Page 1582 - Week 06 - Thursday, 3 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
PAWNBROKERS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
Debate resumed from 26 April 1990, on motion by Mr Collaery:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MS FOLLETT (Leader of the Opposition) (11.29): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition will not be opposing the Pawnbrokers (Amendment) Bill. It is not a controversial Bill, as far as I am able to make out. It merely regulates the trade and business of pawnbroking. It requires pawnbrokers to be licensed, it requires them to keep records of pledges and pledged articles, and it also adds to the protection of owners of articles which have been pledged. It is a Bill that we can support, and I do not think I need to spend any great time on it except to indicate that we do have some amendments to the penalty provisions contained in the Bill. They will be moved at the appropriate time.
MR DUBY (Minister for Finance and Urban Services) (11.30): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government welcomes the support given to this Bill by the Opposition. I have been advised that it has no objection to the amendments. The amendments, as proposed, seem fair and reasonable and we will support those amendments as put up by the Opposition. Accordingly, we welcome that support and look forward to the Bill being passed.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (11.31): May I have the indulgence of the Chair for a moment, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take it that there are no further speakers on the Bill.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it there are no further speakers. There are some amendments.
MR COLLAERY: Yes. I understand those amendments have been circulated. The Government supports those amendments. They have been received at short notice, and I thank my Law Office for quickly consulting on the issues that the increases in penalties raise. Of course, an issue always associated with penalties, as my colleague Mr Connolly knows, is that there is a legislative drafting procedure of compatibility across other pieces of legislation. I think it is probably timely to say that it is a useful addition to the program, put forward by Mr Connolly, and it points the way towards further reforms needed in the area of penalty upgrading and revision in the Territory.
The real basis to the Bill before the house is the fact that the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances wrote, as far back as 18 September 1985, to Lionel Bowen, the then Attorney-General, and expressed a number of concerns about the need to remove strict liability provisions appearing in ACT legislation and in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .