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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 513 ..

MS TUCKER: I did not say, "Absolutely, yes" at all, and I am afraid that that is where there is a misunderstanding.

Mr Humphries: Well, it sounded to me like you did.

MS TUCKER: Well, I did not. I would not, because I had not looked at the other side of the issue. We never say yes straightaway, unless it is an issue that we have prior knowledge of. We certainly had not had a lot to do with these sorts of issues before, but since that time we have looked into it.

The information that you have given me today has been helpful. I am interested that you are so keen to see this go ahead. I was waiting to hear what you had to say today. You have a very clear description of how this trial will occur. A lot of the comments in the report that you gave me are quite negative. I quote:

Research findings are sometimes aggressively promoted by commercial interests and security companies alike. The evaluation of any crime prevention program is problematic, because of the nature of crime data collection with such problems as under-reporting, inflated police statistics as a result of blitz operations, and the like. When the behaviours being evaluated are street offences, evaluation becomes even more difficult.

I will not read through the whole of this. The main points that I noticed in the brief time I have had to look at it are that apparently research suggests that when these cameras are in public places, as you said, premeditated crimes are less likely to occur, small drug deals are not usually affected, and their effectiveness for evidentiary purposes varies according to a number of factors, which were listed. The premeditated crimes which no longer occur in the public places happen elsewhere. There are privacy concerns. You mentioned a code of practice. I want to see what that is.

Mr Humphries: We have to develop it.

MS TUCKER: This is what we want to see before we support a proposal. Who uses the equipment? Where is it placed? Who controls the monitoring? Who controls the recording? Who has access to the recording and by what authority or process? How long are tapes stored? Is recording and monitoring carried out by trained staff in a discreet location? What accountability measures are in place to monitor adherence to guidelines? How much is the presence of cameras publicised? To what degree could cameras be used for purposes other than crime control, such as protests? The question of liability was also raised. Other jurisdictions have raised the problem of liability because, if an incident is videotaped and the response of the monitoring staff or police is found wanting, these people can be found liable. It can lead to overzealous attention to filmed areas to the detriment of others.

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