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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2202 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Fundamental to this support for a trial, Mr Speaker, were the recommendations handed down by the committee. When I saw the Minister on TV after the report had been tabled in the Assembly, it was obvious to me that he had some problems with a number of the recommendations. One was the recommendation about privacy legislation, and today we heard him also raise the issue of an ombudsman. Bad luck! It was a unanimous report. There was no dissenting report from the Liberal Party member on the committee. He agreed with our recommendations. Mr Kaine agreed that for there to be a trial there needed to be privacy legislation and there needed to be an ombudsman. I do not know what motivated Mr Humphries to pull this on today. Perhaps it is the impending election and he is looking for an issue, or perhaps not.

I would like to state once again my support for surveillance cameras. I do think they can be a tremendous tool. Quite obviously, to get them through the Assembly Mr Humphries needs more numbers than there were when he tried last time, and obviously he does not have those numbers. As I said, all members on that committee moved ground; they all changed their opinion. The Assembly supported the report, and we gave you the ways to go ahead with the trial, Mr Humphries. Unfortunately, you have chosen to ignore a number of key recommendations. It is sad that we have to waste our time debating this issue when you know full well that you will not be successful.

I will be supporting Mr Moore's amendment. In doing that, I would like to reassure Mr Humphries that I believe in the placement of surveillance cameras. I think they can be a tremendous tool, but I think it would have been good if he had looked at our recommendations or if he had had the courtesy to address the Legal Affairs Committee and raise his concerns with us. He did not do that, so unfortunately he loses once again.

MS TUCKER (3.42): The Greens also will be supporting Mr Moore's amendment. There are a few points I would raise. Mr Humphries has talked about the difficulty of dealing with privacy concerns for just a trial. As members are aware, over the last few weeks and during the Estimates Committee process, I have been asking questions of the Minister about privacy legislation in the ACT. I think this issue is a good indication of how we need overarching privacy legislation in the ACT. We also hear discussion about privacy issues related to medical records. Now we see the need to bring in this little patchy part of privacy protection, some kind of privacy protection for a trial of cameras. There are a lot of other areas where the community needs to be concerned right now about privacy issues, about practices that are already occurring in the ACT.

Fair and responsible handling of personal information is an issue of concern in 1997 in the ACT and in all other areas of Australia. The Federal Government is not taking responsibility for this in the private sector, and until there is sufficient pressure on the Federal Government to take that responsibility the onus is basically on the States and Territories. More States and Territories should take the initiative. Some of them are. I understand that Victoria is taking the initiative on IT with their electronic shopfront, and I think another State is doing something too. Obviously, it is not desirable if we have a hotchpotch of privacy legislation around Australia. As I have already said in this place,

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