HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 11 August 1934, Page 2

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SECOND-HAND DEALERS (From “The Mail’s’’ Parliamentary Reporter) In the House, of Representatives in moving the second reading of the Sec-ond-hand Dealers Amendment Bill, the Minister of Justice (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe) said that the House would realise the necessity for the measure. Stolen I goods were passed on and sold imme- ! diaelv after purchase, and it became difficult for the police to recover them. Considerable quantities of jewellery were stolen from dwellings and were disposed of. In future, traders would be required to keep a record, and itinerant dealers would be brought under coni trol. With a few' exceptions, such as schoolbooks, the Bill would apply to all ' second-hand goods. Thousands of bicy- | cles were stolen and altered, and they i were very difficult to recover. This 1 was hard' on young people especially. Second-hand dealers would be required to retain for one month each article they purchased, and were pro-, hibited from altering the appearance of the article. It was the opinion of the Department that it was very necessary that jewellers handling second-hand gold or silver should come under the provisions of the Bill. Mr lL McKeen (Labour, Wellington South) said that the Bill was the beginning of further inroads into the rights of local bodies. The local bodies would have to continue their inspection, vet the Government would take the f ees . If the Government was taking over the licensing of second-hand dealers local bodies should he relieved of the inspection. Mr S. G. Smith (Government, New Plymouth) said lie took it that the reason for the Bill was that some local bodies had failed ill their duty of protecting the public. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon) said that every time Mr Smith spoke was in defence of the Ministry, and it was really too bad that lie had not received his reward for it. Mr R. Semple (Labour,. Wellington East): “Ho is looking for it. He is living in hope.” , , Mr A. M. Samuel (Independent, Thames): “Is it always necessary to defend the Ministry ?’ WELLINGTON, 10th August. Mr D. G. Sullivan (Labour, Avon), thought the Bill was not necessary. He thought the fee charged to itinerant traders of five shillings would not sud the Municipal Association, which had asked the Minister of Internal Affairs for power, in some cases, to charge * fee up to £25. He suggested the Bill , should be held up until the Municipal j Association had had an opportunity of ) expressing an opinion on some of the Pl Mi- S A. Harris (Independent, Waitemata) suggested that certain firms or articles should he exempt from the pro j visions of the Bill, as it would be nn ; reasonable, in some cases, to expect a ; firm to bold goods for a month before j altering them. I Mr R. Semple (Labour, Wellington ’ East) maintained that local authorities could guard the interests of citizens just ias well as a magistrate. The Welling- ! ton' City Council regarded the Bill as I an inroad into the finances of the Couni oil. If the Government took second--1 hand dealers’ license fees, it might take , others, such as heavy traffic fees. Once i the principle was accepted by the House i there was no knowing where it would ; stop. Tlie Rt. Hon. G. W. Forbes said there I had been a good deal of complaints. ■ Goods which were stolen, and sold to ' second-hand dealers were broken up, and not able to be traced. For that reason a tightening up was required, and the granting of a license just like auctioneers, land agents, pawnbrokers, and money lenders, which would have to be obtained from a magistnte. Under the old system, some persons who siiomd | not have done so. Lad obtained licenses, i The Bill provided stricter supervision. '■ It put- the responsibility on a magis-

trate. I Mr W. E. Pany (Labour, Auckland ! Central) said the Bill would drive many dealers out of business, as they could not reasonably be expected to hold goods such as furniture, for a/ month before r-selling it. Mr M. J. Savage (Leader of the Opposition) said if persons who should not have had licenses had secured them, it ■ must have been the fault of the police, not of the local bodies, because the j local bodies granted licenses only on ■ the recommendation of the police. He would not like to say the police had failed, because he knew they were pretty keen in that work.

Mr W. A. Bodkin (Government, Central Otago) said the Government was to be commended, as there was not tlie slightest doubt" that many dishonest second-hand dealers were licensed today. Local bodies could not have carried out their duties efficiently. He thought, however, that the Bill should apply only to articles which could he substantially altered before being offered for sale. b

Mr F. Jones (Labour, Dunedin South) did not think tlie applicant would be treated as sympathetically by a magistrate and the police as he would be by a local body. J

Mr W. P. Endean (Government, Parnell) considered in view of his training a magistrate> was better fitted to say whether the license should be granted or not, than a local body b T ,S® , llol .\ ?• G- Cobbe (Minister of Justice) said it was never intended that arge articles such as a reaper and binder should be held for a month That would be attended to. He thought ocal bodies bed ~0l do™ SlVls thoroughly as they might have done -otherwise the position would not have reached the stage it had to-day. The Hl,Tse"r s ." l6 ““” d ‘ ibe