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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3360 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Madam Deputy Speaker, is that no substantive before and after research has ever been done in this country. Offhand, I do not think there has ever been any academic or scientific basis for the installation of cameras. The use of surveillance cameras is rapidly expanding across the country, usually based on perceptions and on enthusiastic sales pitches. It is time for us all to know whether they really work in preventing crime.

Recommendation 2 requests that the Government reconsider the recommendations contained in the "Civic by Night" and the "Role of Urban Design in Crime Prevention and Community Safety" reports. Madam Deputy Speaker, in his presentation speech to the Assembly for the latter report, Mr Humphries commented:

Worldwide research has documented links between crime prevention and the physical design, management and planning of facilities and urban areas. The study sets out to identify those elements of urban design which contribute to crime and anti-social behaviours, or give rise to perceived fears of crime, with the aim of formulating advisory design guidelines for future planning, building and development.

The committee agrees with what Mr Humphries said, but we would like to see the Government reconsider the recommendations in that report.

Recommendations 3 to 7 require the Government to enact privacy legislation and to appoint an independent ombudsman with powers to investigate complaints before any trial of surveillance cameras is under way here in the ACT. Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the biggest issues for everyone on the committee, I think, and one of the underlying themes through the submissions that we received, revolved around these issues, especially the issue of privacy. The argument was put forward that once people go out into the public they no longer have that right to privacy. It was a view that the committee disagreed with. We feel it very important that the rights and the privacy of the individual be assessed and that some legislation be put in place to protect those rights before a trial goes ahead.

In Great Britain there are approximately 200,000 video surveillance cameras in some 250 town centres, all of which are not subject to privacy legislation. With less than two-thirds of those cameras even being covered by a code of practice, it is little wonder that the video Caught In The Act - footage often seen on television, I believe, not long ago - contained material of a very intrusive and personal nature and is now a best-seller. I understand that this video sold 80,000 copies in the first three weeks, which is not bad at $15 a piece. The lack of adequate privacy laws in that country is further emphasised by the fact that the footage used in this video was lawfully obtained from private security companies who were supposedly working under strict protocols.

Here in Australia, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Federal Privacy Act does not cover video surveillance cameras, which means that any existing code of practice arrangements are only arbitrary and not legally binding as well. I once heard it said that rules without consequences are only good advice. That certainly seems to apply in this situation.

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