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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2201 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

He was, I believe, prepared to wait for this report to be tabled. I seem to recall him saying that he would wait on action until it came in. Now he wants to move away from that, simply because the report does not satisfy him. That is not good enough. Let us follow the recommendations in this report and let us put a hold on what the Minister proposes to do.

MR OSBORNE (3.36): I will be supporting this amendment moved by Mr Moore to Mr Humphries's motion, for a couple of reasons. The first is that we went through a very long process in the Legal Affairs Committee in regard to the report entitled The Electronic Eye. The committee was handed this issue of surveillance cameras because the Government raised it last year at a time when it did not have the numbers on the floor of the Assembly to go ahead with them. At the time, I indicated my support for surveillance cameras, and that support still stands. However, at the time we did not have the numbers on the floor of the Assembly even to get a trial up, so we took it on in the Legal Affairs Committee.

At the time, the committee was made up of Ms Follett, who is no longer here, Mr Kaine and me. The three of us travelled to Queensland to look at cameras in operation. The pleasing thing for me was that every one of the members on that committee, when they went into this inquiry, moved a certain amount of ground. Their opinions changed somewhat after undertaking this inquiry. I must admit that my blind devotion to surveillance cameras was watered down a little bit after I had seen them in operation, because I could see some of the real dangers. I still support them and I think they can be a tremendous tool, especially for the police; but I can see the potential dangers that they pose.

Without telling tales out of school, I can say that Ms Follett moved a certain amount of ground as well. She was vehemently opposed to surveillance cameras prior to undertaking this inquiry, but she was sensible enough to look at the information and see that perhaps there could be some pluses in installing surveillance cameras. She moved somewhat, as did Mr Kaine, I am sure. If he rises and speaks later, he can tell us. He certainly was very interested in issues of privacy and, from memory, what actually happened to the videotapes and who controlled them. When we were looking at the cameras in one place, we realised that there were no real controls over who could gain access to the tapes. We have already seen on television on the odd occasion shows using footage from surveillance cameras in action. All three of us changed our opinions after undertaking this very lengthy inquiry.

The pleasing thing for me was that it was a unanimous report. All three members - a member of the Government, a member of the Opposition and I as a member of the crossbenches - stood up in support of the report and in support of the recommendations. I think that was a tremendous step. Prior to our undertaking this inquiry, members of the Opposition and members of the crossbenches, apart from me, were opposed to any trial of surveillance cameras. I think it was a tremendous success that we were able to set the Government on the path to having a trial of surveillance cameras.

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