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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3362 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

As I said before, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the big concerns raised by Terry O'Gorman, an advocate of privacy issues in Queensland, is that once cameras go in it is very hard to pull them out. One of our recommendations is that after the trial has been conducted they should be turned off. Then the committee will have a chance to assess the impact. The committee will have a chance to look at the report and make an informed decision as to whether the installation of surveillance cameras has been effective. The committee also gives notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it will be closely monitoring this trial if it goes ahead. We will also closely monitor any proposal to permanently install, expand or operate any system in the ACT.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the final recommendation, No. 11, relates to surveillance cameras already in use here in the ACT. I am sure that very few Canberrans would know of the cameras that are already operating at the Woden and Belconnen bus interchanges, the West Belconnen and Mugga Lane tips and around the Legislative Assembly building. There are no written protocols in place for these cameras. There are no signs and no legislation in place to protect the privacy of the general public. The committee has recommended that this situation be rectified immediately. I would also like to inform members that I have placed a question on notice to the Attorney-General asking where exactly in the ACT all the surveillance cameras are operating.

Madam Deputy Speaker, to sum up, it is obvious that surveillance cameras definitely do assist the police in catching criminals and detecting criminal activity. However, the committee was unable to come up with a definitive assessment of the effectiveness of surveillance cameras in preventing crime. Everywhere we went we asked for information on what the situation was like prior to the installation of the cameras and what impact they had had. The committee heard a lot of anecdotal evidence from other cities about just how good it has been. (Extension of time granted) However, much of this evidence remains unsubstantiated as there has been no comprehensive before and after evaluation done.

By the end of this inquiry the level of crime and the problem in Civic had still not been satisfactorily clarified to the committee. We asked on numerous occasions for figures that we could read and understand. We got from the Attorney-General's Department a lot of information but it was very hard to read. That is a view shared not only by me, I might add, but by the whole committee. The Australian Bureau of Statistics noted that about 70 per cent of criminal assaults in the ACT go unreported, and we were also unable to conclude how the information we had directly compared with other areas of Canberra or with other cities in Australia.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, the committee has not given the use of surveillance cameras in Civic and other parts of the ACT an unqualified thumbs up. However, we have outlined a process whereby that kind of approval may be given if the Government looks at the recommendations that we have provided. It was a very informative committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, and one that I enjoyed. It was the first media report that I have done. Having sat on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee for 18 months, I unfortunately did not have the benefit of Professor Whalan on this committee. I would have liked it at times. I would like to thank both Rosemary Follett and Trevor Kaine for their valuable input. Looking into this issue was enjoyable. I am pleased to say that we tried to approach this question on a bipartisan basis. We wanted this report to be

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