Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3088 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

processes involved from the taking of the sample through to the maintenance of the database; whether police officers or other persons may be present when a suspect of the opposite sex is giving samples; and whether some important matters should be left to regulation.

In summary, Mr Speaker, I will be proposing amendments to categorise a buccal swab as an intimate procedure to clear up the uncertainty and concern that I have about whether there are some gaps in the legislation, particularly in clause 29, which would result in the legislation applying in every circumstance, not just to serious offenders. I will also be proposing amendments limiting the disclosure of results for medical purposes to cases where there is an imminent risk to the life or wellbeing of a person, preventing opposite sex persons being present at the taking of intimate samples and ensuring that samples are destroyed when no longer required.

I will be seeking to clarify that the legislation has a purpose clause. I did have some difficulty with the definition in the bill and I will be seeking to clarify that. I have an amendment to clarify what I feel might lead to retrospective operation of the legislation in cases where a person is still under sentence. I am not quite sure from my reading of the legislation whether it does that.

Apart from that, as I said before, the Labor Party supports this legislation. We hope that the police will make good use of the powers that it gives them. We also hope that the government will give the police sufficient resources so that they can attend scenes and take evidence for testing under these new procedures.

MR RUGENDYKE (10.53): Mr Speaker, I also support this legislation. Here we are, on the cusp of two centuries, launching into the new millennium with fabulous, up-to-date, technologically-advanced legislation that I am sure will help police solve many crimes. Hopefully, among the first to be solved will be that of the callous murder of Mrs Palacsics from McKellar.

A debate such as this may have been had many years ago when fingerprinting was discovered and became a new and advanced method of identifying offenders, and here we are with a new tool in the kitbag of police officers for identifying offenders. Let us face it: the intent of this legislation is to identify and lock up offenders, to look after victims and to clear people wrongly implicated. What a fabulous piece of legislation!

I also had concerns around clauses 28, 29 and thereabouts about protections and safeguards for police undertaking the procedures, so I spoke to a former colleague of mine, Senior Constable Mick Chew-he may have been promoted to sergeant, I am not sure, but he is a detective-who had a lot to do with the formulation of this legislation from a policing perspective and he is more than satisfied with it. He is very happy that they were able to learn from mistakes made by other jurisdictions and he is confident that this bill has been put together in an appropriate manner for the collecting of DNA in a reasonable way and in a way that, as I have experienced, is not difficult and not intrusive, no worse that brushing your teeth.

I am pleased to see that there is a degree of compulsion within this legislation. Suspects of serious crimes would not want to be tested, but there is a degree of compulsion so that they can be. I applaud that. It is appropriate legislation giving police appropriate powers

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .