Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3083 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
activity and therefore in the prevention of crime. The Labor Party supports the bill, supports the introduction of DNA technology, and supports the application of the DNA technology as a major plank in the armoury of our police.
However, a number of issues in relation to the application of DNA technology as a crime-fighting tool really do deserve debate and I would like to address some of the issues that we think are raised by this piece of legislation. As I said, the Labor Party is pleased to support this legislation in principle and will be doing so, but I propose to move a number of amendments at the appropriate time.
In any discussion about the application of DNA technology and the collection of DNA samples for inclusion particularly in a database, a number of significant issues have to be addressed. One of those issues is the question of the range of people from whom the police should collect samples in the first instance. Who is it that we should be testing under legislation such as this for the purpose of maintaining a database?
In terms of making the most effective use of the technology and balancing the range of circumstances that apply to the maintenance of a database of information of this sort that identifies a person, what are the most effective procedures and what safeguards should we as a community place around the collection of this sort of material? That goes very much to the part of the debate that has been generated, that is, what class of offender, suspect or convicted criminal should be subjected to the collection of samples?
The bill that the Attorney-General has introduced contains a number of categories or a number of circumstances in which samples may be collected. Under part 2.3, starting at clause 19, samples can be collected with the consent of the suspect, but the police officer must be satisfied of certain things under clause 23, including the fact that the offence is a serious one. Under part 2.4, a sample can be collected by order of a police officer if consent is refused. Under part 2.5, a sample can be collected by order of a magistrate. Under part 2.7, a sample can be collected after conviction for a serious offence. Under part 2.8, a sample can be collected from a volunteer. Under clause 83, a forensic procedure may be carried out on a child or an incapable person by order of a court.
We need to look at the classification of offender covered by each of those parts or each of the range of circumstances. The legislation is constructed around a number of definitions: the definition of "suspect" in clause 8, the definition of "volunteers" in clause 10 and the definition of "serious offender" in clause 9. The definitions of "suspect" and "serious offender" are particularly important in determining the range of suspects or the range of people potentially affected by this legislation. The definition of "suspect" is:
- a person suspected by a police officer, on reasonable grounds, to have committed an offence;
- a person charged with an offence;
- a person who has been summonsed to appear before a court for an offence;
- a person who has entered into a voluntary agreement to attend court...for an offence.
A serious offence is defined as:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .