Surveillance Devices Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 5 August 2014.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: So that members understand my intention today, some questions were asked by the Hon. Stephen Wade and the Hon. Tammy Franks both in terms of second reading contributions and earlier in debate at the committee stage on clause 1. I seek this opportunity to provide some answers to those questions to go onto the record over the break, and then I will seek leave to report progress and further adjourn at clause 1.

In relation to a question asked by the Hon. Tammy Franks about which farmers had made submissions or representations to the government asking for this Surveillance Device Bill to be put to this parliament in this form, I am advised, as I stated yesterday, that no farmer has made representations to the government asking for this Surveillance Devices Bill to be put to the parliament in this form.

I indicated in the second reading speech that farmers had expressed a view to the Legislative Review Committee that animal rights activists should be banned from filming on farms, but I did not indicate that they had engaged with the government. So, my comments in relation to the committee contribution and the second reading I think are consistent.

The Hon. Tammy Franks also asked if the government could give examples of where current laws have been proven to be unworkable in regard to surveillance devices used by media in this state in the past decade and what attempts had been made to prosecute. I am advised that the answer to this does not exist, although the Office of Crime Statistics will be asked what it has. The current act is regarded by the government as largely unworkable, given modern technology. It very generally regulates listening devices, but it does not regulate optical surveillance devices, tracking devices or data surveillance devices at all.

It necessarily follows that no prosecution is currently possible. Government amendments proposed would allow for the media to use surveillance devices in the public interest and public material in the public interest. They would also allow for material gathered by others to be published in the public interest. If the media is acting in the public interest, it should not be afraid of prosecution.

I was also asked whether the government could also produce any examples of where the government claims that activism has crossed the boundaries and, indeed, why the current laws of trespass, for example, are not appropriate, etc. I am advised that the laws of trespass do not make it a criminal offence to jump onto someone's property or to go onto their land. It has been a careful policy under both Labor and Liberal governments to make it clear that mere trespass is not a criminal offence: it requires something more.

In the Summary Offences Act 1953, you will find offences of not closing gates, of trespassing after being asked to leave by an authorised person, and so on. Moreover, this bill is not about activism; it is about technology and intrusions into people's private lives and interests. It seeks to establish a regulatory regime regarding the use of surveillance devices and allows for the use of these devices in the public interest.

The member has indicated that she is concerned about animal cruelty and unsafe work practices. The government is not trying to penalise those who seek to expose criminal behaviour and never has. The Attorney-General has already indicated publicly—and I am happy to indicate again—that the government believes that exposing either animal cruelty or unsafe work practices is in the public interest, and the relevant exemptions in the bill would apply.

I was further asked a question, 'If this bill existed would the RSPCA have been able to use the footage to call for the community to stand up for those puppies?' The RSPCA is the prosecuting authority for animal cruelty. The information about animal cruelty is in the lawful interests of the RSPCA. There is an exemption in clause 9(1)(c) for lawful interests and publication for these purposes. So far the as the media is concerned, I have indicated that exposing of animal cruelty is in the public interest.

I was asked the question, 'Where in the bill are those provisions, and would they stymie cyberstalking?' I have been advised that there is no need for this bill to deal with cyberstalking. The subject is comprehensively dealt with in section 19AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. I was asked questions about offences committed interstate and overseas, and I am advised that this is dealt with by the provisions of part 1A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, in particular by sections 5E and 5I.

The Hon. Stephen Wade asked, 'Who has the government consulted about the proposed amendments?' I am advised that the government has had a number of discussions with groups representing animal welfare industrial matters and the media. The views of these organisations were considered in the drafting of amendments.

In relation to the question, 'Would it not have been better to have engaged media organisations on the proposed amendments?', my response is that that has already been answered. I was asked, 'What conversations have been had with SAPOL, etc., in enforcing and monitoring breaches of the act?' I am advised that SAPOL has indicated that it has no concerns regarding enforcement of the bill.

I was asked the question, 'What statistics exist about prosecutions for humiliating and degrading images?' I am advised that the Office of Crime Statistics has been asked for a report. A recent media report quoted police statistics that said that the number of offences was rising, and I am advised that the number of indecent filming offences has increased from just seven in 2009 to 37 last financial year. Distribution of images also arose from just two in 2009 to 29 last financial year.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.