SURVEILLANCE DEVICES BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 November 2012.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (15:28): I rise briefly to indicate the Greens' position on the Surveillance Devices Bill 2012, which is a complex bill dealing with the use of surveillance devices in South Australia, not only by SAPOL but also by private citizens. I note that it allows for cross-border recognition of surveillance devices warrants from other jurisdictions, and that is something, in this day and age, that we need to be mindful of in terms of policing across state borders. We have no concerns with those sorts of provisions; however, we do have concerns with a bill that comes before us not having been properly consulted on. We may or may not have well-founded reservations about this bill, in fact it is our understanding that this bill is to now be referred to a committee to do the due diligence that the government should have done before bringing it to this place.

I echo some of the concerns that other members have raised, but I particularly want to note a piece of correspondence that was sent to my colleague the Hon. Mark Parnell from a woman called 'Julie from Adelaide' (that is how she preferred to be referred to in this chamber), who writes to us stating that:

I became personally aware of the important protection which the present legislation provides when I discovered that a relative had forged my signature in order to acquire ownership of a substantial life insurance policy. Unfortunately, the insurance company claimed to have lost the original document, and the forensic examiner has only been able to confirm that the signature has a significant number of potential discrepancies.

The SA Police advised me that I could legally record my conversations with the relative who stole my policy, an insurance broker, and also my insurance company without informing them, or seeking their permission. Without an accurate record of these telephone calls, I would not have this compelling circumstantial evidence in support of my allegations of fraud.

She continues:

I can only implore the parliament not to further restrict the rights of vulnerable people to gather such vital evidence by further complicating the legislation relating to these issues.

This is just one particular case, and I know that members of this council have been approached not only by individuals, but obviously also by groups such as the Law Society and so on with grave and serious concerns about the bill. Certainly my concerns were not assuaged by the government's detailing of what I think was a very meagre attempt at consultation on the bill. In fact, put simply, I believe the government thought it was enough to introduce the bill and then the community could have an input. That is not appropriate when we have such a complicated area, an area where the technologies are advancing greatly, an area that impinges on people's rights to privacy and also their civil and political rights.

I do not think this bill has been thought through well enough and, as I say, I am very pleased that it is to go off to a committee. I would also hope that that committee would not hold up this bill unduly. The due diligence should have been done by the government in the first place. The Weatherill government, in its claims to have moved away from the Rann government days of 'declare and defend' to 'consult and consider', should have consulted on and considered the bill, and it should have consulted and considered not only within its own internal ranks, but in a way that every member of the public and every member of this parliament can access the contribution of those who have had something to say, should they be willing to have that on the record.

It cannot be that hard in the year 2013 to call for submissions, put them on a website and have them publicly available so that everyone engaged in the debate can have the full range of information from those who have the expertise or the individual circumstances (such as Julie from Adelaide) to contribute to the democracy in this place. I will conclude with the words from Julie:

I believe that this proposed legislation would have serious implications for the ability to compile evidence of illegal and abusive behaviour, and may further restrain investigative journalism, and the potential exposure of instances, such as animal cruelty.

I cannot leave that without remarking on it. We have, of course, seen cases of animal cruelty exposed by both investigative journalism and also by citizen activists such as Lyn White—obviously not on our own shores. I note that there are members of the public who undertake work down at Port Adelaide, and such groups are a vital part of our democracy and our system of transparency. I do not believe that we have had due concern for the implications of the bill in its formulation. Certainly no evidence has been produced in briefings to us. I commend the bill being referred to a committee, and we hold reservations on our position on the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:34): I understand that there are no further second reading contributions to the bill. I want to thank members for their contribution. There is no denying that this is a very controversial and complicated area of law. Opinions differ widely and strongly around a great deal of it. Some honourable members may recall that the last time a bill was before parliament in this area it took over 18 months of negotiation to pass. This time it seems that there may be little difference, at least as far as controversy is concerned. The government remains hopeful that it will not take 18 months to pass this bill.

The Hon. Ms Bressington, the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Mr Wade have expressed a number of related concerns about the attitude of the bill to the legality of the use of surveillance devices by private citizens. They appear particularly concerned with the use of surveillance devices by a private citizen to protect what might be a lawful interest.

Both the Hon. Mr Wade and the Hon. Ms Bressington have put great emphasis on the supposed restrictions on the ability of the media to conduct genuine public interest news and current affairs reporting. This is an interesting issue, and I am sure that even within this place there will be many different opinions about what constitutes reporting in the public interest and what are, essentially, the actions of scandalmongers and paparazzi. We are not in England nor the United States and, thankfully, our media still manages to retain elements of restraint when reporting into the personal lives of others—at least most of the time. However, there is a role for the law to play in ensuring that this line is not crossed. Where that line is is obviously a very interesting question.

Another interesting question is about when a citizen has the right to be protected from covert surveillance by other members of the public or the media. Most would say that if you were in your own home, backyard or paddock you should not be concerned about the possibility of a camera recording your every move; however, what about if you are at a gym, for which you pay membership fees, or what about if you are in your workplace? These are complex and important questions.

The very nature of this debate and the way it has played out over the past few months indicates that it will not be possible to resolve these difficult legal and policy issues by amendments to the bill. Indeed, the government agrees that it is appropriate for the Legislative Review Committee to consider these issues, with input from interested parties, and to report to the Attorney-General about how these issues may be best dealt with in this bill. The committee will be strongly urged to report as quickly as practicable so that the bill can be passed this year.

The Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Ms Vincent also identified some issues with the provisions dealing with powers of law enforcement. The government has been happy to discuss these questions with the honourable members, and remains of the opinion that the provisions dealing with law enforcement can be dealt with on the floor of the house in the usual way. Accordingly, the government does not intend to include part 3 onwards of the bill in terms of reference to the committee.

The government looks forward to continuing its discussions with the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Ms Vincent on these issues, and I look forward to the report from the Legislative Review Committee. With those concluding remarks, I commend the bill to members.

Bill read a second time.