Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to join the debate on the Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006. I think that most Australians—indeed, most people throughout the world—recognise that the world of crime fighting is moving forward at a frenetic pace. It is encouraging and also exciting to see massive steps being taken in the analysis of crime scenes and evidence that are greatly improving the ability of crime fighting organisations to accurately identify perpetrators and to prosecute them in court. DNA profiling is one such development. As noted on the Australian government’s CrimTrac website:

DNA profiling is the single most important advance in police investigation techniques since the development of fingerprint classification systems in the late nineteenth century.

The use of DNA in criminal investigations gives investigators an additional string to their bows in being able to more accurately pinpoint and identify perpetrators and then follow through to have them found guilty in court. I was impressed by the comments made by the honourable member for Swan about the matching of the databases of Queensland and Western Australia and how a large number of offenders were apprehended as a result of the sharing of those databases.

Sharing information among the states and between the states and the Commonwealth also has obvious advantages in identifying criminals who may lead a transient lifestyle and have committed offences around the country. I suspect that for too long we have looked at the individual states and considered them to be islands, whereas, as the member for Swan pointed out, we have a highly mobile population. One could imagine that those who wished to fall foul of the law and those who wished to commit offences would usually not confine those offences to one jurisdiction.

The states raise concern that current legislation may not adequately support the exchange of the DNA data with respect to individuals. That was not a concern that the Commonwealth had. However, we see this issue as being of national importance. If we are going to have a proper level of DNA sharing, what ought to happen is that all jurisdictions in the country must be happy with the law as it currently is. Consequently, the bill being discussed here today will help to reinforce the ability to exchange the DNA data of individuals. It will also give the state and Commonwealth authorities the confidence that the information sharing process will withstand any court challenge.

Commonwealth crime fighting authorities store their DNA records in the National Criminal Investigation DNA Database, called NCIDD. Each of the states and territories also has their own databases. The fear expressed by the states is that, under the current legislation, it is not clear whether the data exchange is allowable. As I said, that was not a concern of the Commonwealth, but it would certainly be a bizarre situation if the individual states were not able to share this information which, in many cases, will aid in the solving of crimes that were unsolved for a very considerable period of time.

It is important to recognise the rights of individuals, and these legislative hiccups as far as the states are concerned come hand in hand with an industry that is still in its relative infancy. It is interesting to note that DNA fingerprinting was first used to solve a crime in 1985 in England, just 21 years ago. I do not profess to know all the ins and outs of the science of DNA and DNA matching but, as I understand it, it involves a process by which a human’s individual genetic blueprint is able to be extracted and analysed. I am advised that every individual is different and in 1987, police in the United Kingdom collected DNA samples from over 5,000 men to eventually identify a 17-year-old as the perpetrator of a double rape-murder.

In Australia, it is only 17 years since DNA was first used to solve a crime. That was in 1989, when such scientific evidence was used in a court here in the Australian Capital Territory to convict a man accused of sexual assault. The defendant had changed his story several times, first claiming he was not anywhere near the victim when the attack took place and then, following the collection and analysis of DNA evidence, saying that the contact was consensual. In that year, in Victoria, police used this technology to identify a man who raped 16 women over a four-year period. When confronted with this evidence, the perpetrator confessed to these crimes.

These powerful stories are testament to the value of DNA profiling as a crime-fighting tool. It is a tool that all police and crime-fighting authorities around Australia now have at their disposal. It is of great assistance that the DNA information from convicted criminals is able to be stored, with this valuable information accessed to identify those who have previously been convicted and who may have subsequently reoffended. This, Madam Deputy Speaker Bishop, will be of interest to you because it proved valuable in 1989 when Victorian police were able to identify the perpetrator of an offence through the use of a DNA database. A search of the database identified the man and helped lead to his conviction, even though he had previously not even been a suspect with respect to that crime.

The use of DNA fingerprinting is also able to prove innocence, and I think it is important to look at this in a balanced way. Also in 1989, in the United States of America, DNA was used for the first time to clear a man of wrongdoing after he had already been tried and convicted in the courts for rape. He had served eight years of a 25-year sentence, but he was released and able to return to life in the community. I do not think society was actually able to give him his eight years back, but certainly it was good that he was not forced to serve the balance of the 25 years.

It would be a shame if such stories of vindication as well as of successful prosecution could be derailed on legal technicalities. That is why it is really important to make sure that all of the Australian jurisdictions are happy that the law meets their ability to exchange DNA, and the Australian government has been pleased to cooperate with the states. We did not see that the problem was there, but there is a problem if the states feel that the law does not permit them to exchange DNA. The Crimes Act Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill (No. 1) 2006 will redress the concerns of the states.

It is in the best interests of all concerned that legislation that governs the use of DNA information is able to keep pace with the needs of rapidly developing crime-fighting methods. This is an important piece of legislation. I am pleased that it does enjoy the support of members on both sides of the House and I am very pleased to be able to commend this bill to the Main Committee.

See this speech in context