Page 2736 - Week 07 - Thursday, 3 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
were collected. There is also DNA profile matching, which carries special restrictions relating to volunteered DNA.
The bill confirms powers on the minister which can be delegated to the chief executive of the department or the Chief Police Officer, as well as the Auditor-General, the human rights commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Privacy Commissioner and any other prescribed person to audit and review information stored on the ACT database.
I thank the department for the briefing given to my office on this bill. The following comments came forward in that briefing. The bulk of the amendments pick up on recommendations from the police consultation phase. By having a definitional distinction between data and suppliers, it would be clearer for scientists as to exactly what information can be destroyed. The human rights provisions generally do not create any new burdens; largely, they just provide a legislative basis for existing practice. I highlight that I would be concerned if they impose additional burdens on the police. I think many people are critical of the pendulum swinging too far in favour of offenders and not far enough in favour of ordinary law-abiding citizens, victims and the community. The DNA database is an investigative tool, not a record of convictions.
We are very pleased to support this bill. It does provide more certainty for everyone involved. It lays out the procedural aspects of who has carriage of the matters and the rights of people involved, whoever they may be, and it does establish quite clearly the storage, destruction and purpose of forensic data. That is quite pleasing.
The Canberra Liberals will always support any sensible measure for justice in our society. We will support any sensible measure that gives police all the reasonable powers that they need to do their job properly, and anything that makes their job easier, and that makes it easier for victims, in any proper way. We think this legislation does that.
I noted a couple of points in the attorney’s speech which I will turn to now, as I think they are worthy of note. In the past there was an unintended legislative gap that prevented ACT Policing from obtaining forensic samples from convicted serious offenders where they were suspects for another crime that did not warrant the taking of a forensic procedure. The bill ensures that forensic samples are taken from all convicted serious offenders so that they cannot evade detection for other offences that they may commit. That is a very sensible provision. Sadly, serious offenders and serial offenders do tend to commit a number of offences, some of which they may not have been apprehended for. This will greatly assist in terms of apprehending serious offenders for other offences that they may have committed or, indeed, may commit in the future. That is a very sensible provision.
DNA sampling is a great boon to law enforcement agencies in ensuring that people who otherwise might escape justice cannot do so. It is a great way of solving offences. In the ACT, more people complain about people getting off than being convicted, but you occasionally get people who have been convicted in the past and who maintain their innocence, and DNA sampling has been used to show that that person could not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .