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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (18 February) . . Page.. 366 ..

Mr Humphries (continuing):

. The number and type of incidents that safety cameras provided evidence which assisted prosecutors in prosecuting an offence;

. The number and type of incidents which resulted in guilty pleas following the disclosure to the offender of evidence captured on video;

. Adherence to rules which will govern the management of the system; and

. The public's awareness and acceptance of the system, including the views of traders in the nominated area.

(2) I have not yet taken a decision on who will conduct any assessment of safety cameras, but any use of external resources to conduct such an assessment will be costly.

(3) and (4) I cannot yet answer this question, because I am still awaiting technical advice on the advantages and disadvantages of alternative forms of transmission systems, monitoring systems and data recording. The final cost will also be dependent on the number of cameras used. The Government has not yet taken decisions on these questions.

(5) and (6) My preference, at this stage, is to have cameras monitored by the AFP, whether by members or staff or a combination of both. As to whether there would be any impact on operational police numbers, until details outlined in answer to parts (3) and (4) of the question are decided, I cannot say.

While the system would be capable of being monitored 24 hours, 7 days, it is likely that such a course of action would not be necessary. Police operational priorities and intelligence would form the basis for decisions about monitoring times.

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