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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 3601 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

efficacy of surveillance cameras. The opening paragraph, which indicates the provenance of the inquiry, says:

The origin of the inquiry arose from an approach by a private security company (Wormald Security) to the Attorney-General, Mr Gary Humphries, MLA. The Company offered the free use of surveillance cameras (known in the security industry as closed circuit television or CCTV) for a specified time to conduct a trial in Civic.

Of course, that is the case. That was the origin of the inquiry, and it was that which led then, after the government-led inquiry report was produced, to the government actually implementing security cameras in Civic.

I might say that one of the reasons the trial was not immediately implemented after the report was tabled was that the committee recommended there be comprehensive privacy legislation incorporating penalties for breaches of video surveillance protocols and that there be a government-appointed independent auditor or ombudsman with powers to audit the system-both random and specific-period audits-and investigate complaints.

The government of the day felt, I think quite reasonably, that that was an onerous and unacceptable burden to put in place a scheme in Civic, and I note that, despite supporting that recommendation, the new government has not in fact put those mechanisms in place to overview the position of security cameras in Civic.

I also want to respond to a remark made today, again by the Chief Minister, about the Gungahlin Drive extension. Once again, the government mouthed the shibboleth that the ACT Liberal opposition is blocking, holding up the advent of Gungahlin Drive extension by virtue of its opposition to the government's plans.

Mr Speaker, I put on the record, yet again, for all to hear, that the ACT Liberal opposition is not opposed to and will not take any steps to hold up the building of Gungahlin Drive extension. If the government proceeds to build the western route, while the opposition will maintain its view that that is the wrong decision, it will not take steps to hold up the implementation of that decision.

The basis on which the government is maintaining in the public at large that somehow the Liberals are holding this up in the Assembly, preventing it from proceeding, is that we express opposition to the government's plans. That is perfectly true. We do oppose the government's plans, but I think it is wrong to characterise that as somehow holding up the advent of the road. If we accept for a moment the argument that opposing equals holding up, or preventing from proceeding, then the question needs to be asked: did not the then Labor opposition, which opposed our plans for six years in this place, by the same measure, also hold up the advent of the road? It opposed our plans for the eastern route consistently for the whole of six years.

Clearly, that is a nonsense. Clearly, a party is entitled to express its opposition to something without necessarily stopping it from happening. The government has put no motion, no proposal, no budget before the Assembly which has been opposed by this opposition to prevent the advent of that road. The only reasons the road might be held up are possibly the going through of certain procedures at the federal level, pursuant to federal legislation, or that the government here has yet to make a decision in this

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