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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 512 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

ACT in the broad view of other people. Cameras might have made a difference in cases such as that. If cameras had been there, a contemplated crime of assault of that seriousness might not have occurred, and I think it is worth finding out whether that would have been the case.

I say again to those opposite who moved this motion: If you think this is not the right way to go, what do you see as the alternatives? They say that extra police have been a good thing. I might point out to them that the extra police were provided only when the change of government occurred. It has taken a long time to get to this point. There had to be a Liberal government to put that in place, but it is clearly not enough. There are still things happening in our community which need to be responded to, and I, for one, believe that it is incumbent on us to do just that. Let me also say: If they are seriously concerned about these things, let us then proceed to see how it works. A code of practice, I believe, should be put in place for the police who monitor the cameras. That code of practice should indicate that no use of the cameras should be made other than for the prevention and detection of crime. It gives rise in my mind to the question of what other things one would do in a public place that ought not to be photographed, but that is another matter altogether.

I think the trial ought to go ahead. I think it ought to be done. I do not think it should be done at this time next year. Our problem is here and now. The shopkeepers of Civic have urged constantly for this to happen. The police are very firmly of the view that it should happen. I think, Mr Speaker, we should not stand in the way of that happening.

MS TUCKER (4.08): I still do not know how this trial is going to be run. I got some information from Mr Humphries. He thinks that he has spoken to the Greens and that we did support this proposed trial, but there was obviously a misunderstanding. What I said, Mr Humphries, when you first flagged it with us, was that we were not going to object to it totally in principle; but we assumed that you would get back to us with some information, because the Greens tend to research issues. We had already been researching it because you had mentioned it to some degree, but we had not heard anything from you about details. I received them before question time today when I heard that you had made statements in the media that this was going ahead.

Mr Humphries: You asked for them only today, Kerrie. That is why.

MS TUCKER: That is right. We asked for them today because it was actually announced in the media. We expect to be given more information on an issue and to have some notice of the fact that it is going to come up.

Mr Humphries: How was I supposed to know if you did not tell me?

MS TUCKER: I would have thought it was obvious that if you are lobbying people for support on an issue you give them some information. That is what we normally do in this place.

Mr Humphries: Not when they say yes.

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