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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2199 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I undertake to report back to the Assembly, well before a trial commences, with details concerning the nature of the guidelines and other aspects of the trial. Mr Speaker, I believe that, if we do not take the opportunity now to explore the potential of CCTV, we may well be denying ourselves the advantage of an effective and powerful crime prevention measure.

MR MOORE (3.27): Mr Speaker, I rise to comment on the Government's paper and to move an amendment to Mr Humphries's motion. In fact, I will move that amendment now, and then speak to it. I move:

After "That the Assembly takes note of the paper" add "and, in noting the paper, this Assembly requires the Government to refrain from any implementation of surveillance cameras that is not in accordance with all the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs report `The Electronic Eye' ".

In Mr Humphries's speech, he made a great deal of the notion that, when it comes to closed-circuit television in public, we need to do a trial and not get bogged down in excessively burdensome problems about complaints and about complex legislation that deals with the protection of civil liberties. Mr Humphries went on to say that details need to be sorted out as part of a trial so that we can understand what is going on.

The Standing Committee on Legal Affairs travelled widely in looking at closed-circuit television and how it was used. The results of their widespread research said that we have to be very careful about the safety issues. We have to be very careful about the civil liberties aspects and we really ought not to proceed unless we have in place some very careful protections. Those protections are the very things that this Government wants to reject and that Mr Humphries, of all people, wants to reject. I have known Mr Humphries to stand up on many occasions to seek the protection of people's civil liberties. Now he says, "No, we will put them aside for a trial".

It was an excellent report. When the Legal Affairs Committee took on the issue of cameras, I thought, "I am never going to be able to agree with this report because, basically, I cannot see how we can possibly protect people's civil liberties and have surveillance cameras in a public place". The committee looked at the full range of issues. I congratulate the chairman - Mr Osborne - Mr Kaine and Ms Follett. When Ms Follett said to me, "I think, Michael, you will not find the report so bad", I said, "I think, Rosemary, that there is little chance that I will ever support any form of closed-circuit television". In fact, when I read the report I said, "Yes, I could make a compromise of this kind". I could see that, perhaps, with those safety mechanisms in place, you could run something like this and there might be some benefit.

The risks are still high. We know from the experience of the Legal Affairs Committee that the privileges and responsibilities associated with the use of such things are being widely abused in other places. We simply cannot take that risk. That is why I have moved this amendment.

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