Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 506 ..

Mr Kaine: Boy, do we have a couple of different standards!

Mr Hird: Two rules.

MS FOLLETT: We have seen that occurring, regrettably, all too often. Mr Speaker, I really do resent your lack of action in respect of the thugs opposite. I would appreciate your calling them to order.

MR SPEAKER: Order! I thought they were talking among themselves, to be perfectly honest. Continue, Ms Follett.

MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, having just repeated one large part of the argument, I think that if they did stop talking amongst themselves and paid a bit of attention we would all save a bit of time. Putting security cameras or other forms of surveillance into an area where there is a known risk is a very different proposition from putting a similar surveillance arrangement into an area that is in general use by the general public going about their lawful business and their own private lives.

I believe that this issue is one that both the community and this Assembly need to weigh very carefully before we take action that would impose surveillance upon people's private lives, and that is what the proposition being put forward by Mr Humphries involves. I think it is a very different proposition. There could be consequences from the action proposed by Mr Humphries that are both unforeseen and undesirable. The first consequence that comes to my mind is that putting surveillance cameras in Civic may simply shift any criminal activity or any problems from the area where the cameras are to other areas. If you put the cameras, for instance, on the footpath and the general pedestrian walkways in Civic, I know full well that there are plenty of little alleys around Civic to which people could well retreat in order to conduct illegal activity.

I also realise that, should Civic have a reputation for being under surveillance, people who wish to conduct illegal activity or to behave in a way that they know to be outside the law will simply move somewhere else, probably to Manuka or Dickson or somewhere else close by, where they can engage in illicit activity, if that is their intention in going into Civic. You could simply find that you are shifting the problem away from the areas in Civic where it might easily be observed and dealt with by police into areas which are far less easily observed or to another geographic area of Canberra, and that is no solution at all.

Another problem that occurred to me was that these cameras are of no use whatsoever unless there are sufficient police at the other end to counteract any criminal activity that might be taking place. I do not believe that the cameras should in any way be used as a substitute for a police presence in Civic. Over the past few weeks we have seen, I am reliably informed, an increased police presence in Civic and, in my opinion, that increased police presence has led to an appreciable improvement in the conduct and the level of crime that is occurring in Civic. It seems to me that there is simply no substitute for seeing a policeman or a policewoman on the beat going about their duty of keeping the peace, whether it is in Civic or elsewhere. A security or surveillance camera without that police presence is just a toy. It is just an invitation to graffiti or vandalism; nothing more.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .