Bills

Listening and Surveillance Devices (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:23): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:24): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Liberal Party supports cross-border recognition of police surveillance operations and the enhancement of processes for police to use surveillance equipment. These enhancements are embedded in the government's Surveillance Devices Bill. In moving the second reading of the government's Surveillance Devices Bill, the minister referred to the history of the bill over the past two years in the following terms:

Ideological warriors took up absolute positions. Animal rights activists wanted to record what they thought were breaches of animal rights; farmers wanted to ban them. Insurance companies, investigation agents and their lawyers wanted to record and conduct surveillance of people, in particular those making surveillance claims. Media interests wanted no change to anything. People wanted to be able to secretly record telephone calls with their ex-spouses. Privacy interests wanted to restrict invasions of privacy by covert recording generally. These positions, strongly held, were not and are not reconcilable…

Later in the same speech the minister said:

It really is a disgrace that reform of a law about surveillance devices, long needed in this state, seems impossible to achieve in the face of opposite views being very adamant and opposite views being held by vested interests.

Clearly, even in tabling the Surveillance Devices Bill, the government was fatalistically resigned to the defeat of that bill. It was hardly surprising because the government had brought back basically the same bill that the Legislative Council rejected at the end of last year. The opposition to the bill was so well known that the government did not even bring it to the floor of the council for a vote.

There is a broad consensus that surveillance laws do need to be updated. Technology has moved on and the scope of the law has become too narrow. There is significant concern about the use of the proposed constraints in relation to the wider range of devices. The shadow attorney-general, the member for Bragg in the other place, has consulted widely and particularly with crossbenchers in this place. The consensus that has emerged is that, while the consumer-related aspects of the bill should not be supported, the police-related elements should proceed. The member for Bragg has prepared the bill which I tabled this afternoon.

The bill seeks to deliver the police-related elements of the government's bill. It is the opposition's view that police should not have to wait to have their powers updated due to the intransigence of the government. Given that these provisions were originally proposed by the government, we look forward to the government's support, and I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.