second-hand dealers many people, particularly young people who are addicted to heroin, as Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile said, will break into people’s homes, steal their goods and fence them through pawnbrokers. The tighter the legislation the less people will have to fear that their homes will be broken into.

Photo identification may be appropriate for people who pawn goods over a certain value. Such a provision could be included in the regulations. In addition, a polaroid system could be used to photograph the items brought into the pawnbroker. It would be simple to scan such photographs into the computer and e-mail them to the police, if necessary. If it were not possible to e-mail the photo, the original could be sent to the police.

The people who stole the goods from me were so befuddled on heroin that they actually gave their correct address and were tracked down and arrested. The same thing happened to the people next door to me in Manly: they identified the goods, the people who pawned them gave their correct address, they were arrested and they are now in Long Bay Gaol. The same thing happened with my step-daughter: the offenders gave their correct address and were arrested. On the three occasions on which I have had a brush with pawnbrokers, through various friends and relatives, the perpetrators of the crimes have been arrested.

Many times people are not arrested, but the more often they are arrested and put away the happier my neighbours and I will be. My neighbours on both sides have been broken into three times over the past few months. I am fortunate that my fortress has not been broken into yet; no doubt my time will come, again. I urge the Minister to look at the provisions of the bill and ensure that the regulations are tight. I ask the Minister to consider a photo identification system for both the sellers and the goods. I ask the Minister, in his reply, to let me know whether that is possible.

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [9.40 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. All of their ideas will be taken on board by the department. I regret that I am not in a position to respond immediately to the suggestions of the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. I will consider them rather than attempt an ex tempore response. I thank honourable members for their support for the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.