Bills

Surveillance Devices Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (16:48): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just that the last time the Attorney said before I spoke that he would only be a matter of a couple of minutes, he took a good 15 quite deliberately. I do want to make some brief comments on the Surveillance Devices Bill and, whilst I agreed with a lot of the comments made by the member for Schubert, I disagree with his conclusion and indicate that I will be opposing the bill.

I oppose it not because of its fundamental tenet. I agree that we need to update the definitions and I agree that we need to have a regime whereby surveillance devices are managed. My problem with this bill is that, in the absence of privacy legislation in this state, the exemptions granted are too broad, and they lead to a situation where really no-one's privacy is guaranteed. The member for Schubert has already pointed out that clause 4 which relates to listening devices states that basically it is an offence to install, use or cause to be used a listening device to listen to a private conversation, and in clause 5 the same provision applies to optical surveillance devices.

The problem with the bill, in my view, is that clause 6—and both clauses 4 and 5 are subject to clause 6—goes on to provide certain exemptions. In particular, it says that neither clause 4 nor clause 5 of the bill when it becomes an act will apply if the listening device is used in the public interest. The member for Schubert also pointed out, quite correctly, that there is often significant confusion between what is in the public interest and what the public might be interested in, if you will pardon me ending that sentence with a preposition.

The problem is that many of our media outlets in particular continually put things to air which may be of interest to the public but are in no way in the public interest. Where is the poor person whose life has been trashed by the media in this way able to get redress? I would suggest that, even if it is ultimately found that they have been wronged by an inappropriate use of the exemption by a media organisation, (a) it is all too late and (b) it is costly, time consuming and difficult to get any sort of redress.

Therein lies my significant difficulty with this legislation. The exemptions talked about in this legislation, particularly in clause 9, talk about giving exemption particularly—and I will just read the beginning of clause 9:

A person must not knowingly use, communicate or publish information or material derived from the use of a listening device or an optical surveillance device in circumstances where the device was used to protect the lawful interests of that person except—

and there is a whole series of things about which I make no objection—court proceedings and so on for relevant police investigations. I have no problem with those, but one of the exceptions is that they can give it to a media organisation. On what basis is it possibly acceptable to say as a general rule that, even when you are using your surveillance device to protect the lawful interests of a person, there is an exception if the information is given to a media organisation, probably the worst organisation you could give it to?

My problems also go to giving exemptions to organisations like the RSPCA. I have a view that the RSPCA is a political organisation in many ways and that it should not be allowed to do the prosecutions that it does, that in fact a government should undertake prosecutions for animal cruelty. It should not be left to some non-government organisation that is subject to no ministerial control (whatever that might mean for this government). That is really an argument for another day; I do not want to go there particularly.

However, I will say that I object to the idea that there is to be an exemption so that a farmer going about his lawful business on his own property, completely within the bounds of what is allowed under the law, can be subject to an exemption because someone decides that it is in the public interest for them to come onto the property and take footage. As the member for Schubert also pointed out, they often end up doctoring that footage before it goes to air in any way.

I do not have a problem with the fundamental other parts of the legislation. I am not concerned that we need to update the legislation to include all sorts of modern surveillance devices. I am not concerned that our police and our courts and certain people who are authorised as licensed people under the law should be allowed to do things. Why you would exempt media organisations and allow them to access things which are otherwise unlawful, is just beyond me. It is notable to me that neither public interest nor lawful interest seem to have found definitions in this legislation.

The only other comment I want to make about this is that under clause 10, which is 'Communication or publication of information or material—public interest', there is a provision that says:

A person must not knowingly use, communicate or publish information or material derived…in circumstances where the device was used in the public interest except in accordance with an order of a judge under this Division.

The problem with that particular provision, it seems to me, is that there does not seem to be any scope within the legislation, as proposed, for a person who will be affected by the publication of the information and who could effectively have their reputation or, indeed, their life trashed by its disclosure is not necessarily notified before a judge makes a decision and is not necessarily given any opportunity to make submissions before the judge. It simply would amount to the media organisation going to the judge, putting their case and, uncontested by anybody else, getting the judge's approval. Of course, a very one-sided case can always be put. I know, because I have seen enough of them over the years.

I fundamentally object to all of those sections which allow exemptions. In particular, I will lastly refer to clause 12(3), which says:

A person who obtains knowledge of information or material in a manner that does not involve a contravention of this Part is not prevented from communicating or publishing the knowledge so obtained even if the same knowledge was also obtained in a manner that contravened this Part.

That is an extraordinary provision. All you have to do is get your bona fide person, without express knowledge beforehand, to be the recipient of the information and they are at liberty to then publish it, without consequence, regardless of whether it was obtained illegally and unlawfully in the first place.

Once again, I must indicate that I do not agree with any of those people who are supporting this legislation. We need privacy legislation in this state, in my view. Technology is going rampant. I do not know whether anyone else has observed recently the dirigible that is flying over Adelaide quite regularly. It is just advertising things but, for all we know, it could have a camera attached to it and it can, at the moment, go anywhere it wants. It is motorised.

The member for Schubert rightly pointed out the sorts of accidental occurrences that have embarrassed a number of people because of the use of drones, and so on. I will have more to say about that later on a private member's issue but, at the moment, I simply indicate, once again, my disagreement with the legislation, particularly insofar as the exemptions that it is going to provide.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:58): I rise to speak to the Surveillance Devices Bill 2015. I concur with a lot of the remarks that have been expressed already by the members for Schubert and Heysen. This bill will repeal the Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972 and make other amendments. From 2012 there has been a progression to try to get this bill through.

This has been related to work in line with COAG about cross-border recognition of surveillance device warrants. It also allows urgent warrant applications, for example, where there is an imminent risk of violence to a person or substantial damage to property to be made by a senior police officer instead of a judge. There are remote applications to allow for instances where physical remoteness makes it impractical to make a warrant application. It allows for specified person warrants which allow for warrants for surveillance on specific people instead of warrants on a particular place.

It prohibits a person from knowingly using, communicating or publishing information or material derived from the use of a surveillance device in circumstances where the device was used in the public interest, except in accordance with an order of a judge. There are exceptions in this:

(a) the use, communication or publication of the information or material is made to a media organisation; or

(b) the use, communication or publication...is made by a media organisation and the...material is in the public interest; or

(c) the information or material relates to issues of animal welfare and the use, communication or publication of the information or material is made to the RSPCA; or

(d) the use, communication or publication of such information or material is made to the RSPCA and...[it] is in the public interest.

This bill makes other changes, including expanding the definition of premises to include land, buildings and vehicles, including aircraft and boats, and an expanded definition of private activity to remove ambiguity.

As I indicated, these amendments come in 16 years after the act was reformed in 1998, and much has changed, which we are aware of. The latest electronic surveillance equipment people can have that can intrude into privacy includes drones. It was back in 2002 that the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) met, and their idea was:

To legislate through model laws for all jurisdictions and mutual recognition for a national set of powers for cross-border investigations covering controlled operations and assumed identities legislation; electronic surveillance devices; and witness anonymity. Legislation to be settled within 12 months.

They were pretty hopeful, weren't they? It is to be noted that, interstate, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia have all passed respective versions of electronic surveillance legislation. The police have certainly taken the view in the last five years that our legislation in this state is long overdue for overhaul.

Obviously listening devices are caught up in this legislation, but I just want to talk about the issue of the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device being subject to similar restrictions and exemptions. The bill prohibits the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device on or in premises to record visually or observe the carrying on of a private activity without the express or implied consent of each party to the activity. The bill prohibits trespass onto premises or interference with premises to install, use or maintain an optical surveillance device to capture private activity.

It is also noted—it has been spoken of quite widely here today already—that if the installation, use or maintenance of an optical surveillance device is in the public interest, there is an exemption for that. The bill prohibits the use, communication or publication of information or material derived from the use of a listening or optical surveillance device. In the bill, there is a similar offence provision created for the use, communication or publication of information or material derived from the use of a listening device or optical surveillance device in circumstances where the device was used in the public interest, except in accordance with an order of a judge.

The bill has moved on from the 2014 legislation to provide an exemption to the general rule that there must be a court order for a media organisation; information or material that is used, communicated or published to such a media organisation; the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals SA (RSPCA) where issues of animal welfare are concerned; and, obviously, information or material that relates to issues of animal welfare that is used, communicated or published to the RSPCA.

I certainly have some concerns, as the member for Heysen and the member for Schubert have, as to whether this legislation does go far enough. On our side of the house, we like to acknowledge freedom of speech and the freedom of media to operate, but sometimes I think things go well beyond the pale.

I also have major problems with the RSPCA being the sign-off officers on animal welfare issues. It would certainly be my wish in the parliament—and we nearly got there except for one member in the other place who changed his vote—to put the policing powers in the hands of the government because you have one organisation who is judge, jury and executioner. Quite frankly, I do not support that.

In fact, and this may sound harsh, I think the government gives them $1 million now and they get some funding from donations but I think this organisation should either go crowdfunding or raise its own money because I just do not have the faith that some people may have in the RSPCA, especially with regard to production facilities and production animals. It might be a fine organisation with regard to dealing with cats, dogs and pets but they certainly have proved their incompetence in relation to some big cases.

One big case I have talked about here many times is that of Tom Brinkworth where an officer in the RSPCA stuffed up the paperwork, essentially. Why would you do that? Because they thought they were the judge, jury and executioner. To think that they had to do that to get something legally done, I hope that officer got what they deserved because it is outrageous.

I do not condone animal cruelty, not at all. Coming off the land, and having run cattle and sheep, I know there is no such thing as making money out of skinny stock or dead stock—there is no money in that. There is no money in that at all: you are there to run a commercial property and you are there to make a profit. Anyone who runs their stock that hard needs action taken.

I have had instances in my electorate where there was alleged animal cruelty to some cows. It did not look good from the information I received post the case but it was also alleged that it took six shots from an RSPCA officer to put a cow down. Since then I have written to the RSPCA and its lawyer to seek advice on whether that is true. I do not think I have had an answer yet but I can check with my office.

If you have to put an animal down—I had to put a horse down in the last couple of years—you get a high calibre rifle. It was a .30/.31 shot and the poor old horse went down but it was done cleanly. A lot of people believe in the green dream but I live on the land and we do things practically. The horse was 28, it had a cancerous eye and his future was going nowhere.

I have severe concerns about the RSPCA and its exemptions in this. If people want to know why it is because it is an active animal welfare organisation and a lobbyist against live trade. It is a lobbying group against live trade. I wonder if they even have one thought about how many station owners and others have taken their lives since the federal minister at the time stopped the live trade to Indonesia and put a big nail into cattle livestock operations in Australia. That had impacts all the way down, not just with cattle suppliers but to the feed suppliers—Johnson's at Kapunda who supply a lot of the pellets for the feedlots in Darwin—and the ships that take these cattle to Indonesia and other ports like Vietnam, etc.

I have heard some crazy arguments from federal politicians on the other side who believe that there are plenty of chilling facilities for people on the other end and that is why we do not need live cattle. I am sorry, but have they ever visited the people of Indonesia and seen what facilities they have? It is 'kill just in time' and use it fairly quickly.

I admit that there have been some issues. There is no doubt that there have been some issues. Meat and Livestock Australia have moved to get people accredited under ESCAS—the licensing scheme for abattoirs overseas killing our livestock. Things have moved a long way, but it is still not good enough for some people, because some people would rather rely on lentils and lettuces. I have lettuce farms in my electorate; you cannot hear a lettuce scream when it is pulled out of the ground.

People may think that is a bit flippant, but it annoys me that you have someone who is the judge, jury and executioner, and also a lobbyist against live export. I am happy to meet with them at any time and have a discussion, but it caused major issues when the then federal minister Joe Ludwig cut that trade. I was the state shadow minister for agriculture at the time, and it caused major issues. Families lost husbands, brothers and partners. It was a terrible situation, but some of these people do not care about those things that happened; they do not care about those costs.

I suppose, in expanding on that, we talk about the access by media organisations. What we have seen, along with this anti-live animal export program that some people are on, is that there are a whole range of activists that get involved. There was quite a case in New South Wales where a piggery had cameras installed and illegal filming was being made. One day, someone caught up with the people filming and basically chased them out of the sheds. You have biosecurity issues happening there. For some reason, their car would not work because it had been made immovable, with smashed windows, etc., because people were venting their anger. I do not condone that, but you can understand why, when their business is being infiltrated by these people who think they are doing something for the greater good.

We had an issue where there was an abattoir in Murray Bridge that was invaded by some of these radicals. The member for Schubert and I met with the people afterwards to talk about what had happened. They had put in quite technological gear; there were cameras right down to the chamber where the pigs are gassed (humanely, I must say). These people could have been at real risk of triggering something and actually killing themselves.

They were also breaking and entering, but they have got away with that. That seems to be fine; people seem to condone that. They set up a series of cameras and could remotely access the footage with a wireless network they set up from that gear. I saw a photograph of the cables that were found by some of the men operating the plant.

These people have got off scot-free. Not only that but they sit on the evidence, like they did with the live animal export film. The evidence gets sat on. If they were really worried about animal welfare, you would have this footage in the media the next day, or on that day. But no, 'We'll wait for a prime spot where we can make some political points,' so it is done six, nine, or three months later, or whenever it is.

It is not about the so-called protection of these animals that are involved, it is about making a political statement. That it is what it is about. If they were really concerned about animal welfare, that material would be out in the media straightaway. I note that the Attorney is making some notes; I hope he gives me something to feel good about this legislation when we go into committee, or even beforehand when he speaks, because I still have some problems with it.

I think we are well on the way to something we need to have, but when you think about it, here we are: we are essentially giving the media a free run because they said we would be in court every time, otherwise, getting a story. We have managed to basically put in legislation against listed bikie gangs just for being bikies. Why can't we do it here? I do have a real problem with these activists who break into farming properties.

As I said before, there is no joy or profit in skinny stock or dead stock. There is no profit in that. There is no point farming like that—no point at all—and many of us do enjoy eating meat. For example, goats are being live exported by the thousands and they are quite a profitable outcome, especially for station country where there a lot of goats. Goats are animals that are basically wild and they are rounded up, and there is a bit of anecdotal evidence that that pays the school fees for the station kids to come into town to school. Good on them, if that is what it does, so the rest of the property's work, whether it is with cattle or sheep, pays for the operation and running of the property.

I hope I am convinced, in going through this legislation, that there are protections for people on their properties and that it will not be carte blanche for the media or the RSPCA, because I do have a real fear, as does the member for Heysen, about what could happen. What would these people think if we just decided to walk inside their home or their business, set up some cameras and film what they were doing? I am sure they would not like it.

On a farm, whether it is in your house, your shed, your workshop or your intensive animal shed, that is home. The whole place is home and people are invading people's homes, and they need to be stopped. They need to be given a big whack, because I am over it from the cases I have seen printed in rural media and from cases I have heard about. As I indicated before, in the case of Tom Brinkworth in the South-East where there were allegations of animal cruelty, Tom did not get to have his say in court because someone from the RSPCA stuffed up big time, and that is the best way you can describe it.

I want some peace for people in the operation of their daily lives. It is very sad that Holden's is closing down in 2017, but could you imagine if they were being filmed for whatever reason, whether it was about work health and safety issues, and surveillance devices were put in there? Perhaps there might be some action because that is a bit more Labor-held country. We have to be careful about protecting people's rights and we have to make sure that people can operate their practices, whether it be a farming practice or other businesses, with the freedom of knowing that they will not have some idiots breaking in and disturbing their cattle, their sheep or their pigs just to make a political statement, because that is what I am sick of.

I am sick of organisations—I do not care who they are—that hold this footage for months and, just when it is politically opportune, they put it up there and they go whack, whack. As I said before, that is not about animal cruelty, that is about making a political point. I hope the Attorney gives me some joy when he responds to this legislation.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:18): I would like to thank everybody for their contributions in relation to this matter. I do note that it has been indicated that the opposition, with the possible exception of the member for Heysen, is going to be supporting the bill, and I am grateful for that.

To the member for Hammond in particular I would like to say a couple of things, and I am not directing these comments specifically at you because you speak from the heart and with passion about matters that are of deep concern to you and to people who are your constituents. However, I have to say, when I listen to what has been said in this debate in this house today on this bill, I am reminded of something I had to read many years ago, which was called Through the Looking-Glass by that great author Lewis Carroll. I invite anybody who is trying to understand what is going on here to look at a few of the quotes from the Mad Hatter, because they are getting pretty close to where we are at the moment. I cannot let this one go, but the comments from the member—

Mr Pederick: Let's not trivialise it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not at all, but the comments from the member for Bragg about this, this sort of cheap little slap about, 'It's all the government's fault because of the delay in this matter.' She never fails to miss the opportunity to explore the outer boundaries of churlishness and absurdity, and yet again she has done it.

Let us be very clear about this, and I am quite happy to say this on the record because it is not a matter that is in any way a revelation for anybody in this place: I agree with every single word the member for Heysen said about this, every single word. If you look at the bill that I brought into this place in 2012, every single matter the matter for Heysen raised as being an inadequacy in the current bill was not there. It was the present bill minus all of the inadequacies about which she complains and, member for Hammond, all of the things that you are complaining about were fixed in that bill of 2012.

Can I remind the member for Hammond of what happened to that bill in 2012. It came in here and the opposition decided to knock it off, in conjunction with a few crossbenchers in the other place. Then we went for round 2. In round 2, member for Hammond, and history is important here, what happened was that, not content with buckling at the knees to pressure from media outlets, which is what happened to the opposition and certain crossbenchers when it came to the first time, unlike the member for Heysen who has a bit of principle about this, what happened was that we saw an unnatural alliance between the Liberal Party and the very people about whom you are complaining to see the bill defeated a second time, this time because the issue about animal rights had been introduced for the first time. Can I remind members here that, had the bill passed in 2012 as it was in the first place, that was not even on the agenda at that point in time.

So, all of the dilutions of this bill, all of the imperfections in this bill about which the members for Heysen and Hammond have complained are imperfections and dilutions introduced in this bill as a direct result of it being blocked in previous iterations by, amongst other people, members of your political party, especially in the other place. So, please do not ask me to explain myself as to why this bill is less than it might be, please do not ask me to do that. You need to, all of you, have a good look in the mirror to understand the answer to that question.

That said, at least this bill gives you, member for Hammond, and your constituents some protection because at the moment you have none, zero, no protection at all from these people about whom you complain. At least with this bill getting up you will have some protection from those people, not as much as I wanted you to have, and obviously not as much as you want, but you will have better than nothing, which is what you have now. So, I am pleased that this bill, albeit a Clayton's version of the original thing, is at least going to go through and give us something better than the zip we have presently, and I think that is good.

I am a glass half full sort of chap, so I am saying, 'Well, the glass is half full, you know, it's not brilliant, it's not 12-year-old single malt, it's not even lemonade, but it's half full, so that's something.' Member for Hammond, please understand that I am not your problem. With respect to everything you have raised and with respect to everything the member for Heysen has raised, I am not your problem. If you doubt my words, please go back and look at the 2012 bill. If you want to know what stopped the bill last time it was what I would describe as an unholy or an unnatural alliance between the very people you are complaining about and your colleagues.

As I said, I am back on the glass half full side now. Private activity is defined in the bill. What I can say to people is that what we intend is this: if you want to go out and do a bit of commando-style gardening on the front lawn then you can expect that if somebody takes your photo you are going to have a big degree of difficulty in stopping them publishing it. Can I say it might depend on your fence a bit. If you have an eight-foot brush fence around the front of your house and you are out there picking up the newspaper in the morning and you forgot to put the tweeds on before you left the front door, which can happen, then—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be a lot of people outside your house tomorrow.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I don't think so. There is nothing to see there. Or you only have on the Reg Grundys, nothing else, and out you go. So, if you have the big fence around the house, a very large fence, then it may well be that we do capture people who are filming you in your front yard, but the reason would be that they cannot from the pavement or the road see you other than using some sort of device to get around what is the natural barrier of your property.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I have a particular problem, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, although there is not much to see, I have the difficulty of having one of those fences with wooden palings and there is a series of lateral things and you would have to be positioned very carefully to make sure you were not exposed, and you certainly could not keep moving. So, that is a problem. Of course, other people have very low fences or in some parts of the city no fence at all, so I think that is the answer to that one. As far as the back yard is concerned, I think a person's back yard should be a place where they can have a bit of serenity.

The Hon. P. Caica: Yes, and privacy.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And privacy, but serenity. I think it should be like every person's own little Bonnie Doon where they can go for a bit of serenity and, if that serenity involves you being there in a state of relative, or even total, undress for that matter, then why shouldn't a person be able to enjoy that serenity? The notion that that should be invaded, captured on film and then publicised to the world, I find quite repugnant. Whilst the member for Bragg was berating me for the delay in this bill occasioned by the activities of the Liberal Party, I looked up JB Hi-Fi on my machine and I discovered—and this is the sort of research I try to do right up to the last minute—

Mr Gardner: You worked out how to use the interweb.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And I would ask members who have the interweb available to go onto JB Hi-Fi and look up drones and you will see that there are these machines for $140—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Pardon? No, this is just a basic model of two mega-somethings of picture-thing and—

Mr Pederick: What size camera? Two? That is not very good.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Look, I don't understand this stuff. If you want the super dooper one, it is about $1,400 and it gives you the same sort of quality that David Lean had when he made Lawrence of Arabia, and you can get that from an altitude of God knows how many hundred metres. These things are purchasable by going down to the local electronics store. The point we have been trying to make here is that in 1970 the only things that flew were planes and birds. You did not have people with these toys with fancy cameras on them. In those days a camera was something that weighed two or three pounds and it had plastic film in it that you had to take to the chemist to get developed. You did not have a tiny little glass thing in your phone which could store hundreds of pictures. None of this occurred; it just did not happen.

I really do say that it is good that we are making some progress on this. I think the question of private activity, as I tried to explain about fences, is a matter of fact and degree. One has to apply common sense to that. You could not say all front yards are okay to be filming people, and I guess if you lived in an agricultural area and there was no fence at all to your backyard but there was a road running—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, and there is a road running down it and you decide you are going to go out for a bit of a run in the altogether and people start photographing you from the road, well—

Mr Pederick: It doesn't happen often, John.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, but when it does, maybe you just have to take that one. The other point the member for Heysen made was about privacy laws, and I agree with her that sooner or later we will have to tackle this issue because of the intrusion into the privacy of citizens by all forms of technology. I am not trying to be some sort of hysterical big brother, but when you look at what the commonwealth is now collecting in terms of metadata, at the fact that we have these drones floating around the place, at the fact that apparently people can work out where you have been by having access to your phone or not even having your phone, having some bug on your phone, and they can find out wherever you have been. The intrusion that exists presently is significant.

I am very pleased that the bill, albeit in a weakened form, will receive the support of the opposition. I congratulate them on that. I do understand (and I cannot emphasise this enough) the concerns of the members for Heysen and Hammond, and I am very sympathetic to the points they make—very sympathetic. All I would say is: look at the earlier iterations of this bill and you will see that that was where I started too, but I have been placed in a position where either bits of this that I thought were important were watered down or there was no prospect of this thing passing through the parliament. From my viewpoint it is not the optimum position.

Mr Pederick: We are where we are.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We are where we are. I would say to the member for Hammond that if it were within my power I would be very happy to accommodate many of the matters raised by him and the member for Heysen. Given that this is my third roll of the dice on this one, there is not much point my coming back and doing exactly the same thing and getting exactly the same outcome.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a general question around clauses 6 or 8 about the installation of these devices. I mentioned in my contribution that, if film or recordings are put out to the public, will there be a restriction that they need to be put out as soon as they are taken, given that the media and the RSPCA will have an exemption? Is there some way we can address the issue I mentioned in my speech about people sitting on information for six months?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a good question. The answer basically is no, there is no time limit on these things. As I have already said to the member for Hammond, I regret that we do not have more things confining some of this, but as it is there is no time limit. It talks about 'the knowing installation of', of it imports the sense of—

The CHAIR: That is in clause 8: 'must not knowingly install'.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Must not knowingly install or maintain and so forth. You will see in clause 7, 'must not knowingly install, use or maintain'. It is looking at the notion of deliberate behaviour, and I do think that is a fair distinction.

To pick an example I think the member for Bragg might have brought up, if you are worried about intruders or something and you set up a camera on your property which is capturing, say, the sweep of your yard so that you can see whether anybody is approaching, or whatever the case might be, and it coincidentally picks up something which is easily visible from your neighbour's yard and you were not intending to do that, that is completely different from setting up a camera on the side of your house aimed down into your neighbour's backyard. One of them is an accidental or incidental capture of something, and the other one is a knowing, deliberate attempt to capture something.

The CHAIR: Any further questions, member for Hammond?

Mr PEDERICK: I think that is probably as far as we can go. I observe, as commentary more than anything, the limitations that perhaps we may have in the legislation. I will follow with interest its enactment.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (3 to 41), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (17:36): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.