Second-Hand Goods Bill [B2-2008]: deliberations

Meeting report

The Chair said that the purpose of the meeting was for committee members to voice their concerns about the Bill and ask questions of clarity. A clause by clause summary of the Bill was needed so that Members could brief their Provinces. He mentioned that Members of Parliament had contacted him after the briefing meeting with concerns that the Bill was going to further disadvantage the already disadvantaged that relied on second-hand goods. He wondered if the Bill would indirectly disadvantage the poor because of unintended consequences.

Dr Phillip Jacobs (SAPS: Head of Legal Services) referred Members to the definition of a “dealer” in clause 1. It stated that a “dealer” was defined as a person who carried on a business of dealing in second-hand goods; this included a scrap metal dealer and a pawnbroker. A person who collected cans and bottles for the purpose of selling these to a recycler was not in the business of second-hand goods. People who were in the business of second-hand goods would have to register their businesses. Also, second-hand goods that were valued below R100 would be exempted from the Act. Dr Jacobs said that he was convinced that people who were dependent on second-hand goods would not be negatively affected.

The Chair asked how accessible the registration process would be.

Mr N Mack (Western Cape, ANC) was worried that R100 was too small an amount for collectors who employed assistants to help collect second-hand goods.

Dr Jacobs explained that the R100 was just to reduce the number of items that had to be registered. Registration meant that a record of goods valued at over R100 had to be kept. Those that collected cans and bottles were not in a business and therefore did not have to register.

Registration was a convenient method of strengthening capacity in policing second-hand goods. Dr Jacobs stated that there would be additional capacity made available in policing.

Mr S Shiceka (Gauteng, ANC) asked if the cost of implementing the Bill had already been evaluated. He was concerned that the Bill would be passed but that there would be no capacity to implement it. Also, if an individual had a criminal record, he could be refused registration as a dealer. Preventing some people to be dealers meant that they were not allowed to participate in the private sector. The Committee could not expect people to survive that way.

Dr Jacobs explained that the Bill had been amended so that it only disqualified those who had committed a serious crime. They wanted to focus on serious dishonesty as a disqualifier. The same approach was used with the Firearms Control Bill.

Mr Z Ntuli (Kwazulu-Natal, ANC) told Members that they were to look at the intention of the Bill. The Bill would prevent people from selling stolen goods. He wondered if there were currently any preventative measures in place to stop the sale of stolen goods.

Mr Jacobs stated that there were a number of obligations that a “dealer” had to fulfill. They were to report stolen goods or goods that were tampered with to the police. Also, if they became suspicious of someone selling goods then they were to report the person to the police.

Mr Shiceka stated that a report was needed to inform the Committee of the capacity that was available for the implementation of the Bill. It was prudent that the Committee was informed of the required infrastructure. It was their task as parliamentarians to analyse the Bill with the public’s views in mind. The intention of the Bill was noble and just but the Committee had to identify and improve parts of the Bill where there were weaknesses.

Mr Mack was of the opinion that the Bill was definitely going to affect the poor, especially those in the rural areas. It was important to distinguish between a “collector” and a “dealer”. The focus of the Bill should be on preventative measures to ensure that the “dealer” did not buy stolen goods. More flexibility in terms of the poor was needed. He asked how metro police, municipalities and municipal enforcement would fit in to the framework of the Bill.

Dr Jacobs said that he did not think that the R100 was to be seen as a determining factor. If someone sold an item to a dealer, it did not mean that they automatically became a dealer. So the focus was on the dealer, not the collector.

Mr A Manyosi (Eastern Cape, ANC) commented that it was a process that required a lot of diligence. He wanted to know what the “dealer” was to do if s/he thought that an item was stolen.

Dr Jacobs replied that Clause 21 said that if the dealer suspected that the item was stolen, then s/he would have to report it to the police immediately. Clause 38 implied that any official of the state could assist the police in applying the Bill. A dealer did not need to have proof in order to report a case to the police. They could report on the basis of reasonable suspicion.

The Chair asked if the dealer should report it to the nearest police station or were there to be specified officials that they would need to approach.

Dr Jacobs replied that the report could be made at station level.

Mr Mack stated that there were some people who stole jewellery and melted it down so that it was beyond recognition. This seemed to be a gap in the Bill. He asked how that would be dealt with.

Dr Jacobs replied that there would be an additional regime to deal with special metals. Those in the business of special metals were to be registered. People were not allowed to possess the equipment used to melt metals if they were not registered. The Bill would not be able to close all the gaps, but it opened up a new avenue of policing that was not currently available.

The Chair noted that Members were supposed to brief their provinces on the Bill on the 16 May 2008, however this was not feasible. He would liaise with the NCOP Provincial Liaison Office about a date for the briefing. He concluded that the Bill was straightforward and clear and should not pose any problems to those in the provincial legislatures.

The meeting was adjourned.