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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (6 November) . . Page.. 3687 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That was the report that we were talking about at the time. Since that time Mr Humphries has written to me. He wrote to me on 16 October and pointed out that he had been made aware of possibly unintended consequences of the passage of that motion which required urgent consideration, and I think this is a sensible time to resolve the issue as I see it. He said this:

From time to time, the Australian Federal Police use video or still photographic equipment to assist in evidence-gathering for offences, which may range from covert surveillance of places which intelligence indicates are prominent for drug deals or other crimes, to overt surveillance in the case of demonstrating the effects of substantial breaches of occupancy loadings.

Mr Speaker, I must say that I have a view about how those cameras ought to be used under those circumstances. My view is that, when the police wish to use cameras that can record sound as well, there ought to be a warrant involved, unless it is a case where a royal commission is investigating major crime. The Wood royal commission used these sorts of cameras very successfully, but it effectively was given a warrant by the New South Wales Parliament. I will continue with what Mr Humphries said. I quote:

I am concerned that the motion passed by the Assembly may actually require the Government to direct the Australian Federal Police to cease this practice and this would compromise the gathering of evidence in some criminal investigations ... The debate of the motion did not specifically canvass this issue and I am therefore keen to clarify members' intent before issuing any directions to the Australian Federal Police.

Mr Speaker, I think it is important to clarify this issue. In putting the motion and supporting it, I certainly had no intention that it should have wider ramifications. We were talking specifically about the notion of some public surveillance cameras, the sort that were referred to in the Assembly. From my perspective I would say to Mr Humphries that he should go ahead and issue his direction. We should have another debate, however, about whether or not there should be warrants required for this sort of use of video cameras; but that is a debate for another time. It was never my intention to interfere with that sort of use of cameras. It was my intention, and I would interpret that it was the Assembly's intention, to deal with the issues that have been raised in terms of electronic surveillance cameras placed in public areas.

I hope that clarifies what Mr Humphries has said and gives him the appropriate wherewithal to be able to issue his directive on that issue. Perhaps other members might comment in the same way. However, I still think the motion we passed with reference to surveillance cameras used in public ought be followed very carefully. I think the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs came up with a very sensible way of dealing with something that to me was unacceptable. They said, "If you have these safeguards in place, then this could be an acceptable method".

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