Page 4388 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have made clear that the Greens support the road safety goals of this legislation, but we did have issues with the way this bill proposed to collect and deal with potentially private data. I asked the government to consult the federal Information Commissioner. I also wrote to the ACT human rights commissioner about my concerns. The human rights commissioner wrote back, flagging various issues with the bill and making suggestions for improvement. The issues addressed by the commissioner parallel those that were raised by the Greens.
I think this has been a very good process and will result in a better bill. This is yet another time that the human rights commissioner has done a service for the Assembly and I want to put on the record my thanks to the human rights commissioner and her office.
For the record, I would also like to table the letter from the human rights commissioner that assesses this bill.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Excuse me, Ms Bresnan, you will need leave to table that.
MS BRESNAN: Sorry, I do apologise. I seek leave to table the letter from the human rights commissioner that assesses the bill.
Leave granted.
MS BRESNAN: Thank you. I present the following paper:
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2011—Copy of letter from the Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner to the Attorney-General, dated 13 September 2011.
The commissioner raised issues about the limited controls and constraints on the use of data collected under the point-to-point camera regime. The commissioner also raised issues about the potential for data abrogation, the potential for facial recognition from forward facing cameras and the potential for broader uses of the data under other laws.
I have been engaged in considerable negotiation with the government in order to ensure this bill and explanatory statement are amended to address these concerns. I want to acknowledge that the government has been very cooperative in preparing a revised explanatory statement. It now covers several issues that we asked to be clarified and addressed. These include a discussion about the potential for function creep and data abrogation, a discussion about front facing cameras and facial recognition technology and a discussion about the technical necessity to store images for 14 days.
I think we now have a thorough explanatory statement that covers the important, often very vexed issues that have arisen in the context of this technology. The specific amendment we are now discussing responds to a concern of the Greens and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video