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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (12 November) . . Page.. 3438 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Garema Place was a result of a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs of this Assembly chaired by Rosemary Follett.

Mr Humphries: No, it wasn't.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, it was.

Mr Humphries: We put the idea forward.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, but that was the genesis; the genesis was a committee inquiry.

Mrs Humphries: No, it wasn't.

MR STANHOPE: Yes, it was. You can claim all the credit you want, but the genesis of the use of security cameras in Garema Place was the Legal Affairs Committee chaired by Rosemary Follett, a committee which contained Paul Osborne. You will recall that that committee recommended the installation of security cameras, so there is some history for you in relation to the Labor Party's attitude to security cameras. It was a proposal that went through an Assembly committee and was recommended by that committee. I think there was a unanimous recommendation and the committee was chaired by Rosemary Follett.

At no stage did the Labor Party oppose that. What we have said and continue to say is that there are privacy issues in relation to the use of security cameras. I think, and I still hold this view, that there are real concerns about the information and privacy principles set out in the Commonwealth Privacy Act, which, as you all know, applies in the ACT, particularly with the Australian Federal Police and the use of security cameras. The information and privacy principles were drafted and introduced at a time when there wasn't a wholesale use of security cameras, particularly not in public places. I believe that there is a real issue about whether film as such falls within the description of information pursuant to the information and privacy principles set out and promulgated in the Privacy Act which does apply here in the ACT.

There are some genuine issues, Mr Stefaniak, and I think it would be derelict of you to suggest that everything is hunky-dory and you don't need to worry about the privacy implications of the use of security cameras. Having said that, it is appropriate that taxi drivers and others be protected in pursuing their livelihood by whatever technology or means is available to them, but that does not mean that we should not be alive to some other issues.

MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Stefaniak?

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Attorney, would you agree that the use of security cameras in this instance highlighted the benefits of this technology? Do you regret Labor's past reluctance to support the use of security cameras?

MR STANHOPE: I think that I have answered the first part and the second part, Mr Stefaniak. It is a ripper of a question. Yes, I just said that I support the use of security cameras in a range of circumstances. No, we were never reluctant in our support for security cameras. We have simply adopted an attitude in relation to security cameras that

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