Mr DEAN (Windermere ) - Mr President, I was debating whether or not I would get up because when I spoke on that first bill I put the position fairly clearly and this is, as I understand it, to bring us in line with national legislation right across the country and put us in a similar position to all of those other States. Really, that is all I wanted to say. I support the bill. It gives the police a very strong position from which to carry out the operations that will need to be done in the future. Very clearly, they will occur and this gives them that right to do that. Their use of the surveillance equipment now is very important in policing activity and is relied on very heavily in getting the evidence that is necessary now to carry out prosecutions against the offenders. I do not think there is anything more that I wanted to say.

I had one issue in relation to emergency authorisations and I will just mention it now and the Leader may be able to answer it for me. I have a little bit of concern that any inspector of police can authorise any constable of police, and it can be a constable just out of the academy, with the right to have a surveillance device installed. So that young constable can install a surveillance device and that device can remain in situ for up to two days before a magistrate or a judge becomes involved. I pose the question, what is the position where the device is installed for only six hours or a period less than two days? Does that mean that no approval has to be sought from a magistrate or a judge in those instances? Does it mean that an inspector of police can authorise any constable or police to put a device in anywhere for less than two days, without having to be accountable in any way whatsoever? The Leader might be able to provide some answer to that at the end of it.