Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Thursday 18 November 2010

SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS AGENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2010

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I would like to make a short contribution. I support the bill. I have made inquiries with personnel involved in this industry in the Launceston area. They accept the bill and do not have any difficulties with it but the one issue that they do often raise is the real meaning of a 'close associate'. A definition is given in here but they raised the issue with me. Just how far does it go? I am not sure that I am interpreting this correctly. While I have no real concerns with the proposed changes and bringing national consistency into this industry, concerns remain with the definition of 'close associate'. As I interpret the bill, it does not matter much who their associates are, provided they do not have a financial interest in the business or have a position to exert power or some significant influence over or with respect to the management or operation of the business.

I am not sure whether I am interpreting that correctly. Does it mean that they could have an association with another person who is a criminal or with a motorcycle gang, if that were the situation, provided that person has no interest in the business in any way whatsoever to exert any pressure on the person or any financial benefit whatsoever from that business? Is that the way it is to be interpreted? If it is, I have some grave concerns because in this business these people have a lot of trust placed in them, they carry firearms; it is now legal for them to have dogs for carrying out their business as well. They are in a very powerful position and we know, unfortunately, that many of them do go wrong. I can refer to a case that most of us would be familiar with, and that is the Dakin case at Launceston where he, in fact, was a police officer in his previous profession and held very responsible positions. He then became involved in security work and went off the rails and was convicted of a number of crimes. I have some concerns if that is the way this is to be interpreted; that a person could have that close association with a criminal but still be eligible for a licence in these circumstances. That is the issue raised by the personnel they made contact with. Perhaps there could be some clarification on that. I hope I am interpreting it wrongly.

There is evidence and there are examples of where things have gone wrong in this business on many previous occasions. Guarding with a dog, Madam President, is an interesting one because it was only recently in Launceston that I had the media make contact with me in relation to the legitimacy of a licensed person - in this instance, a security agent - to patrol with a dog. That is exactly what was happening in Launceston. The question asked of me was whether or not it was legal; whether or not it could happen; and what type of training the handler had to have in this situation. Also there were questions about the ability of a dog to carry out the tasks it was being used for at the time. This bill, as I understand, makes it legitimate for a guard dog to be used by security and investigation agents. So it brings some legitimacy to it if it was not there previously. It is an interesting issue.

The other matter I want to refer to is fingerprints and palm prints. It has always been in the principal act for the commissioner to take the fingerprints and the palm prints of an applicant for the purposes of identifying whether or not they were a suitable person. It goes a little bit further than that in this bill. What it now opens it up to is that it can be used as evidence in any legal proceedings against the person. I raise it now and I will probably raise it again in the Committee stage, Madam President, because what does that really mean? Does it mean that the fingerprint and the palm print can be used to check against that person for any previous criminal activity? Does it go that far? Does it mean that? I do not know. I will expand on that. The Leader is occupied now and may not have heard that so I will raise it again in the Committee stage.

I raise the other issue in relation to DNA. With the advances now made in technology and with the advances made in DNA, we know that DNA is a much better, clearer way of establishing the identity of a person and to match against criminal records also, and I wonder why DNA is not a consideration nationally. This is to bring this in line with national legislation and harmonising has again been referred to, which we heard a little bit about yesterday.

I raise those issues and I will be interested to see what the Leader comes back with.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.