Summary Offences (Biometric Identification) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I rise on clause 1 of the committee stage of the Summary Offences (Biometric Identification) Amendment Bill, and I note that in the lead-up to the 2014 state election the government announced that it would be introducing laws to expand the powers of police to more effectively use mobile fingerprint scanners. Mobile fingerprint scanners used by the police can scan and capture biometric data, an electric picture of a fingerprint, electronically access the relevant database, known as the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) and receive responses to enable quick identification of individuals and allows the officer to retrieve information of an individual's criminal history.

Whilst it was a long time ago now, back when I was with the Liberals as their police minister, it was a standing item on the ministerial council meetings, as we developed nationally the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), and as then Liberal police minister I was very proactive in supporting NAFIS, the reasons being that we have to be able to capitalise on technology proactively for police and for the justice system around Australia. We have to ensure that, in order to keep a safe community, we use every possible modern technological piece of equipment to assist our law-enforcement officers to do their jobs.

I have always been very strongly supportive of this and I believe that this is a simple extension of the intent nationally of NAFIS, when it was developed, and it takes a long time, it takes a very long time, to develop these pieces of legislation nationally, but once you get it developed you start to see good outcomes. Family First therefore advises that we will be supporting the government with respect to this bill. We also believe that they have a mandate for this because they went out in the public arena with it as a policy at the last election, as I said.

I have always been a strong advocate of DNA and national fingerprinting and fingerprinting generally. I have never personally been worried about an Australia card; that is not a Family First party position. I have never been worried about that. Frankly, if you do any work regarding crime and law and order, there is a pretty solid argument, I believe, for the relevant authorities, with the proper checks and balances, having information on you that can actually prevent you from being charged with an offence that you are not guilty of. So, there is a very strong argument. Personally, I would not have a problem if the relevant authorities, with the right checks and balances in the legislation, had my DNA from the time of my birth because I want to be protected. I also want to know that I can be identified as quickly and as easily as possible.

The police have obviously now been given the opportunity to get these mobile fingerprint scanners. This is for identification purposes only. Captured biometric data is only used to compare the fingerprints scanned to known individuals on the NAFIS database. I believe that both the government and the police are confident that it will, first, improve identification rates; secondly, reduce the incidence of people avoiding being identified; and, thirdly, allow for identification while police officers remain in the field.

I know there has been some counterargument put forward from those who want to amend or even possibly oppose the third reading of this bill. Part of that counterargument says that we are giving the police too many powers. Part of that counterargument says, and I quote:

This bill potentially signals the Orwellian future that awaits us. I fear, although I hope it is unjustified, that this bill may originate from the desire of the police to ultimately have the ability to invade our privacy at will. I hope that is not the case but, with some of the legislation coming before this chamber, it appears that they have a continued desire and drive to adopt practices that suit them rather than the community that they are supposed to serve.

When I am out in the community, I find that people want to see every possible effort made to protect them and their families. They want to see a reduction in crime and they want to see a safe environment.

When it comes to economic development, businesses that look to invest in a state like South Australia will, as one of the considerations for that investment, want to see what the parliament and the government of the day have done to ensure that the safest possible environment for their investment and their workforce is provided. Family First happens to support and understand those principles.

We do have to have trust in our police officers (I certainly do have that trust) and we do have to have checks and balances in the law. One of the other arguments was in relation to someone getting picked up for a basic traffic offence and—scary, surprise, surprise—the officer actually having a piece of equipment in his car and, having some reasonable suspicions, he therefore thinks he may want to exercise his rights as a sworn officer and look at the fingerprints of that individual. That individual may have been involved in a murder or a rape or an armed robbery or in paedophilia. That officer would have quick identification of that offender simply because the officer, firstly, picked up the offender for speeding or a minor traffic offence and, secondly, because we are so committed to protecting our community that we have given (if this legislation is passed) the officer the opportunity to stop another rape, another case of paedophilia, another armed robbery or another murder.

These are the things that can happen, because it is often the little things that police officers pick someone up for that lead to the bigger picture, the missing link. It may be a Beaumont case or a Bell case, one of those cases; they are the sorts of things that can actually be tied in at times. It is often just a small chance that gives the police that opportunity, and that is what happens when you give them the right tools and the right equipment. In summary, Family First is very pleased to support this. The police want it and the technology is available, and in this instance I understand that not only is it available but the budgetary requirements for it are there.

I would argue that the absolute majority of South Australians—I repeat: I believe the absolute majority of South Australians—would want us to pass this piece of legislation. Yes, there will be a minority of people who do not trust the police and who do not want any checks and balances at all, but I believe the absolute majority of people would be very supportive of this.

It is just like the absolute majority of people are very supportive of the police helicopter when it is flying over their homes in the middle of the night. I pointed this out to an individual who happened to ring me in the middle of the night—he got my home number when I was police minister—and who started to abuse me because the helicopter was above the roof of his home and was disturbing his wife and children. When I rang him back and woke him up at 6 o'clock in the morning I said, 'Well, sir, if you were away and there was a murderer running around in the middle of the night, and it was in the Prospect area (where the helicopter was), wouldn't you want the police helicopter up above your home protecting your wife and children?'

I put the same argument in this case with this piece of technology. I would want every piece of technology possible, first, to prevent a crime against my family and community and, secondly, if a crime has been committed to give the police every opportunity possible to be able to catch that offender.

I will leave you with this. The Birmingham police facility, which is a marvellous police facility out of London in country England, has been leading the world when it comes to how they have gone about DNA and policing opportunities with DNA. If you ever go over there for a briefing they will take you through a murder case in the snow, and do you know what? That case would never, ever have been resolved and the murderer of the woman would still have been running around free in England had it not been for DNA, had it not been for the advancement of those trained police officers in the science behind that and the scientific people and the police forensic services.

They did actually apprehend that person, and I would argue that while this is nowhere near as sophisticated as that, this is a tool that is for the benefit and the protection of the community, and I have confidence that the police will use it according to law. Therefore, as I said earlier on in my remarks, Family First will strongly support the government with this legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to assist the committee I would like to put a few remarks on the record. I will start by acknowledging the Family First contribution, and also the honourable member's referencing of George Orwell. I know he is a great student of modern literature. My recollection is that the book 1984 was actually written in 1948, which I learned at school. I guess the difference between the Greens' approach and that of Family First is that we want to make sure that body of work remains a work of fiction: we do not want it to become a documentary.

Whilst people say, 'Well, you doth protest too much,' I remind people that this bill does not refer just to particular identified fingerprint identification equipment: it actually refers to all biometric data and, as we know, biometric data is advancing at a rapid pace. We now have facial recognition technology. I do not know if this is true—maybe it is a good question for the minister to take on notice—but I even had someone tell me that the point-to-point cameras are good enough for facial recognition of drivers. I see the minister shaking his head. That was my first reaction, too. I did not think that was likely, but I tell you what, talking to the Hon. Andrew McLachlan about some of the technology that he has dealt with or become familiar with, it is not that far off the mark.

The point that is at the heart of the Greens' position is that we are supporting the use of new technologies, but we want to make sure that the technology tail does not wag the legislative dog. As these new technologies are developed they will all have different consequences, both intended and unintended. Each time one of these new devices is developed and is ready for use by our police, we want them to come back to parliament. The Greens are not happy with just passing a single piece of legislation that effectively covers all of these new biometric identification techniques.

The consequence of that approach is that we will be supporting the Liberal amendments. We will be supporting the amendments that have been put forward because they add additional checks and balances to what is pretty much a bill that effectively opens the door for all manner of technology to be used without it coming back to parliament. We think the Liberal amendments make a worrisome piece of legislation less worrisome. I just wanted to put that on the record, that when it comes to divisions, if there are any, the Greens will be supporting the Liberal amendments to this bill.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 2, after line 25—After line 25 insert:

(2a) Section 74A—after subsection (2) insert:

(2a) Despite subsection (1), a police officer may only require a person to submit to a biometric identification procedure under subsection (1)(d) if—

(a) the person has refused or failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(c) to state all or any of the person's personal details; or

(b) after requiring the production of evidence by the person under subsection (2), the officer is not reasonably satisfied as to the identity of the person.

(2b) Before a biometric identification procedure is carried out in respect of a person, a police officer must inform the person of the following matters:

(a) that the police officer is exercising a power under this section;

(b) the grounds on which the person is required to submit to the biometric identification procedure;

(c) the manner in which the procedure will be conducted and what directions may be given to the person for the purposes of the procedure;

(d) that any biometric data obtained from the person may only be retained for the purposes of conducting the procedure;

(e) the right of the person under this section to request confirmation from the Commissioner relating to the non-retention of the biometric data under subsection (4c).

I have spoken to this amendment both in the second reading and at the beginning of the committee stage. I would just take the opportunity to respond to some of the more verbose and interesting comments by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I appreciate his attempts to read the minds of all South Australians. If he had that amount of clarity, maybe more Family First members would be gracing the red benches.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I said the majority of South Australians, not all South Australians.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: The vast majority of South Australians. Family First, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, as honourable members of this chamber would know, is on vastly different philosophical planes and pages in relation to how we view our democracy and the liberties that uphold us.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Point of order.

The CHAIR: Point of order. The Hon. Ms Vincent.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I appreciate that ministers Maher and Malinauskas, and to some extent the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, are in a mood, but I think they have had their fun, and now I would actually like to listen to the contributions of other members.

The CHAIR: I actually do not appreciate their attitude. I think they are showing a lot of disrespect for the Hon. Mr McLachlan, and I expect them now to listen to the Hon. Mr McLachlan finish his contribution and we will get on with this clause. The Hon. Mr McLachlan.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Thank you, Mr Chair, for your support and your protection from the government benches. We are not seeking in our amendment to restrict the use of biometric testing. I use the term biometric testing, and not like the Hon. Mr Brokenshire completely default to fingerprinting, which is the device which the police intend to use. We have modified the test. We have kept in place the existing arrangements in relation to identification, where police officers can ask for ID, ask for a name and address and then follow up with ID in certain circumstances. We have confidence in the South Australian police officers, because they are very well trained, to then, if they are not reasonably satisfied with the identity of the person, use biometric testing.

In our view, it in no way restricts their ability to use it. We understand that they have some reservations they expressed to us, but we did not find those sufficiently convincing as we balanced them against the submissions of the Bar Association and the Law Society. We have listened carefully to all the voices in the community that have made submissions to us and we believe we have crafted amendments which balance the liberties of the individual where they should be able to go about their business without interference by the state as against the need for the police to seek identity in certain circumstances.

I would like to build on the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell in relation to this bill. This bill does not restrict any type of testing. Our amendments put in that parliament will decide what future tests and devices will be used by the police going forward. It is difficult to believe that this bill be presented to this chamber and then the police in the far distant future can use whatever testing they so feel, regardless of community input, which is really what we are doing here. We are putting the input of the community and forming views for their benefit.

I came across materials when preparing for this debate and, again, found an interesting contribution from the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, which I would sincerely suggest my honourable friend the minister read, because he is a Labor member who still commits to traditional Labor values of freedom. He has not swung to the hard right which infects the modern Labor Party in South Australia today. The paper he posted on 30 October 2014 is entitled 'Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Foreign Fighters) Bill 2014'. This bill has very different provisions but deals with biometric data and in the context of collecting biometric data or testing people, he says:

Labor voiced its objection during the Committee process. It is not acceptable that such an expansion of power with serious consequences for the privacy of the ordinary citizens could be achieved without new legislation. Indeed, it is worrying that this aspect of the Bill only became apparent during Committee scrutiny—and it is a vindication of that scrutiny process that it did.

We welcome the Committee's recommendation to remove the ability of the Government to prescribe further biometric collection by regulation.

If the honourable member does not find persuasive one of the leading law officers in the Labor Party, I probably cannot convince him myself. In my view, this bill represents an attitude to the executive that places too much weight on the administrative needs of the police over the rights of its citizens and, therefore, our amendments are crafted as I have expressed to the chamber not to restrict the police but to value the ability on the ground to make judgements and to also provide a provision of reporting of biometric testing. If the reports come in and over time we consider the reports that there is need for further amendment, I am sure the Liberal Party will take due consideration of that.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: Notwithstanding my temptation to draw the chamber's attention to the irony or the political analysis that can be conducted in the context of the fact that the Greens and the Liberal Party are both supporting the amendment, notwithstanding my temptation to do that, I will attempt to address the questions and avoid base politics with accusations of being soft on crime and the like. So, let's just try to deal with it methodically.

This amendment is opposed because the proposed new subclause (2a) completely restricts the ability to utilise technology to enable rapid verification on the spot, and the use of the word 'rapid' is important, and I will come back to that. If a person refuses or fails to provide his or her details upon request, police could simply arrest them and convey them to the nearest police station for charging and fingerprinting. So, let's understand that important context.

Paragraph (a) of subclause (2a) places an unnecessary precondition on the use of the power. It would defeat a key purpose of the bill to enable our police officers to quickly identify people in the field in circumstances that are often challenging and hazardous without having to resort to an arrest. Paragraph (b) of subclause (2a) also places an unnecessary precondition on the use of the power. False identification is difficult to detect and an officer may only have a hunch that a person's verbal identification is false. This is the key point. That hunch would likely not satisfy the test of being reasonably satisfied and, as a result, these amendments would render the bill and the devices useless for police officers in the context of being able to achieve the rapid assessment.

Proposed new subclause (2b) is opposed on similar grounds. Requiring police officers to undergo a lengthy information session with every person who a police officer wishes to identify, using a biometric device, would again conflict with the purpose of the device to rapidly identify persons in the field. The requirements under subclause (2b) are onerous and lengthy. The government has consulted with the opposition extensively on this bill. It is disappointing that, despite repeated attempts to engage constructively to allow police officers to continue to use these incredibly useful devices, and repeated offers on a compromise position, the opposition continues to hinder the government to the detriment of the South Australia Police and community safety.

I think it is important that, in the pursuit of what might be legitimate concerns, we do not end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This technology is useful. The trial has demonstrated how effective a tool these devices can be for police in capturing people and, indeed, preventing crime, going into the future. Despite the legitimate concerns that drive the position of the opposition, the Greens and others, I would actively encourage them—I would implore them—to consider the actual function that a police officer serves and the context in which they often have to perform that function. It is not always reasonable or practical to impose upon a police officer, who is in the active line of duty in very difficult circumstances, the sort of preconditions that the opposition is proposing in these amendments.

I acknowledge that all in this chamber are forever trying to pursue a balance between providing police with the tools that they need in order to be able to perform their key function and also ensuring that we do not realise the concerns that the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Mr McLachlan have referred to in terms of an Orwellian state.

The question is about where that balance fits, if we are honest about it. The pursuit of that balance is legitimate, but we assert within the government that to accept the opposition's amendments would compromise the ability for police to be able to use that technology. We do not think that represents the balance that all of us reasonably desire, in terms of allowing the police to be able to exercise their functions in the ordinary course of their duties.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his response. I just want to make an observation about the point he made in relation to the proposed new subclause (2b). The minister's main objection was the comprehensiveness of the information that needs to be provided to the person before they are fingerprinted. As part of that, the problem is the length of time it would take. My way of looking at it was to look at the five things which the police officer must inform the person of. I compare that with what I expect the police would currently want to be doing and I do not find a whole lot of difference in it. My guess is that paragraphs (a) to (e) could certainly be delivered in under a minute.

You can imagine the police officer saying: 'I am exercising power under section—whatever it is. I am going to ask you for your fingerprint because I believe you might be able to help me with my enquiries. Once the fingerprint has been taken, it will be used to see if there is a match on the database. The test will require you to put your thumb on this device.

The information will not be retained, and you have the ability to request confirmation from the commissioner.' I probably did that in 30 seconds. Maybe the script might be slightly more elaborate than that, but it seems to me that that is the scenario the minister says is unrealistic. But let's put it into context. Without this, the police are still going to be approaching people in the street, and they are still going to be giving most of that information, I would have thought.

They are going to say, 'I believe you might be able to assist me in my inquiries.' They will ask for their name and address. They will then explain to them that they are about to be fingerprinted. To be honest, apart from paragraph (e), perhaps, the right of the person to go to the commissioner and get an assurance that the information has not been retained, I would imagine this is the sort of information the police are going to be giving anyway. I do not see this as an incredibly onerous thing.

Even if we accept that it is more onerous than what the police want to do, let's think about it. We are having law enforcement officers fingerprinting people in the street, and we are worried that it might take 45 seconds rather than 30 seconds? I think that the minister is protesting too much about this level of inconvenience.

The law in the past has tended to distinguish between invasive procedures and non-invasive procedures. We distinguish between asking someone their name and address and sticking something into their mouth to get a sample of DNA. These new technologies, and especially ones that could be developed under this legislation, may not actually involve touching you at all. It might just involve 'look at this device', the new facial recognition device that is potentially allowed by this bill. It will not involve fingerprinting.

There are going to have to be procedures developed for advising people about what you are doing, why you are doing it, what your rights are and whether the record is going to be kept or not. I just do not see this as too onerous at all and I would be very amazed if the police protocols that are developed around fingerprinting do not involve giving most of this information to people in any event.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: Likewise, I do not find the government's arguments convincing. I take it from two perspectives. One is legal and the other is personal, having had experience in complying with legal requirements not too dissimilar to this in another context, but probably a bit more aggressive.

Effectively, the police officer today has to make a decision, when they ask for a name and address, whether they have a reasonable cause to suspect that the personal details that they have received are correct. They are making an assessment. The government's argument simply says that the police officer can make that assessment, but they cannot make a similar assessment 10 seconds later as to whether the ID has not been produced (they can use biometric identification), or if it is produced, looks dodgy. It is virtually the same decision-making process.

I would put to you that the government is actually arguing against itself. We have thought very clearly about this. We have thought about how it would role-play and I have used my personal experience as a legal adviser in another context.

I am not convinced that these mechanisms for using biometric identification are unreasonable or provide an unnecessary encumbrance. I have shown goodwill to the South Australian police, who I hold in high regard, and listened carefully to their submissions. I have also paid particular attention to the draft of this bill.

It is drafted and supplied with goodwill. It tries to get the balance right for using new technologies, which have not been restrained by this bill. In making this debate to honourable members I have tried to make clear that we have placed great weight on community safety, but also balance that against the submissions with the Law Society, which also places great weight on community safety. We are sure we have the balance right, that is the essence of the debate. We remain unpersuaded by the government submissions.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, I will be supporting the Liberal amendment.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: In response to the Hon. Mr McLachlan's remarks, the distinction between drawing a conclusion about a false name and address versus a false ID is very different. Just remember the context in which it is being used. It will not be in the civility of an environment like we have now, we are talking about on the front line in a difficult situation. Many of us cannot begin to imagine the rather difficult circumstances under which police would be exercising these powers.

If a police officer is presented with a fake name and address which is given verbally, the police have the capacity to be able to make that assessment relatively quickly. However, when presented with a fake ID, the suggestion that somehow it is easy for a police officer with the naked eye, in the elements, under pressure and with a lot going on around them to assess whether or not that ID is fake is simply delusional.

It is a very different proposition to be able to contemplate making an assessment about someone giving a fake name and address, which is reasonable for a police officer to question, versus being given a fake ID, which I have been advised can be of incredibly high quality these days. A fake ID of high quality is very hard for a police officer to reasonably question, particularly in the context of that question occurring in the front line. I would simply say that I understand the legitimate pursuit and the intent behind the Hon. Mr McLachlan's amendment in this context, but it really is disconnected from what is happening on the front line in the real world.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I would just refute that I am delusional. Indeed, I think I have considerable more experience in this than the minister.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 7

Majority 3

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 3, after line 10 [clause 4(5)]—After inserted subsection (4a) insert:

(4b) The Commissioner must—

(a) establish guidelines for the conduct of biometric identification procedures under this section including the operation of prescribed devices and the handling of biometric data derived from biometric identification procedures; and

(b) ensure that a prescribed device used for the purposes of a biometric identification procedure under this section is properly maintained and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's operating instructions and any guidelines issued under paragraph (a).

(4c) The Commissioner must, on application in a manner and form approved by the Commissioner made by a person who submitted to a biometric identification procedure, confirm in writing that the biometric data relating to the person derived from the biometric identification procedure has been deleted within the time required.

(4d) The Commissioner must, as soon as practicable after each 30 June, cause a report to be prepared about the operation of this section in respect of biometric identification procedures during the year ended on that 30 June.

(4e) Without limiting subsection (4d), a report relating to a year must include the following matters occurring under this section in that year:

(a) the number of biometric identification procedures undertaken;

(b) the number of positive identifications made using biometric identification procedures;

(c) the number of false identifications (if any) made using biometric identification procedures;

(d) details of prescribed devices used for the purposes of conducting biometric identification procedures (including operating procedures and the manner in which, and for how long, the devices retain biometric information obtained under this section);

(e) the number of arrests resulting from the identification of a person as a result of a biometric identification procedure;

(f) the number of prosecutions commenced for offences against—

(i) subsection (3)(a) involving a refusal or failure to comply with a requirement to submit to a biometric identification procedure under subsection (1); and

(ii) subsection (4a).

(4f) The Commissioner must submit the report to the Minister who must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the report, cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

This amendment is in relation to information to be collected and provided in an annual report.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: This amendment is opposed. Requiring separate reports to be prepared will impose additional administrative red tape and costs on SAPOL. In addition, the government sees little benefit in requiring the commission to confirm in writing that the data derived from the use of a biometric identification procedure has been deleted, when the legislation already makes this clear via the proposed offence provision that the data is not to be retained.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I move:

Amendment No 3 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 3, line 16 [clause 4(6), inserted definition of biometric identification procedure]—Delete 'by means of photograph or scan' insert 'using a prescribed device'

Amendment No 4 [McLachlan–1]—

Page 3, after line 18—After line 18 insert:

(7) Section 74A(5)—after the definition of personal details insert:

prescribed device means a device, or a device of a kind, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this section.

This amendment ensures that the device that is used is prescribed by regulation, and amendment No. 4, which is consequential, is a definition of the device.

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS: The amendments are opposed. The prescription of biometric devices imposes onerous and unnecessary red tape upon government. The protections that the bill already provides for are sufficient. Like most forms of technology, biometric devices, such as fingerprint scanners, can become outdated, and both hardware and software are replaced on a regular basis. To require a fresh regulation every time a new device comes into operation serves little purpose, and will only deter South Australian police from acquiring and using the devices they need to enable rapid identification in the field.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I just make the point, in response to what the minister said, that we are not just talking about an upgrade from thumb master 2.1 to thumb master 2.2: we are talking about all manner of new biometric devices, including facial recognition devices—whole manner of things. For the minister to suggest that it is too onerous for the parliament to have a disallowance power in relation to entirely new technology, some of which we have not even imagined yet, I think is really protesting too much.

The idea that, basically, they will all be just new versions of new fingerprinting devices I just do not think stacks up. We are not talking about every change to every operating system that is in the computer back end. Really, the value, I think, of this amendment is it gives the parliament, even if only through the disallowance power, the ability to in this place say, 'No, we have gone too far,' with a certain type of technology.

Once we start getting into drones with cameras flying around and a robocall, they could use the technology they are using for the elections with the information being broadcast from the drone to the person: 'Attention, you are about to have facial recognition applied to you. Here are your rights.' Snap, the shot is taken and sent off into the ether.

As I said before, we want 1984 to remain a work of fiction. We do not want it to become a documentary. This technology is not that far-fetched. It is actually almost upon us. For the government to suggest that this is the one time the parliament is going to look at biometric identification, and all the new devices and tools that are developed from here on will not have to come back for parliamentary scrutiny, I think is selling this parliament short and the South Australian people short.

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: I endorse those comments from the Hon. Mark Parnell. The parliament currently produces regulations in relation to speed cameras, speed detectors and breathalysers, so we are not imposing any form of—

The Hon. P. Malinauskas interjecting:

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN: It is certainly not different, as the minister protests from his seat. These devices can be sophisticated in the future. It is appropriate that it comes back to parliament to be considered, particularly because the parliament then can ask questions about whether there is data storage. The protections in this bill are actually largely criminal sanctions, and they are not clear, as I expressed earlier in the second reading.

It is unclear as to who would ever be prosecuted for storing data or how they would ever be detected, so this is a protection for the people of South Australia. I believe in the professionalism of the South Australian police force, and I do not believe they would be deterred by red tape. They are well-versed in assisting the government in producing regulations that assist them with devices in other contexts.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (17:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I add that the government is only supporting the bill so that it returns to the House of Assembly for further consideration and amendment.

Bill read a third time and passed.