Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 30 November 2004
Page: 22

Senator LUDWIG (1:46 PM) —Labor are not minded to support these amendments. We think that the current legislation adequately covers the issue. Perhaps this can best be explained in this way. If there is going to be a balance struck between an invasion by the law enforcement officer of the privacy of an individual, and that is the point at which it is going to be dealt with or done at, the warrant should cover the range of devices that might be utilised in that circumstance. You could imagine a prudent law enforcement officer taking both a digital camera and a film camera to ensure that they obtained the evidence in the one go, so to speak, rather than trying to obtain separate warrants for two different devices.

It brings it to a position where we are talking about the technical devices rather than what the legislation seeks to do. The legislation seeks to authorise the use of surveillance devices to achieve an end result—an investigation in this instance—and that is balanced against the privacy concerns of an individual. The warrant should not attach to the devices themselves because devices might change over time, they might vary. It might also mean that cameras get smaller and that an officer might take two digital cameras in the future and no film camera to make sure he gets the shot he particularly wants. Technology might change to such an extent where you get combinations of binoculars and cameras, and other combinations that I have not yet thought of. The real issue is the act of doing the investigation and the warrant to cover that particular point.