Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 998 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
This recommendation was adopted by the Government; however I do not know whether the Attorney has informed the Assembly about what action has been taken on this eminently sensible recommendation. As members would be aware, 31/2 years have passed since the making of the recommendation, and it would be interesting to know whether or not any research has been conducted in relation to the operation of surveillance cameras around Australia, and whether or not the results of such research have been analysed or are available.
Recommendation 5 of the committee's inquiry canvassed proper codes of practice. The committee recommended, and I quote:
that the Government ensure an adequate Code of Practice is developed prior to introducing a CCTV system. The Committee would appreciate seeing the Code of Practice before it is adopted in its final form. The Committee believes that the Independent Auditor/Ombudsman would be the appropriate person to develop the Code of Practice, perhaps in conjunction with the Australian Privacy Commissioner.
Mr Speaker, the Bill that I am presenting today embodies a model code of practice. The Bill is now available for public scrutiny and comment on all parts of it, including the code of practice. The Privacy Commissioner has had some input into the code of practice, in that I approached his office for advice and guidance when preparing the drafting instructions. I have also had the advantage of perusing the Privacy Commissioner's 1991 guidelines on overt surveillance.
As I mentioned, Mr Speaker, they are the 1991 guidelines issued by the Privacy Commissioner on overt surveillance. The guidelines were prepared five years before "The Electronic Eye - Inquiry into the Efficacy of Surveillance Cameras" report, which is the report of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, and eight years before the Attorney-General's first attempt at a draft set of guidelines. Recommendation 6 of "The Electronic Eye" report was "that the Government ensure signs are clearly visible to advise the public that a CCTV system is operating in the area". Surveillance camera principle No. 4 in Schedule 1 to the Bill that I am tabling today, Mr Speaker, gives effect to the recommendation and expands on it.
The principle contains a requirement that, if a camera is to be used only for a particular period, a notice must be prominently published in a daily newspaper in the ACT, in addition to having the fixed sign. Recommendation 7 was that the Government "ensure that the system" - presumably the system of surveillance in Civic, which was a particular focus of that committee inquiry - "is monitored by properly qualified people employed by the ACT Government or the AFP". Clause 2 of the model surveillance camera code in schedule 2 to the Bill requires that surveillance camera operators not be merely technically proficient in the operation of the equipment, but that they are trained to ensure that they have the "ability to avoid undue infringements of privacy or other rights of persons" and "competence to ensure that only material relevant to the purpose"
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .