Speech in the ACT Legislative Assembly
25 August 2011
I rise today to speak on the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2011. This bill facilitates the government‘s implementation and rollout of point-to-point speed cameras. These cameras differ considerably to the mid-block and red light cameras already in place in the territory. Whilst point-to-point cameras are also fixed, they operate on a different basis. Current fixed cameras take a photograph at a red light or when a speeding motorist passes the point at which the camera takes a photo and transmits the image to the traffic camera office adjudication system. At this point the number plate is read and the registered owner of the vehicle is decided.
In contrast to this, point-to-point cameras utilise optimal character recognition capability to read the number plate of the cars which pass the cameras. So as a car passes the first camera in a point-to-point system, the number plate is read and stored in a database. When that same car passes the second camera, the number plate is read again and the timestamps of the two database entries are used to calculate the time and average speed travelled. This is called automatic number plate recognition technology, or ANPR. I have concerns about this technology, for several reasons.
However, it must be said that this Bill before us today from the government should not be debated at this time. It should not be debated until all the facts and figures are on the table and until all the information that is available to this government is made available to other members of this place. It is not for want of trying that we do not have all the information available to us, because it is this government that once again put on displays of inconsistencies that exist between their agencies when it comes to requests made through FOI.
Very shortly after the bill was tabled on 30 June, I sought and received a briefing on the bill. The briefing, while reasonably extensive, did not cover a number of issues that I had sought to query. I then put in a request under freedom of information for further information on the point-to-point camera system. In what can only be perceived as an obstructionist move by this government, I was informed that I would have to pay $1,470 to gain access to the information—almost $1,500. To obtain information for $1,500, in this new era of information and transparency in what the Chief Minister herself calls “open and accountable government” is quite outrageous.
This is the real measure of this government. This is their true definition of open and accountable government—obstruction and obfuscation at every turn. However, despite requesting that the bill be debated at a later time to accommodate the time frame needed to appeal the decision to charge me for information under FOI, Mr Corbell has insisted on steamrolling this through today.
Like all strategies designed to reduce accidents and fatalities, the government must show evidence to support the introduction of point-to-point speed cameras, including the justification of the cost, the rationale behind the locations that have been chosen, and they must address the concerns which relate to the use of the data captured. This is all vital information which has been withheld.
The opposition remain unconvinced that the safety benefits of this legislation outweigh the possible negatives. There are a number of concerns we have with regard to the introduction of point-to-point cameras in the ACT. While the media today have highlighted some of my concerns relating to privacy, this is not my sole concern.
Many questions have been raised about the effectiveness of fixed speed cameras. These questions have been raised by respected motoring bodies across the nation, including the NRMA, the RACV, the RACQ and the National Motorists Association of Australia, who have all publicly denounced the efficacy of speed cameras. The NRMA is on the record as saying that more speed cameras alone are not the answer to reducing the road toll.
After a New South Wales Auditor-General report found that some fixed speed cameras had no significant safety benefits, 38 of 141 cameras were removed. The president of the NRMA, Wendy Machin, said in response:
Motorists need to have confidence in the credibility of speed cameras and the quick removal of those found to have no safety benefit is a positive step forward.
During an inquiry into road safety benefits of fixed speed cameras undertaken by a Queensland parliamentary committee, the National Motorists Association said in their submission:
Speed cameras cannot reduce the incidence of any of the various factors contributing to road deaths other than speed. Thus the increasing incidence of deaths with speed as a contributing factor with the increased usage of speed cameras, whether mobile or fixed, clearly demonstrates their ineffectiveness in improving safety.
A little over one year ago, on 22 August, the Canberra Times published a story titled “Fixed speed cameras fail in task”. Of the nine fixed mid-block cameras in operation in the ACT that were looked at by the study, eight saw more accidents occur at the sites than before the cameras were in operation. When talking of the locations when the cameras were installed in May 2007, Mrs Dunne said:
These [new camera sites] are not recognised black spots, they are not particularly dangerous … It‘s entirely about revenue, dressed up as if it‘s road safety.
How right she was. These cameras raise approximately $7 million per year. Based on this example, I have concerns about the locations the ACT has chosen for point-topoint cameras. We must remember that we cannot just look at the number of accidents; we must also look at the overall traffic levels. For instance, a road with 10 accidents and 10,000 car movements is perhaps less dangerous than a road with only two accidents but just 1,000 car movements. There are lots of questions about the sites chosen, but this government seems unwilling to provide the evidence, especially through FOI.
We all know anecdotal evidence of motorists slamming on the brakes as they drive past speed cameras and then resume their original speed after passing the detection points. Obviously the government thinks that this anecdotal evidence is real and should be addressed by point-to-point cameras over a larger detection zone. However, there is nothing stopping someone driving fast before and after a zone and simply slowing down for the zone in question.
In fact, given it is an average speed, I imagine some people will go fast for parts of the speed detection zone, then slow down to get their average down. In fact, I predict that the final few hundred metres of any point-to-point system is going to see cars going very slowly, perhaps dangerously slowly. Perhaps even the side of the road will have cars parked or pulled over as someone who subconsciously crept over the speed limit or someone who deliberately sped pulls over to get their average below the system, to avoid the fine. While some members may laugh, I am sure this will happen.
If these point-to-point cameras are going to be the success the government claims they will be, I imagine we will not need to ever deploy mobile speed vans or police with radar to these locations. I think not. I imagine they will only be successful in raising revenue from unsuspecting Canberrans and visitors.
Alan Evans from the NRMA came out specifically against the proposal for point-to point cameras. On 22 September last year, he said in an ABC radio interview:
… the evidence is not there to say that these cameras stop road cashes …
Fixed speed cameras across the UK are being switched off due to the lack of evidence proving their effectiveness at cutting the road toll. The conservative government in the UK are delivering on their pledge to end the war on the motorist.
On privacy, this government has played down concerns. The government is saying that the information will only be stored for 30 days, but we all know that breaches of privacy do happen. As soon as the government has information, there is concern that it is going to be misused, and this government does not have a good track record when it comes to handling private information.
The minister has assured us that the information will be handled by sworn police officers, but he forgets to mention the other individuals and contractors that are involved in getting the data from the point-to-point devices to the police. Then, of course, there is also scope for human error and deliberate misuse.
I have confidence in the AFP‘s capacity to use the RAPID system which is currently in operation. The police are used to using this kind of information under these kinds of operations, and they are also used to the sensitivity of privacy concerns. They also have sworn an oath, which is a significant commitment to undertaking the roles they have been trained to do.
These cameras have the potential for mass surveillance. Even the minister acknowledged this on radio this morning.
The forward design study on the point to point itself devoted a whole chapter to other uses of the technology and specifically mentions the potential for mass surveillance.
That report states:
P2P systems also have the potential to be used for purposes other than enforcement of average speed offences, including:
fixed speed offences;
bus lane enforcement;
unregistered and uninsured vehicles;
unlicensed drivers;
providing traffic data to a Traffic Management Centre (TMC);
Road User pricing;
identifying vehicles associated with crime; and
mass surveillance.
The government is saying that this information is going to be used solely for road safety but it cannot deny that, over time, it can and will be used for things other than what it was originally intended for. No-one can ignore the fact that this information is useful to many. There are many in the private sector who would be very interested in obtaining information that tracks car movements in the ACT, that tells them what cars we drive or how often we drive them.
The Australian Privacy Foundation has raised some very valid concerns about the technology and the bill that is before us today, concerns that they have raised with the government through correspondence to the former minister, Mr Stanhope, and with the Greens and me. Mr Stanhope responded to the group at the time that they raised concerns, but was very dismissive, saying:
I can understand your concerns about the use of point-to point-cameras for mass surveillance purposes. This is not the government‘s intention …
In a letter to me, the president of the Privacy Foundation said:
The ACT Government has breached its undertakings in relation to open government and community consultation, in that it has avoided public scrutiny of this initiative.
The president went on to say:
The collection and use of the registration data of ‗vehicles of interest‘ is of much greater concern, and needs to be subjected to careful controls. However, the collection of any registration data that is not justified by reasonable grounds for suspicion of a criminal or traffic offence represents mass surveillance.
Further:
The Bill seeks the Assembly‘s authorisation of the arbitrary gathering of data about people‘s movements on public roads. This would be the first occasion on which any Australian Parliament has sanctioned such a gross intrusion freedoms.
The literature is full of warnings about the creation of a surveillance society more efficient than that of East Germany in the 1980s. The Assembly is in dire danger of sleep-walking the population of Canberra into just that scenario. By doing so, the Assembly would provide the extremist elements within the national security community with the beachhead that they have been seeking, and make it much easier for the resistance in other jurisdictions to be overcome.
It is essential that data be collected only where it is justified by the existence of evidence of a breach of traffic laws. Collection in any other circumstances is a gross invasion of privacy by the State and an invitation to abuse.
That was from the Privacy Foundation. Whilst the government and the bill state that data will only be used for traffic purposes, we are in shaky territory here, and the risk of function creep is very real. In a 2008 submission to a Queensland parliamentary committee into automatic number plate recognition technology, the Privacy Foundation said the following:
ANPR has very substantial negative impacts on privacy, the seriousness of which is not adequately reflected in the Issues Paper—
put out by the parliamentary committee—
ANPR, implemented in the manner conventional in, for example, the United Kingdom, generates a data trail for every vehicle that passes a control-point. This trail is attractive to all manner of organisations, in the public and private sectors alike. As a result, the pressure for function creep is enormous.
Actual privacy breaches are a great concern; but ANPR‘s impacts go much further than that. The knowledge that it is undertaken shapes behaviour; indeed, even the suspicion that it may be undertaken creates a ‘chilling effect’. Clearly, there are benefits from such deterrent effects, such as when people are dissuaded from performing criminal acts because of the fear of being caught. On the other hand, the impact is indiscriminate, and is likely to chill a great deal of perfectly legal behaviour as well.
This may not be your intention, Mr Corbell, but it remains a concern that I do not believe has been adequately addressed.
As I said earlier, the government has said that the data of non-offending drivers will be stored for 30 days. I am not sure why the data would need to be stored for that long, and I am concerned that the systems in place cannot guarantee the deletion of the records. Again, I would like to see what work the government has done to address this concern by looking at the correspondence which should come up in an FOI request.
In May last year I uncovered a scandal whereby the names, ID numbers and salaries of 15,000 ACT public servants were in a common drive available to more than 20,000 territory public servants. If we cannot trust this government with the data it has currently got, why would we give it even more?
Point-to-point cameras have been tried before, most notably in Victoria. Cameras were introduced in Victoria in 2007, along a stretch of the Hume Highway. These cameras were then switched off in October last year after nine motorists were incorrectly issued with an infringement. A technical fault was blamed in this instance, a technical fault which continues to be the basis for switching these cameras off altogether.
Last but most definitely not least are the opinions of the general public, who have been very vocal when it comes to speed camera technology. The community is divided on the issue, and strong opinions are everywhere. In a University of Canberra report prepared for the NRMA-ACT Road Safety Trust titled Understanding driver culture—safe systems in the ACT, a community attitudinal study, CAS, in 2009 found:
In spite of early research suggesting some community support for the use of speed cameras, the cas study of 2009 indicates that the majority of Canberran drivers surveyed viewed speeding fines as revenue raising with a percentage prepared to agree it is “Okay to speed if driving safely”.
On talkback radio this morning, one caller said: “These are nothing more than a revenue raiser … and they are misused. Canberra is turning into a nanny state.”
Another said, “Big Brother is here.” Another caller said he would like to start a coffee stall in between the point-to-point cameras in particular and sell coffee to those who have slowed down dramatically to avoid being caught speeding. I think that is most likely going to be the driver behaviour we are going to see changing.
I have serious concerns from both road safety and privacy points of view. I believe that the bill we have before us is not good legislation and is based on poor policy. The Canberra Liberals will be voting against this legislation.
