Page 4387 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
There has been some discussion about the length of time that the Road Transport Authority requires images. The 30-day retention period that has been programmed into the cameras was designed primarily to accommodate police operational requirements. The minimum period that images need to be retained for the purpose of infringement processing is 14 days. This 14-day period has been based on the assumption that any technical problems with the system components that necessitated a retransfer of images from the cameras either to the matching server or from the matching server to the traffic camera office could be rectified within two or three days should such a problem occur during the Christmas-new year shutdown period.
The Chief Police Officer has advised me that for operational reasons, a 30-day retention period is appropriate to ensure that images remain available for complex criminal investigations, including in relation to matters such as culpable driving offences, where the need to seek information in the form of camera images has not been identified within the 14-day period; for example, because at that stage the registration number of a vehicle of interest is not yet known and, therefore, the camera system cannot be effectively searched for images that match that number. The 30-day retention period is consistent with the retention period for images taken by the ACT CCTV camera network in, for example, the city.
In considering the appropriateness of the 30-day period, I believe it is essential to understand that the use or disclosure of images for non-traffic-related purposes is tightly controlled under revised sections 29 and 29A. These purposes are legitimate and consistent with human rights, including the right to privacy and section 12 of the Human Rights Act. A 30-day retention period provides a reasonable opportunity to give effect to those purposes.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Before I call for further discussion on Mr Corbell’s amendment, we are now discussing a new clause 15A. I will give Ms Bresnan the call to provide discussion on an amendment to Mr Corbell’s amendment No 1. But, members, we have not actually formally passed clause 15 itself at this point. So what we will need to do is pass clause 15 and then come back to conclude the discussion on the new clause 15A. Is everybody clear? With that in mind, the question is that clause 15 be agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Proposed new clause 15A.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question now is that Mr Corbell’s amendment No 1 be agreed to.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.40): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name on the green sheet which amends Mr Corbell’s amendment No 1 [see schedule 5 at page 4414]. I will talk to both Mr Corbell’s amendment and my proposed amendment to Mr Corbell’s amendment. I want to give some context to all of the amendments that are coming from the government and the Greens today. They all go to the privacy and human rights concerns that have been raised in relation to this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video