Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 22 September 2011) . . Page.. 4386 ..


whether they are a private company or a government agency, to comply with the provisions of commonwealth law. It is a great pity that he continues to misrepresent that position in the simplistic and superficial manner that we have come to know him for.

He needs to be held to account on these matters. The EPBC Act is not discretionary. The EPBC Act is not something that has occurred as a result of a referral from this place. The EPBC Act is a mandatory requirement that must take place before development decisions at Throsby can be made. But, of course, he ignores those facts because he is interested in treating people like idiots. He is interested in misrepresenting the facts. He is interested in failing to take a serious view of these matters.

MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): The time for the discussion has now expired.

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2011

Detail stage

Clause 15.

Debate resumed.

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) (5.35): Pursuant to standing order 182A(a) I seek leave to move amendments to this bill as they are urgent.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name which inserts a new clause 15A [see schedule 3 at page 4412]. I table a supplementary explanatory statement to the government amendments.

This new clause 15A deals with the retention period for images obtained from point-to-point cameras. The amendments make it clear that an average speed detection system cannot be prescribed for use in the ACT unless it requires that images be deleted from the camera components no later than 30 days after they are taken.

This amendment gives effect to a suggestion of the Human Rights Commission that it would be appropriate for the time limits for retaining images that do not disclose a speeding offence to be provided for in legislation. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has raised a similar issue. The government has accepted their suggestions, even though no other jurisdiction with point-to-point cameras mandates the deletion of non-speeding images after a specified time. The Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Australian Information Commission did not indicate a concern with the retention period of 30 days in relation to images of non-speeding vehicles.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video