Mr DEAN (Windermere) - Mr President, I will just speak briefly on this bill. I commend the Government for bringing it forward because it has been much needed for some time. When I was a commander of police and in the job the further amendments that would be needed to this act in due course were being discussed then. I am very pleased to see them being brought in today and therefore I fully support the bill. There is no doubt that law enforcement bodies or people involved in that in this State would all support this bill and I have no doubt that all of the law-abiding citizens in this State would also support this bill in its entirety, Mr President.

We know that movement between States and Territories for the purpose of criminal activity is, unfortunately, an everyday occurrence now. Criminals have access to the cheap type of transport we all have access to; the ferries of course have promoted movement between the States as well. With the discounted air fares and technology the way it is, unfortunately the criminal element have much greater opportunities for committing crime in any State, irrespective of where they might be. To escape identification, criminals are, in many cases, itinerants, as I said, attempting to avoid apprehension by continual movement, whilst at the same time continuing in their nefarious ways and criminal activities, and therefore there is the need for this type of legislation for police to be able to keep abreast of what is going on.

Listening to and intercepting phone calls is of paramount importance to police in identifying serious crime and criminals. The Listening Devices Act, as we all should know, relates only to serious criminal activity. Some people might ask, Mr President, what constitutes serious criminal activity. In this regard, there is a real safety mechanism here because it is a matter for the magistrate to determine whether or not a crime fits into that category. So it is not a matter for the police, the police do not make the decision to take out these listening devices, it is a matter for an independent person, and in this case a magistrate has that opportunity and that right to determine whether or not a crime fits into that category. So there are safety mechanisms there to ensure that the right thing occurs, and I am not suggesting for a minute that the police would not do the right thing but I am saying you have that other body there to make that decision.

I guess after all is said and done, what Tasmania Police are doing is ensuring that all weapons to combat crime are available to them; that is what they are trying to do. They want to make sure they have everything that is necessary for them to combat crime, that they have access to it. Indeed, would not the Tasmanian community want that? The law-abiding people certainly would and therefore I do support the bill. The amendment makes this act far more workable, it contemporises the legislation, and if it does not put us in front of the criminals, at least it puts us on a fairly even keel with the criminals. Trying to get ahead of them is not always that easy, Mr President, but at least it does even up the playing field much more.

I commend the Government for bringing this bill forward and I support it in its entirety.