Page 4391 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Ms Bresnan’s amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment No 1 agreed to.
Mr Corbell’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Proposed new clause 15A, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Proposed new clause 16A.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.54): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name which inserts a new clause 16A [see schedule 4 at page 4414].
This amendment would place a positive obligation on the government to ensure that the traffic cameras are rear facing in as many situations as possible. In situations where they need to be front facing for operational reasons, they must avoid taking the photos of drivers. This amendment recognises that these traffic cameras are primarily used for a specific purpose; that is, traffic and speed enforcement. The regime should therefore be set up to achieve this goal, not to collect more information than needed.
I also propose this amendment in recognition that new technologies, particularly facial recognition technology, exist and are being used by governments. If the ACT wants to introduce facial recognition, as it exists in the UK, which has developed a facial images national database, then that is a future debate. It is one that will require very thorough community input, consideration of new laws as well as changes to laws.
In the meantime, in this legislation that is about recognising the numberplates of vehicles that speed, we should specify that the cameras only take photos of numberplates. If the intention is to capture faces, this should only be changed at a later date, following appropriate debate.
Lastly, I would point out the comments from both the Information Commissioner and the human rights commissioner which support this amendment. The Information Commissioner noted that the bill’s explanatory statement says that point-to-point cameras would not capture the faces of drivers or others on the road. It says:
The OAIC suggests that if this is the intention it should be expressly articulated in the bill.
The human rights commissioner said:
The Bill does not sufficiently anticipate the technological advances leading to photos of recognisable faces, or them being taken and stored.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.56): The government will be supporting this amendment. It is certainly the government’s preference to photograph vehicles from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video