I have some concerns with two sections of this bill, and in particular the section dealing with alteration to serial numbers. I spoke to a number of the second-hand dealers within my electorate. First of all, they were extremely concerned inasmuch as until about two weeks ago they had never been consulted about this bill in any way whatsoever. I am wondering why or how that can occur. They are certainly a very interested group in this, yet it would seem that some were never consulted - and certainly those in my area. I do not know about the other areas and whether it is similar. I wonder how that can happen as a partner to this whole thing.

Regarding the section dealing with altered serial numbers, if a serial number is altered and if it is accidentally altered - and it can be by a child in your house or by a repair being made to a piece of this prescribed property - it will mean that that piece of property can never be sold through a second-hand dealer. That concerns me. We also know that serial numbers can be accidentally altered - that is, scratched through or a part of a number removed or what have you. This is a matter that was raised with me by a number of second-hand dealers in my electorate. How do we propose to get around that? I have taken some advice on what I should do in that regard and it may well be that I can move an amendment to that part of this bill to identify that it should be a deliberate destruction of the number and/or if a person is able to legitimise that item they ought to still be able to sell it through a second-hand dealer. Currently the way the act is written that is not possible, the way I interpret it. Perhaps we might be able to have that matter clarified.

The other matter I wish to raise is the matter of second-hand dealers notifying police, Mr President, at the end of a day's trading within 24 hours of their receipt of prescribed property. Some people will know - I think it was about 29 May this year it was printed in the Examiner - the position currently taken in New South Wales in relation to this legislation where they had a lot of debate on this and they have just enacted that, in fact, a second-hand dealer will have three days in which to report an item of prescribed property coming into their hands. They will have three days to report on it and that was the accepted position there. That was acceptable to police.

Perhaps that is an issue that could be looked at. The position put to me by some second-hand dealers in my area was that they can never really take a holiday, they can never really go away because it is their responsibility to have to report to the police on a daily basis prescribed property coming into their possession. We would know that some of the bigger second-hand dealers in this State would receive prescribed property on a daily basis. I also wonder whether or not the police will have their act together to be able to receive this information. I suspect they will because they would have had a part in drawing up this legislation but it will obviously place on them quite an amount of work as well. Perhaps that is a matter that could be looked at.

In essence, I will be supporting the bill. I would certainly like to see some amendment made to the alteration section and I will be looking at that myself. I think any change to the law that is likely to provide to our people out there greater protection we ought to be supporting. Crime figures for this State are currently on the downward trend and that, I think, is to the credit of Tasmania Police who are working very hard in that area. This legislation will even go further to help in that regard and I would suggest very clearly that there would be not one member of the public out there, other than those who are frequently involved in this type of activity, the stealing of property or the unlawful obtaining of property, who would be opposed to it. So I commend both the Government and the police in relation to the proposed changes but I would ask that those two issues receive some further attention, with the matter of alteration being attended to.

Mr DEAN - I have previously raised my concerns in relation to this matter. This is the 24 -hour reporting requirement of second?hand dealers to police. The concerns, as I raised earlier, are that second?hand dealers are saying that, with the amount of work that they have to do, the daily reporting of stolen property is going to cause their organisations a tremendous amount of work. They are asking for some relief in this regard and their position is that they have to retain possession of property for seven days in any event. They cannot dispose of it within seven days - that is, the purchaser of it, the second?hand dealer, cannot. So they have it there for seven days. They are asking that some consideration be given to this and that perhaps three days would be a suitable time. That is the time period that is now applying in New South Wales; they went down this path and their act has just recently been enacted, I think probably around the end of May of this year. They settled on the three-day reporting by second?hand dealers to police of prescribed property and the DVDs, chainsaws and that type of thing, TVs.

I guess the concern here in Tasmania is that we have unscrupulous people who steal property - and I am aware of this very clearly from my own knowledge. They will then off?load it to a second?hand dealer and that same night, they will jump on one of the Spirits and float off to the mainland of course. When it is reported to police, the police would not be able to catch up to the criminal when they wanted to. I understand that position. However, the unfortunate statistics are that these people will return to Tasmania in the very near future. I think it is a bonus in fact that they get rid of their property here and then get out of it. The unfortunate thing is that they will return to the State sometime or another. So police will eventually catch up with those people.

I am looking at the police side of it and I understand the reasons why police would want the information early. As a police officer, when I was there I wanted the information immediately and it does give you a better opportunity to catch up with the crook, there is no doubt about that, but it does place on the second?hand dealer an unrealistic, I think, amount of work at the end of the day. Let us be realistic here also that the biggest percentage of dealers out there are very reputable people and, as is common in life now, the people who are doing the right thing have to wear, unfortunately, some of those situations that are brought upon them by the unscrupulous people who live amongst us. They have to suffer as a result of that as well. They accept that position. They also want to make sure that there are fewer opportunities out there for people to steal property. They are not supporting the crook at all; they want to run legitimate businesses. So I would ask that consideration be given here and perhaps there is a win-win here for all parties if we could consider a 48 -hour reporting period. As the dealers said to me, that would take some pressure off them and would give them a better opportunity to do that. As I said earlier, some of these dealers will be reporting every day to police. They would be receiving something that falls within the category of prescribed property. Perhaps that can be considered.