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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3399 ..

can work out. We can see whether this bill, which has some excellent motivation behind it, can go forward with necessary amendments in the in-principle stage. So, like Ms Dundas, the opposition is certainly very happy to support this bill to the in-principle stage. Then we will see what occurs after that—whether amendments can be made and what needs to be done. I do not know whether that is going to be too much of a problem. Perhaps the relevant people could have a round table, get some advice and go from there. Certainly the sentiment behind what Mrs Cross is doing is admirable.

I have indicated I am a great supporter of DNA testing, especially in the criminal law. However, there are issues about how to take it. People have legitimate rights to their privacy—is it fair and just to use DNA in certain circumstances? There are risks that it can be used, and perhaps abused, in so many circumstances that some of the net benefits we get from DNA testing in the criminal law will have unfair adverse affects on people—especially if the law is lax and testing is allowed in inappropriate circumstances.

As legislators, we need to be careful about that. Again, that is one of the driving forces behind what Mrs Cross is attempting to achieve. So, the opposition is happy to support the bill in principle and we will then see what amendments need to be made to it. I will certainly be seeking further opinion from people in relation to some of the issues that the Attorney has raised today.

MS TUCKER (11.28): The Greens will be supporting this bill in principle but will be supporting an adjournment at the detail stage to allow us to sort out a number of issues in the mechanism to be used. This adjournment would likely not have been necessary had we had more notice of this bill coming back on today. With notice coming only late yesterday, there has not been time to sort through the details with any level of confidence. I acknowledge, however, that Mrs Cross’s office has assisted with references to their background material.

The Scrutiny of Bills Committee raised a number of issues on this bill. Could the prohibition on testing without consent interfere with the legal rights of another person? Examples given centre on family disputes, specifically on maintenance obligations on the basis of genetic relationship. This kind of case has been the subject of comment for many reasons. One reason is the failure to get consent of the other parent. Another is the question of whether a family responsibility would continue even if it were shown that a parent is not the genetic parent. If you have lived with a child and cared for him or her as a parent, should it alter your relationship with that child if it turns out you are not the genetic parent?

The other situation is where there is not yet a parental relationship and establishing the parentage is a matter of establishing responsibilities before or shortly after a child is born. In drawing out this issue, the committee used the example of a court case and asked why is this form of surveillance and information gathering different from other forms that may also be intrusive? Report 45 of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee pointed out:

… under the general law a person may in any way that is not prohibited by law gather information about another for the purpose of using that information as evidence in a legal proceeding. The method of gathering the information may be highly intrusive of the privacy of the person and may concern private conduct of the person. … the rationale for the absence of any general law against collecting

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