Page 3968 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
are advised of the range of purposes to which information may be put when they apply for a licence or registration and when they renew. The application forms include a privacy notice that explains the purposes for which the information is sought, the uses to which it may be put or disclosed and the range of persons or agencies to which it may be disclosed. Enforcement is an identified purpose.
In addition, the bill contains new provisions that govern the use and disclosure of images taken by traffic cameras. These provisions ensure that the use and disclosure of images is protected to a standard comparable to the information privacy principles and will apply to an image whether or not that image contains any personal information. The new protections do not displace the existing protections that currently regulate the use and disclosure of any personal information held on rego.act databases.
The purposes for which images may be used or disclosed are set out in sections 29 and 29A. These purposes include speeding offences and other offences against the road transport legislation. Provision is also made for disclosure under any other law in force in the territory. It is intended that this provision would apply to laws that positively authorise the use or disclosure of the images. It is not intended to apply to laws that do not prevent or are silent about the use or disclosure of these images.
I am aware that Ms Bresnan proposes to move an amendment that will limit who can access the information obtained by cameras and that it can only be used for a traffic infringement purpose. This proposed amendment is of concern to the government. The reason for that is its operation with the powers of the police to subpoena and get a warrant to procure material for the purposes of a criminal investigation. In particular, the advice I have received from the Chief Police Officer raises issues such as, would the police be prohibited from getting that information under the amendment proposed by Ms Bresnan in circumstances involving a motor vehicle which caused the alleged offence of manslaughter, which is not a traffic matter but would, nevertheless, potentially involve a speeding vehicle? Would the police be prohibited from obtaining material in that circumstance?
Equally, as to matters such as culpable driving causing death and culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm, would Ms Bresnan’s amendment preclude the police from obtaining the data as part of the evidence using a subpoena and a warrant granted by the courts? This is a complex matter which I am seeking further advice on. But I foreshadow that it is a matter of concern for the government and we will deal with it in debate in the detail stage.
Finally, in considering issues of privacy, I think it is important not to lose sight of the reason for this bill. Despite strong efforts by the police and road safety personnel, speeding is a problem in the ACT. For many thousands of drivers each year that are detected speeding by police or by cameras, many more go undetected. Sadly, every year, some of these drivers will crash, some of them will be killed and others will either seriously injure themselves or somebody else.
Point-to-point speed cameras will not be the only tool at the disposal of road safety authorities to address the ongoing problem of speeding on our roads. They will be one
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video