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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2198 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I am not claiming that such issues are insurmountable, but they are complex. What the report recommends is that we must, firstly, put in place complex legislation, appoint an ombudsman and involve that person in the development of a code of practice before we actually put CCTV to the test. I believe it makes more sense to trial CCTV first and, after the trial, if we decide it is worth our while to continue, then to look more closely at the type of regulatory framework we need to support the use of CCTV on an ongoing basis in public.

I want to stress, however, that the Government is not prepared to trial CCTV without guidelines to protect privacy concerns. We believe that a trial should proceed and we believe that it should be subject to a stringent set of guidelines which protect privacy concerns. But there is a vast difference between agreeing to a set of working guidelines for the purpose of conducting a trial and enacting complex legislation before a trial - legislation which is likely to impact upon the media and security industries, let alone the amateur video operator. There is also the added factor that we would have to turn around and dismantle complex legislation should a trial inform us that CCTV is not an appropriate crime prevention measure. Our intention is to test these guidelines as part of the evaluation, to measure their effectiveness in protecting privacy concerns. In this way the trial will inform us better about the type of regulatory framework necessary to support the use of CCTV in the long term.

Similarly, we believe that existing complaints mechanisms are sufficient for the purpose of a trial and it is not necessary to appoint an independent ombudsman. Again, the way complaints are handled during the trial will be an element that is evaluated. In this way the trial can inform us about future options for processing complaints and auditing the system.

Members will see from the paper that I have just tabled that the Government fully supports the other recommendations of the report. We have approached the Commonwealth with a view to funding a carefully evaluated trial on the effectiveness of closed-circuit television. We agree to implement the majority of the recommendations of the "Civic by Night" report and the "Role of Urban Design in Crime Prevention and Community Safety" report. We agree that any public place monitoring by CCTV should be undertaken by properly trained personnel. We agree that signs should be put in place to alert the public to the presence of CCTV monitoring in public places. We agree that during the period immediately following a trial, when various data is being evaluated, the trial CCTV system should be turned off. We agree that the Assembly should be fully informed of the evaluation of a trial.

I trust that the Assembly will endorse the response outlined by the Government and realise that the creation of complex legislation and the appointment of an ombudsman, for what may turn out to be for the purposes of a trial only, would be excessively burdensome. Guidelines and existing complaint mechanisms should be able to protect privacy concerns for the purposes of a trial. It is our intention, then, to commence in the coming summer, in 1997-98, a trial of CCTV in Civic on the basis which I have outlined.

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