Page 2738 - Week 07 - Thursday, 3 July 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
towards having a uniform approach has got to be welcomed in a law-abiding community.
This bill makes welcome changes to the act. Some of these changes are technical and correct deficiencies in the legislation, such as ensuring that data stored on the NCID database can be admitted as evidence in ACT courts. I am not opposed to the Auditor-General, the Privacy Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission or the Ombudsman having the power to access, review and audit our DNA database. I am also comfortable with the changes around the destruction of forensic samples belonging to suspects, although I must say that I am not quite sure how a person’s human rights are looked after any better by the destruction of the materials themselves when the DNA data is retained. I asked my staff, and I know they had some discussions with the attorney’s office. I do not know whether he would care to respond to that, but it has left me a little bewildered as to why getting rid of the DNA samples is protecting human rights, but keeping them on the system is not violating human rights.
Personally, as has been pointed out, having been to the US, these days when you go there and you have to be photographed, thumb printed and have everything else known about you. I am not quite sure what human rights are at stake here if you are complying with the law, but I would be curious to understand the rationale for that issue. One would hope that, if DNA samples are there, and if someone appears later to have been involved in unlawful activity, they can be identified through the retained data. It does seem to be an odd interpretation, but as long as police still have access to the data, I am comfortable enough to support the provisions that this amendment bill introduces.
As I have already said, I believe we should have a national database and promote greater cooperation between all jurisdictions for not just the sharing of DNA data but for the sharing of all information that could be of use to investigators. Obviously, we have to have safeguards put in place to prevent misuse and abuse of the system, but I think the overriding consideration of fighting crime, terrorism and the like does warrant a better exchange of information within the commonwealth.
I also support the change that will allow magistrates to make an order for a forensic procedure in the absence of the suspect where the suspect is in the custody of another jurisdiction and cannot appear by audio link, video link or hearing or where a person who has been served with a summons to appear before a magistrate chooses not to appear.
I also welcome the final issue that this bill addresses, which relates to making things easier for the victims of crime. Obviously, and as these changes recognise, victims of crime, particularly when it is a violent crime or of an intrusive nature, need to be treated with compassion and sensitivity. The changes that this bill will introduce in this area are welcome. I recognise the fine line that this bill is attempting to tread between effective policing and human rights. I, for one—and I dare say I differ from the minister somewhat on this one—am less concerned about the human rights of criminals and would lend greater weight to the need to make it easier for law enforcement to do their job. That said, the changes made by the bill are welcome and I will be voting in favour of them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .