Page 4390 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011

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

period such as 30 days was satisfactory. While recommending the retention period be included in the legislation, those agencies did not indicate a concern with a retention period of 30 days in relation to images of non-speeding vehicles.

As I have explained previously, the government has accepted the recommendation to legislate for the destruction of images after 30 days, even though we are the only jurisdiction in the country that will be mandating the deletion of non-speeding images after a specified time. In other jurisdictions—in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, anywhere else where these cameras operate—there is no mandated period for destruction of images. We believe that 30 days rather than 14 days is the right period, and I will go on to say why.

The reason is that 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. A 30-day retention period is consistent with the retention period for images taken by other cameras in the city; for example, the ACT’s CCTV camera network currently operating in areas like Civic, Kingston and Manuka. There is no sound policy reason to differentiate between images taken from traffic cameras and CCTV cameras.

Let me give a bit more of an example about the sorts of circumstances the Chief Police Officer is contemplating. The Chief Police Officer provided me with details of an ACT murder investigation in 1998 which was assisted by images from point-to-point cameras then operating in New South Wales which cast doubt on the murder suspect’s alibi by showing that their vehicle passed the cameras on the Hume Highway heading towards Canberra and then returning towards Sydney within the time frame of the alleged offence.

This is the type of circumstance that the government believes should be taken into account and that is why we are proposing a 30-day retention period in order to ensure that there is a reasonable opportunity to give effect to these legitimate purposes. The government will not be supporting Ms Bresnan’s amendment.

Question put:

That Ms Bresnan’s amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment No 1 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 9

Noes 6

Ms Bresnan

Ms Hunter

Mr Barr

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Coe

Ms Le Couteur

Dr Bourke

Mr Doszpot

Mr Rattenbury

Ms Burch

Mrs Dunne

Mr Smyth

Mr Corbell

Mr Hanson

Ms Gallagher

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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