Page 1263 - Week 04 - Thursday, 10 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
When the original act was enacted in 2000, the ACT had not yet enacted its Human Rights Act 2004, so the original act was not drafted in light of human rights considerations. In looking at ways to improve the effectiveness of the current Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act, my department has worked diligently to ensure, as far as possible, that fundamental human rights, now fully recognised in the ACT, are upheld. Where the act has previously failed to appropriately recognise human rights, the bill proposes amendments that will bring the legislation back in line with human rights standards.
However, this is not the only area where the bill seeks to improve the operation of the act. The bill also addresses issues relating to the treatment of victims of crime, the rules surrounding the destruction of forensic samples, the communication with family members of missing persons or unknown deceased persons, the ability to make orders for the taking of samples when suspects are in custody in other jurisdictions or do not appear in court, and a legislative gap that could have allowed serious offenders to avoid providing a forensic sample.
I will now expand on the proposed amendments in the bill in some detail. When the act was first enacted in 2000, the ACT began storing and conducting matches of DNA profiles on an internal database system. Following the creation of the NCIDD, the ACT’s DNA data was uploaded onto it, because ACT Policing recognised its superior storage and matching capabilities and superior security infrastructure. However, the act of uploading ACT DNA data onto the NCIDD raised the issue of who then had ownership over the DNA data, because the NCIDD was a commonwealth entity. The existing ACT legislation had not anticipated that the ACT would use an external entity to store and match its DNA data.
This raised the concern that ACT DNA matches derived from the NCIDD could not be admitted to court under the current legislation in the ACT because the ACT did not have ownership over ACT DNA data that was kept on the NCIDD. Although there is discretion for a court to admit evidence that is improperly obtained, the technical problem still needed to be resolved. This bill solves that problem by allowing the ACT to enter into agreements with an entity for the storage and use of the ACT’s DNA data. This will enable CrimTrac, which currently runs the NCIDD, to hold and run matches on behalf of the ACT as a service provider. It also gives us flexibility in the future; if we find that our storage needs have changed, we can enter into different arrangements.
The bill introduces accountability measures so that the territory’s watchdogs, such as the Auditor-General, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman, are empowered to access, review and audit our DNA database systems in order to ensure the integrity of the system. The Chief Police Officer of the ACT and the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety will also have a role to play, with oversight and accountability powers in relation to the database. As a national arrangement for reciprocal oversight and accountability powers comes into line, we will also be able to arrange for interstate authorities to check that our handling of their information is compliant with the arrangements that have been put in place.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .