Subsection 4(2) which provides for the return of payments to participants in certain cases and certain conditions, seems to provide for a situation that should only be regarded as needing interference for a transition period rather than something that will always require attention. Perhaps the Minister could explain precisely what is intended, or the circumstances intended in subsection (2), because it seems to be more appropriate to a transition problem rather than a problem in the long term. Just to clarify the position: it provides for compensation for one of the parties where the value of the goods has deteriorated while in the participant's hands.
If we are serious about making this a criminal offence, we should not be out to compensate people who insist, in the future, in participating and promoting such schemes. The recipient, if I understand the definition correctly, is either the original promoter or the person who promotes next to the participant himself. He is the person who received the money, he has handed on goods for it. He is participating in an illegal activity. This section proposes to enable the money to be paid back and the goods to be returned, but where the goods have deteriorated the promoter should be compensated. It is completely against public policy that such a person who is insisting on engaging in criminal activity should be compensated in this way. I would ask that it be removed. Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of it.